A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit last week against school officials brought by a former teacher who posted negative comments about the school and her students on a blog she thought was anonymous, the Doylsetown (Pa.) Intellincer reports.
Natalie Munroe, who taught at Central Bucks High School East in Doylestown, was placed on unpaid leave in 2011 after news reports called into question her blog, on which she made critical and often crude remarks about the school’s teachers, administrators, parents, and students.
In deciding whether to dismiss the lawsuit for reinstatement and $5 million in monetary damages, US District Judge Cynthia Rufe examined the actual content of the blog and found it “far from implicating larger discussions of education reform, pedagogical methods, or specific school policies.” The blog showed Ms Munroe “mostly complain[ing] about the failure of her students to live up to her expectations,” Judge Rufe ruled.
As with most free speech cases, it’s the actual content of the speech that matters. Yes, the First Amendment gives US citizens the right to say whatever they want, but restrictions are placed on certain content, such as hate speech, prayers over a public school loudspeaker, or yelling “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater. The following examples about students Ms Munroe taught were representative of the overall character of her blog, Judge Rufe found:
- a complete and utter jerk in all ways
- was just as bad as his sibling
- cheater and liar
- for some kids, though, my scornful feeling reaches such fever pitch that I have a hard time even putting “cooperative” in class
Ms Munroe, who had hoped her blog would be valuable enough in the public discourse about educational reform to make the concerns of her employer in maintaining an “efficient” educational environment moot, was wrong, according to Judge Rufe.
Based on the 1968 Supreme Court ruling in Pickering v Board of Education, “whatever public concern she occasionally touched on is subsumed by personal invective; the blog’s overall thrust devalues the discussion of public issues. … The defendants were within their rights to conclude that the blog posts would erode the necessary trust and respect between Munroe and her students.”
The suit is likely to be appealed to the Third Circuit, but Judge Rufe’s finding of facts with regard to the content of the speech posted on the blog will not be grounds for appeal. Defendants were the district itself, as well as former Superintendent N Robert Laws, and Central Bucks East High School Principal Abram Lucabaugh.
Ms Munroe’s attorney hopes the appellate court will reverse Judge Rufe’s decision on the grounds that what she wrote was protected free speech and that her right to free speech is greater than the rights the school district has asserted. “We think the result in the higher federal courts would be different,” he was quoted as saying.
The school district also released a statement, saying that Central Bucks was committed to a welcoming educational environment. “The court’s decision reinforces the importance of all educators to respect the dignity of all students. … The vast majority of our teachers and staff care a great deal about our students and treat them with the dignity and respect they deserve.”
