We the People (Who are the employees of the state and various corporations and therefore are not entitled to any opinions...)
I'm sure we are all very familiar with the Duck Dynasty debacle of last year, in which Phil Robertson was chastised for expounding his personal views on homosexuality in an interview with GQ magazine. Now, I have no desire to hash over any of the controversy that ensued, but to bring up a related issue which, I believe, has the potential for significant repercussions in the battlefield that is public education these days. I first need to cite this link, http://theeducatorsroom.com/2013/12/educators-learn-duck-dynastys-phil-robertson/, which was the touchstone that set me to this posting.
When the issue began exploding on social media, and my Facebook feed was divided between people rabidly supporting Robertson for what he said and people rabidly bashing him for what he said, I felt there was a much larger issue at stake, one that would have lasting repercussions long after the frenzy over his words had faded and been forgotten. I posted a brief status about the issue, an issue which to me said a lot about the status of the First Amendment in our country. I saw a lot of statuses about the fact that "someone" should stop this idiot from speaking. Last time I checked, the First Amendment protects your right to be an idiot.
But it was a response to my status, in addition to the link above, that set me on the course to this post. One person responded, "He (Phil Robertson) has the right to say whatever he wants, but A&E certainly has the right to suspend him. It's not a free speech issue, he represents a company." In the interview, he was speaking about himself, Phil Robertson. Not A&E. He was not appearing as a representative for the company, nor was he claiming to speak for them, but for himself. When did we cease to be individuals, and simply become representatives of a company?
The article I read above discusses the limitations placed on educators' free speech, implying that, for all intents and purposes, we don't have free speech. When I signed my contract twelve years ago, I was unaware of the fact that I was signing away all of my First Amendment privileges. No one mentioned that. I understand that the classroom is not the place to advertise my personal beliefs. It is not my job to teach children about my religion, my politics, my personal stance on whether or not tomatoes are a vegetable, or any other such controversial issue. It is my job to teach the curriculum. I get that. I don't want to evangelize my classroom or have political discussions with 8th graders. I also understand that, as a role model for children, I should have certain standards of behavior I should exhibit. It is not in my best interests for my students to be able to troll the Internet and find me in various and sundry compromising positions. Duh. But what happens when I leave my classroom? Do I get to leave the teacher behind and be a person, or am I, by extension, always representing a company?
For the past ten years or longer, public education has been under attack from various corporate and governmental entities. These people are hell-bent on dismantling our public education system and replacing it with a combination of for-profit charter schools and online learning. In the past year or so, I have become more and more outspoken about this topic. However, according to the limitations placed on the First Amendment for us as company reps, I am probably not allowed to speak out about this because (by extension), I represent the state. And probably the US Dept. of Education. Never mind the fact that I have no say in the way these operations are run. Never mind the fact that the decisions being made by these people and the corporations they are in bed with (Pearson, Microsoft) are not good for children or for the future of America. Never mind the fact that The People in Charge are not interested in hearing the input of those their decisions affect most directly (namely, teachers and students). It is my job to keep my mouth shut, do my job, smile and nod about unsavory and distastefully abusive education policies, and basically be a good little faceless nobody to be ground up in the corporate machine. Educating more good little faceless nobodies who have been "Common Cored" to be ground up in the corporate machine.
But if those of us who are in the machine don't speak up, who will? If we are not the machine that kills fascists, what will keep them from being fascists?
What frightens me most is that people I know personally; the friends who responded to my status or to whom I have spoken in conversation, see no problem with the fact that we are never "self-representative." That it should always be okay for your employer to treat you as a representative of the company, no matter when, no matter where. What good is the First Amendment if we never represent ourselves?
When the issue began exploding on social media, and my Facebook feed was divided between people rabidly supporting Robertson for what he said and people rabidly bashing him for what he said, I felt there was a much larger issue at stake, one that would have lasting repercussions long after the frenzy over his words had faded and been forgotten. I posted a brief status about the issue, an issue which to me said a lot about the status of the First Amendment in our country. I saw a lot of statuses about the fact that "someone" should stop this idiot from speaking. Last time I checked, the First Amendment protects your right to be an idiot.
But it was a response to my status, in addition to the link above, that set me on the course to this post. One person responded, "He (Phil Robertson) has the right to say whatever he wants, but A&E certainly has the right to suspend him. It's not a free speech issue, he represents a company." In the interview, he was speaking about himself, Phil Robertson. Not A&E. He was not appearing as a representative for the company, nor was he claiming to speak for them, but for himself. When did we cease to be individuals, and simply become representatives of a company?
The article I read above discusses the limitations placed on educators' free speech, implying that, for all intents and purposes, we don't have free speech. When I signed my contract twelve years ago, I was unaware of the fact that I was signing away all of my First Amendment privileges. No one mentioned that. I understand that the classroom is not the place to advertise my personal beliefs. It is not my job to teach children about my religion, my politics, my personal stance on whether or not tomatoes are a vegetable, or any other such controversial issue. It is my job to teach the curriculum. I get that. I don't want to evangelize my classroom or have political discussions with 8th graders. I also understand that, as a role model for children, I should have certain standards of behavior I should exhibit. It is not in my best interests for my students to be able to troll the Internet and find me in various and sundry compromising positions. Duh. But what happens when I leave my classroom? Do I get to leave the teacher behind and be a person, or am I, by extension, always representing a company?
For the past ten years or longer, public education has been under attack from various corporate and governmental entities. These people are hell-bent on dismantling our public education system and replacing it with a combination of for-profit charter schools and online learning. In the past year or so, I have become more and more outspoken about this topic. However, according to the limitations placed on the First Amendment for us as company reps, I am probably not allowed to speak out about this because (by extension), I represent the state. And probably the US Dept. of Education. Never mind the fact that I have no say in the way these operations are run. Never mind the fact that the decisions being made by these people and the corporations they are in bed with (Pearson, Microsoft) are not good for children or for the future of America. Never mind the fact that The People in Charge are not interested in hearing the input of those their decisions affect most directly (namely, teachers and students). It is my job to keep my mouth shut, do my job, smile and nod about unsavory and distastefully abusive education policies, and basically be a good little faceless nobody to be ground up in the corporate machine. Educating more good little faceless nobodies who have been "Common Cored" to be ground up in the corporate machine.
But if those of us who are in the machine don't speak up, who will? If we are not the machine that kills fascists, what will keep them from being fascists?
What frightens me most is that people I know personally; the friends who responded to my status or to whom I have spoken in conversation, see no problem with the fact that we are never "self-representative." That it should always be okay for your employer to treat you as a representative of the company, no matter when, no matter where. What good is the First Amendment if we never represent ourselves?
Comments
Post a Comment