Balancing Teachers' Liberty Against Students' Right to Unbiased Education

Abstract

The Alagoas (a Brazilian northeastern state) House of Representatives has recently overruled a governor’s veto to pass the Educational Neutrality Act (ENA) (“Programa Escola Livre”), a law on public education allegedly restrictive of teachers’ rights to freedom of expression. The bill’s proponent, State Representative Ricardo Nezinho, argued on his memorandum “that biased teachers and book authors have been notoriously influencing students’ political ideologies and imposing behavior and moral patterns opposed to parents’ private beliefs”.

Full text

BalancingTeachers’LibertyAgainstStudents’Rightto
UnbiasedEducation
18 JUL 2016 | ANTONIO G. SEPULVEDA, CARLOS BOLONHA AND IGOR DE LAZARI
POSTED IN: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
TheAlagoas(aBraziliannortheasternstate)HouseofRepresentatives
hasrecentlyoverruledagovernor’svetotopasstheEducational
NeutralityAct(ENA)(“ProgramaEscolaLivre”),alawonpublic
educationallegedlyrestrictiveofteachers’rightstofreedomof
expression.Thebill’sproponent,StateRepresentativeRicardo
Nezinho,arguedonhismemorandum“thatbiasedteachersandbook
authorshavebeennotoriouslyinfluencingstudents’political
ideologiesandimposingbehaviorandmoralpatternsopposedto
parents’privatebeliefs”.
L E G A L A N A L Y S I S A N D C O M M E N T A R Y F R O M J U S T I A

Thelawapprovalhadimmediatenegativerepercussionsandledthe
FederalDepartmentofEducation(MinistériodaEducação)torequire
theBrazilianAttorneyGeneraltoinitiatelegalproceedingsto
invalidatethelawonthebasisthat“restrictingteachingautonomy
offendstheBrazilianConstitutionbycensoringmethods,prohibiting
opendebatesonschoolsandrestrictingstudentslearningrights”.
Nevertheless,ENAisnotanoxymoron,asitproposestocomplywith
theprinciplesofideological,religious,andpoliticalneutralityand
liberty;pluralisminacademicspace;recognitionofstudents’
susceptibilitytolearningprocesses;andparents’rightstodirectthe
upbringing,education,andcareoftheirchildren.
Theseprinciplesare,ingeneral,agreeduponprinciplesinlegal
culture,andconsistentwiththeBrazilianLawofPoliciesandBasisof
theNationalEducation,bywhich“educationshallbebasedonthe
principlesofsolidarity;autonomytolearn,teach,researchandspread
culture,ideas,artandknowledge;pluralismofideasandpedagogical
methods;andtolerance.”
Morespecifically,ENAprohibitsteachersfrom(i)practicingpolitical,
religious,ideological,orphilosophicalindoctrination;(ii)abusing
students’inexperienceorimmaturityinordertocooptpupilsintoa
particularreligious,ideological,orpoliticalperspective;(iii)
discriminatingstudentsbecauseofpolitical,ideological,moral,or
religiousbeliefs;(iv)supportingareligion,ideology,orpolitical
preferenceinschool;(v)incitingstudentstoparticipatein
demonstrationsorpublicacts;or(vi)beingbiasedagainsttheoretical
perspectives.
Therefore,manifestingpersonalpreferencesisnotprohibitedunder

ENA,althoughreflectivethinkingisrequired,i.e.an“active,
persistent,andcarefulconsiderationofanybelief,orsupposedform
ofknowledgeinthelightofthegroundsthatsupportitandthe
furtherconclusionstowhichittends”.Reflectivethinkingalso
impliesacceptingthatknowledgeisrelative,andnotsingularly
objectiveandabsolute.Fornotbeingneutral,teachersdedicatedto
studentlearningshould,insteadofinculcatingideasandpersonal
preferences,admitdissentanddifferencesinscholarlydialogue.
Inanutshell,teachersmustrigorouslyscrutinizeinformation
presentedinschoollessons,aslongasdubitandoadveritatem
pervenimus(“bymeansofdoubt,wearriveatthetruth”).Takinga
pagefromBrazilianpedagogistPauloFreire,“toteachisnotto
transferknowledgebuttocreatethepossibilitiesfortheproductionor
constructionofknowledge”;“whoeverteacheslearnsintheactof
teaching,andwhoeverlearnsteachesintheactoflearning”(docendo,
discitur).
Teachersmustaccordinglystruggleforpersonalandintellectual
growthoftheirstudentsinademocraticandopenlearningacademic
environment,devoidofoppression.TheU.S.CourtofAppealsforthe
FifthCircuitrecognizedinBurnsidev.Byars(1966)that“school
officialscannotignoreexpressionsoffeelingswithwhichtheydonot
wishtocontend[and]cannotinfringeontheirstudents’righttofree
andunrestrictedexpressionasguaranteetothemundertheFirst
AmendmenttotheConstitution.”Moreover,theU.S.SupremeCourt
heldinAmbachv.Norwick(1979)thatpublicschoolsmustadvocate
moredialoguesandintensecommunicationinschoolingmethods,
opentomultiplesourcesofinformationanddifferentparadigmsand
“helpfulasanassimilativeforcebywhichdiverseandconflicting

