Teachers, who may be targeted by complaints from parents or filmed at any time in class, can they still talk about social issues? It is their duty to do so, according to Professor Bruce Maxwell, an ethicist and specialist in education law whose expertise has been sought by a dozen private schools, CEGEPs and professional organizations since 2021.
What he passes on to school principals and teachers, “is a tool for making responsible decisions about the choice of content, which can be tricky,” he explains in an interview.
“The danger today is that teachers are afraid to raise certain issues with students and that this deprives young people of an essential aspect of their education. […] Learning to discuss political and social controversies is part of developing students’ critical thinking,” recalls Mr. Maxwell, who is an associate professor at the Université de Montréal and researcher at the France-Québec Research Chair on Contemporary Issues of freedom of expression.
PHOTO ROBERT SKINNER, LA PRESSE ARCHIVES
Professor and researcher Bruce Maxwell
The first thing teachers should be aware of, he continues, is that “the classroom is a public place” and teachers should behave accordingly at all times.
Some teachers have learned this the hard way. There was the case in 2020 of this teacher from a school in Montreal North who was fired after making racist remarks for years, for which he ended up apologizing. More recently, the classroom screams of a 1st grade teacherD year caused a lot of reaction.
But the whole debate was launched, in a completely different register, by the suspension in 2020 of a professor from the University of Ottawa because she had used the “word starting with N” in her course, which the media themselves no longer write.
Four principles
This does not mean, however, that teachers and professors can no longer say anything.
Based on Canadian and American case law, Mr. Maxwell and his colleagues have established four principles which, in their view, guide freedom of expression in the classroom.
The first: adopt words or material directly related to the teaching program. So, Mr. Maxwell explains, the latitude given to a math teacher – hired to teach algebra – is not the same as that of a teacher of ethics and religious culture or history.
Another key principle: to teach impartially. A class is not a suitable framework for hammering out one’s hatred of sovereignists or federalists, illustrates Mr. Maxwell.
Third, he continues, “reasonably foreseeable inflammatory language should be avoided.” Here, he insists, it is important “to distinguish controversial remarks” from inflammatory remarks. “Teaching controversial subjects requires not only a certain pedagogical tact, but also an intimate knowledge of the environment. »
A judgment from the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal sheds some light here even today, even though it dates from 2002. At the time, a teacher who worked in a rather enthusiastic rural invited his students to reflect on the link between their political and religious beliefs. The school management received complaints, the case ended up in court. The teacher was successful “because the Prince Edward Island curriculum spelled out the requirement for teachers to promote critical thinking in their students. The teacher succeeded in showing the court that this was his intention”.
Promoting students’ critical thinking is broad, isn’t it? In fact, replies Mr. Maxwell, the main criterion that guides the courts in these cases, “is the reasonableness” of the intervention.
Was the purpose of the class activity or discussion to promote critical thinking among students or rather “to denigrate their beliefs or promote their personal point of view”?
The fourth principle that teachers should keep in mind? Use age-appropriate content. Showing a Harry Potter film in a high school fantasy class is fine. Show the films – which contain several scary scenes – to kindergarten students? Not sensible.
Similarly, the Montreal teacher who had the bad idea to play the 11-minute video of Lin Jun’s murder to Grade 4 students in his history and citizenship education class – video that showed the mutilation and dismemberment of the victim – got very, very wrong.
The class had unanimously voted to see the video, but that’s obviously not a reason. “It’s a clear case of poor pedagogical judgement,” says Maxwell, pointing out that the teacher failed to take into account the disruption this could cause after the fact for young people and the school environment.
No immunity
The fact remains that even if they believe that they fully respect these criteria, teachers remain exposed. In addition to fearing disciplinary measures, they know they are at risk of being filmed and delivered on social networks – out of context or not, whether they lacked judgment or not.
Indeed, replies Mr. Maxwell, the principles set out do not immunize teachers against complaints from parents.
But by following the principles set out above, teachers have some protection when their teachings align with case law.
And even if things go quickly in a school and we often lack time, the ideal, before tackling a delicate question or suggesting a film or a reading that could make waves, is to talk to his management,” Mr. Maxwell concludes. “Because then, if complaints arise, the management will be able to better defend its choices and say that they were made in a considered way. »