First Amendment Rights (from the Gazette)

Imagine a local social studies teacher assigns an essay. Why does the First Amendment matter right here? In your town, in your high school, in 2023?

You might coach your child that afternoon over your kitchen counter. The First Amendment flings open the door for participation in our own government. It means your voice (yes, yours) matters. It allows dissent to those in power. So it’s the backbone, Johnny, of democracy.

Without that amendment, you’d explain, protests and marches could be squashed by officials or current trends. Members of certain groups could be punished. But how would you tell him about our local school district?

Twice this spring, Woodland Park School District changed their policy, prohibiting employees from speaking about the district to the press or on social media without the superintendent’s permission.

Violation meant insubordination; evidence in the form of strategic staff terminations supports this grievous reality.

U.S. District Court Judge Gallagher recently indicated portions of the policy “do have problems,” and proposed mediation between the teacher’s union and the school district.

Both parties agreed. Yet a response from the school district warned that dialing back the policy would embolden “dissident” teachers in an election year.

Hmm. Let’s look closer, Johnny. Wouldn’t those supporting the district be heard, too? What would the district want people not to say?

You might explain the employees are taxpayers with rights to articulate their views of this government institution. Some are parents, now with no option to speak on behalf of their kids—despite the board’s purported value of parental rights.

During my own service on the Board of Education, it never occurred to the board to censor employees.

Why would we? We can think critically about opinions that we encounter. We can ask for evidence of statements we question.

We conservatives have been focused on teaching the Constitution. And correctly pushing back against what we see as impingement to free speech. How can we specifically support this constitutional right?

The specific policy reasons they must “create and maintain a dignified and professionally responsible image for the school district.” Perhaps our students would ask us about board members who speak freely without any ability for staff to rebut their views, even with facts. And perhaps image-driven

motivations should concern us less than created space for truth, integrity, and the value and freedom of every voice.

We must ask our kids, “In a democracy, are only those in powerful positions allowed to speak freely?” Johnny, when it is stifled, we must ask: for what purpose?

Carol Greenstreet
Woodland Park