elementsinoursocietyarebroughttogetheronabroadbutcommon
ground.”Indeed,“[t]heclassroomispeculiarlythe“marketplaceof
ideas”[and]theNation’sfuturedependsuponleaderstrained
throughwideexposuretothatrobustexchangeofideaswhich
discoverstruthoutofamultitudeoftongues.”Keyishianv.Boardof
Regents,385U.S.589(1967).Thisframeworkshould,inthelongrun,
promotestudents’autonomy.Oneofthemostimportantfunctionsof
schools,accordingtoeducationalstudiesexpertMichaelApple,is
indeedtopreparestudentsforparticipationinavibrantdemocracy,
tosortthrougharguments,tohaveevidencefortheirclaims.
Thisissueisinvariablylinkedtopreceptors’autonomy.Thescopeand
limitsofteachers’freespeechrights,visàvistheirparticular
professionaldutyofsupervisinganddiscipliningstudentswithout
theirpersonalbiasesnegativelyaffectingpupils,havebeenaddressed
bycourtsofdifferentjurisdictionsintheUnitedStates.Ingeneral,
precedentshaveaffirmedsomerestrictionsonteachers’freespeech
rightsintheclassroom.
Eventhoughteachershaveacademicautonomy,includingtherightto
speakfreelyabouttheirsubject,toraisequestionsabouttraditional
valuesandbeliefs,andtoselectappropriateteachingmaterialsand
methods,theSupremeCourtrecognizedinAmbachv.Norwickthata
“teacherservesasarolemodelforhisstudents,exertingasubtlebut
importantinfluenceovertheirperceptionsandvalues.”TheU.S.
CourtofAppealsfortheSeventhCircuitheld,moreover,thata
student’slackofintellectualskillsrequiresgreater“directionand
guidancefromthosebetterequippedbyexperienceandreflectionto
makecriticaleducationalchoices.”Accordingly,“thecommunity[and
officialsresponsibleforformulatingthecurriculum]hasalegitimate,

evenavitalandcompellinginterestinthechoiceofandadherenceto
asuitablecurriculumforthebenefitofouryoungcitizens”thatdoes
notviolatetheprofessor’sFirstAmendmentrighttofreespeech.
Itfollowsthatinpubliceducation,individuals’righttofreespeechis
notabsoluteandmaybelimitedifitinterfereswiththerightsof
others,and“thereisnothingintheFirstAmendmentthatgivesa
personemployedtoteachtheConstitutionalrighttoteachbeyondthe
scopeoftheestablishedcurriculum.”Mercerv.MichiganStateBd.of
Education,379F.Supp.580,586(E.D.Mich.1974).
Ergo,therighttofreespeechofprofessorsmustbebalanced“against
hisstudent’srighttobefreeofreligiousinfluenceorindoctrinationin
theclassroom.”Robertsv.Madigan,702F.Supp.1505(D.Colo.
1989).
DiscussionofthisbalancinginBrazilisfarbehindthatintheUnited
States,andbacklashonENAlacksadequategrounds.Indemocratic
societies,itisnecessarytohaveaseriousconversationaboutwhatis
appropriateforteacherstodointheclassroom;foreducationinthe
truestsenseoftheword,teacherscannotnotbebiaseddisseminators
ofaninflexibleknowledge.Thelearningprocessdoesnotoperateas
anauthoritativemonologueortopdownteaching,butasanongoing
processofinnovative,democratic,anddialecticalthinking.Thus,
studentsshouldnotreceiveandmindlesslyrepeatbiased
information;rathertheyshouldbecriticalthinkers,autonomous
learners,andultimatelyproducersoftheirownnovelideasbasedon
theirindividualexperiencesandknowledge.
POSTED IN: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EDUCATION, INTERNATIONAL LAW
TAGS: BRAZIL, EDUCATION, LEGAL

ANTONIO G. SEPULVEDA
AntonioSepulvedaisProfessorofLawattheGetulioVargasFoundation
(FGV)andattheFluminenseFederalUniversity.Heisaresearcheratthe
TheoreticalandAnalyticalStudiesonInstitutionalBehaviorLabanda
BrazilianInternalRevenueServiceofficer.
CARLOS BOLONHA
CarlosBolonhaistheViceDeanandProfessorofLawattheFederal
UniversityofRiodeJaneiroLawSchool.HeisSchool'sResearch
CoordinatorandaBrazilianNationalCouncilofTechnologicalandScientific
Development(CNPq)ResearchFellow.Heisalsocoordinatorofthe
TheoreticalandAnalyticalStudiesonInstitutionalBehaviorLab,authorof
severalarticlesinvariouslawreviewsandnewspapersandfounderofthe
JournalofInstitutionalStudies(RevistaEstudosInstitucionais).
IGOR DE LAZARI
IgorDeLazariisaGraduateStudentattheFederalUniversityofRiode
Janeiro,ResearcherattheTheoreticalandAnalyticalStudiesonInstitutional
BehaviorLabandLawClerkattheRegionalFederalCourtinRiodeJaneiro.
TheopinionsexpressedinVerdictarethoseoftheindividualcolumnistsanddonot
representtheopinionsofJustia.
©2017Justia