A teacher's first amendment right: Protected but not to be abused.

The Pickering v. The Board of Education case showed that a teacher can not be fired for expressing their first amendment right, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pickering. Marvin L. Pickering was fired for an article he wrote in a local newspaper criticizing the BOE for using money on athletics rather then education. The court's ruling got Pickering reinstated and sent a message that people of public employment will not have their rights compromised. Inevitably as a result some jerk has to take things to far.

Enter Norman Alderman, a teacher from West Virgina. A teacher since 1980 he was ejected from a 2002 meeting. Now the reason for this is missing from this article, but one can guess that there at least was one. Norman then returned to the meeting with a video camera to catch each and ever injustice. The police were then called and he was arrested. Norman then sued and won. He also remained at the school.

Time out. Can anyone understand that? Why do you continue to work at a school that screwed you? Isn't it uncomfortable standing at the water cooler taking about that time they had you arrested? I just find it odd.

Anyway, in 2006 the board decide that Norman will be transferred from a technology facilitator to a classroom teacher. Norman, not happy with this, did the normal thing. He requested a hearing on the matter and complained on the Internet. It was at the hearing that things went south. Norman was given twenty minutes to state his case. He spent those twenty minutes calling his bosses thieves and cockroaches among other things, never once mentioning the transfer. He was fired.

Since it worked the first time, Norman sued. This time the courts did not rule in his favor. The reason: unlike Pickering who was fired for comments he made that regarded tax payer's money and thus was important to the community, Norman was just being an ass. He's comments were not public concerning, thus not protected by the first amendment.

To that I say heer heer! I must agree with the ruling. The way I think of it is this. Think of a job. Any job. Office work, teacher, cashier, construction, anything. Okay now imagine that a co-work of yours just called your boss a cockroach. Not just that, but he called the boss a cockroach for twenty strait minutes. Do you think you are going to see him at work tomorrow? No. Calling your boss names is a bad idea! Why would he think that doing that would help the situation? What was he hoping to accomplish?

So then, after telling the boss off, he gets fired. Then he decides to take those people to court to get your job back. The big question, why do you still want to work there?! You got want it seemed like you wanted. You are not going to be a classroom teacher now. Chalk it up as a win.

Okay I might be looking at this a little to simply. The man lost his job and thus his income so he needs money, even if that means going back to those cockroaches, but think about it like this. Lets throw the name calling out completely. He was given a job, and he refused to do it. In every situation, you get fired for that, and he did. What argument could be made? His only really option was to use the Constitution as a weapon, witch makes me sick. People like Pickering had to fight tooth and nail for rights he deserved. Norman on the other hand was trying to exploit those right to get ahead. I have no remorse for him and I think he got exactly what he had coming to him: A pink slip.