海角大神

The Trayvon Martin case has claimed a new martyr. The first one was Martin, the Florida teenager gunned down on Feb. 26 by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman. Now there鈥檚 Michigan teacher Brooke Harris, who was fired last month, allegedly for helping her 8th-grade students organize a fundraiser for Martin鈥檚 family.

Ms. Harris quickly became a cause c茅l猫bre on the Internet, where more than 200,000 people have signed a petition calling for her reinstatement. As the petition correctly noted, dismissals of this type 鈥渃reate an atmosphere of fear鈥� in American schools. 鈥淲e will not tolerate the silencing of our nation鈥檚 best teachers,鈥� the petition declared.

But we do tolerate it, and increasingly so. Harris鈥檚 firing comes at a historic low point for teacher freedom in the United States. And most of us have stood idly by, because we don鈥檛 really believe that teachers should have freedom. Instead, we want them to echo our own views.

Consider the case of Jillian Caruso, who was fired from her Massapequa Park, N.Y., elementary school after her principal objected to a picture of George W. Bush that she displayed in her classroom during Bush鈥檚 2004 re-election campaign. A member of the Republican National Committee, Ms. Caruso alleged that the principal 鈥� who was married to a Democratic state assemblyman 鈥� violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and association.

Caruso鈥檚 dismissal generated a few columns and blog posts from outraged Republicans. But from Democrats? Not a peep. Nor did I hear much protest 鈥� from any side of the aisle 鈥� when a federal jury ruled against Caruso in 2007.

In instructing the jury, the presiding judge emphasized that Caruso had freedom of speech in her capacity as a citizen, but not as a teacher. So she was free to support President Bush on her own time 鈥� and on her own dime 鈥� but not while she was in school.

Here the judge invoked the Supreme Court鈥檚 2006 decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which said that public employees have no First Amendment rights when they are speaking as part of their 鈥渙fficial duties.鈥� The state hires employees to deliver a certain message, the court said, so it can also penalize those who deviate from it.

Since then, federal courts have used Garcetti to uphold the removal of an Indiana teacher who told her students she opposed the war in Iraq, and of an Ohio teacher who asked her class to report on examples from the American Library Association鈥檚 100 鈥渕ost frequently challenged鈥� books. 鈥淭he right to free speech...does not extend to the in-class curricular speech of teachers in primary and secondary schools,鈥� the Ohio ruling flatly declared.

That鈥檚 a huge problem for anyone who cares about American democracy. Teachers do not simply work 鈥渇or鈥� the government; they鈥檙e supposed to help students learn how to function within it. So they also need to model the skills and habits that democracy demands, especially the ability to analyze and evaluate different points of view.

And they can鈥檛 do that if we prevent them from taking political positions themselves, as the famed civil libertarian Alexander Meiklejohn argued in 1938. 鈥淣o one can teach an art which he is forbidden to practice,鈥� Meiklejohn explained. 鈥淪laves cannot teach freedom.鈥�

But propagandists cannot teach it either, Meiklejohn warned. So while teachers had the right to express their own views, he argued, they also had the duty not to impose these beliefs in the classroom; their job was to teach how to think, not what to think.

鈥淭he teacher-advocate wants thinking done as the only proper way of arriving at conclusions,鈥� Meiklejohn wrote. 鈥淭he propagandist wants believing done, no matter what the road by which the belief is reached.鈥�

So the real question isn鈥檛 whether a teacher should be able to articulate political beliefs in class, but why. If Jillian Caruso was simply trying to sway her students in favor of George W. Bush, her principal was right to intervene. But if she was attempting to teach them about Mr. Bush 鈥� and to form their own opinion of him 鈥� than she had every right to share hers.

And that brings us back to Brooke Harris, who says that her students鈥� fundraising idea 鈥� to wear 鈥渉oodies鈥� to school, in honor of Trayvon Martin鈥檚 garb on the day he died 鈥� came out of an editorial-writing assignment about the tragedy. As the students discussed it, it would be helpful to know whether Harris challenged their views. Or did she simply lead them to adopt hers?

Many students in the class were African-American, like Harris, and some of them reportedly had been stopped by police who thought they looked 鈥渟uspicious鈥� 鈥� the same term that George Zimmerman used to describe Trayvon Martin. All the more reason for their teacher to raise tough questions. When is it OK for police to suspect someone, and when is it not?

I would also hope that any such discussion would analyze Florida鈥檚 鈥渟tand your ground鈥� law, and whether Zimmerman was acting within its bounds. And in America, remember, you鈥檙e presumed innocent until proven guilty. Shouldn鈥檛 Harris have also presented Zimmerman鈥檚 side of the story, so that students could arrive at their own conclusions?

I don鈥檛 know whether that happened. Indeed, any sentiment on behalf of Zimmerman might have provoked outrage from the same people who are now rallying to Harris鈥檚 side. And in the current environment, the outcome would likely be the same: She鈥檇 be fired.

So by all means, let鈥檚 make sure Brooke Harris gets to return to her classroom. But let鈥檚 resolve to support the free-speech rights of all of our teachers, not just the ones we agree with.

Let鈥檚 also insist that they entertain every point of view, especially those they don鈥檛 share. If we muzzle our teachers, they really can鈥檛 teach democracy. And if they simply teach their own beliefs, our students won鈥檛 learn it.

Jonathan Zimmerman teaches history and education at New York University. He is the author of "