Pickering v. Board of Education

In Pickering v. Board of Educationm 391 U.S. 563 (1968), the United States Supreme Court considered whether a public school teacher could be disciplined for writing a letter to a local newspaper, criticizing the board of education and superintendent of schools for failing to raise adequate revenue. The board of education dismissed a high school teacher for sending a letter to a local newspaper criticizing the school officials in dealing with past proposals to raise school revenues. In the letter, the plaintiff primarily criticized the board's allocation of school funds between academic and athletic programs. In evaluating plaintiff's speech, the court noted, "certainly, an accusation that too much money is being spent on athletics by the administrators of the school system . . . cannot reasonably be regarded as per se detrimental to the district's schools. Such an accusation reflects rather a difference of opinion between the plaintiff and the Board as to the preferable manner of operating the school system, a difference of opinion that clearly concerns an issue of general public interest." Pickering v. Board of Educ., supra, 391 U.S. at page 571. After determining that the plaintiff's interest in free speech outweighed any interest of the school administration in limiting a teacher's speech, the court held that "a teacher's exercise of his right to speak on issues of public importance may not furnish the basis for his dismissal from public employment." Pickering v. Board of Educ., supra, 391 U.S. at page 574. The Court reasoned that a balance had to be struck between the interests of employee as citizen in commenting upon matters of public concern and those of the State, as employer, in promoting legitimate governmental objectives. Id. at 568. In formulating a test to achieve this balance, the Court stated that if "the fact of employment is only tangentially and insubstantially involved in the subject matter of the employee's communication, it is necessary to regard the employee as the member of the general public he seeks to be." Id. at 573-74. In that event, the employee's right to free speech is considered paramount. The Court acknowledged, however, that government may impose restraints on the job-related speech of public employees that would be plainly unconstitutional if applied to the public at large. Ibid. In such a case, the duty of government to achieve its mission in an efficient manner may serve to trump the employee's freedom of expression. Ibid. Recognizing that the letter authored by the teacher did not impede the proper performance of his duties in the classroom, the Court concluded that the school administration's interest "in limiting teachers' opportunities to contribute to public debate is not significantly greater than its interest in limiting a similar contribution by any member of the general public." Id. at 572-73. The Court thus concluded that the disciplinary action taken against the teacher was unconstitutional.