WhackyNation

Would it concern you to learn that a Connecticut teacher was demoted for reporting suspected child abuse to a state agency? How about a Delaware school counselor being fired for complaining to her vice principal that the school was discriminating against special education students and violating the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act? Or that a Texas athletic director was terminated for writing memos to his principal, complaining that the school office manager was mishandling athletic dept funds? Or that a Georgia university financial aid officer was fired for reporting that school officials were knowingly submitting false or fraudulent financial aid claims?

These are examples of disciplinary actions that have taken place since the US Supreme Court issued its decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006). Ceballos, a deputy district attorney, was the whistle blower, who suffered retaliation from his employer for reporting and then testifying that an affidavit used to obtain a search warrant contained serious misrepresentations. The Supreme Court ruled that retaliation did not violate the plaintiff’s 1^st or 14^th Amendment rights, as the document and action were part of his work assignment and, therefore, exempt from free speech or equal protection rights.

The implication of this ruling is that whistle blowers, who are usually unpopular in their work communities, are subject to retaliation for blowing the whistle and may not seek defense in 1^st or 14^th Amendment rights.

As citizens, we have a stake in finding out if our public or private institutions are breaking the law or violating someone’s rights. Part of our protection from these abuses comes from the actions of whistle blowers, who take a stand on the issues.

To protect themselves from unwarranted retaliation, educators are advised to be sure their collective bargaining agreements with their employers contain “just cause” provisions in matters of discipline and retention. Furthermore, educators who do not have “just cause” protection should be seeking contract provisions that protect them from retaliation for doing what their job requires them to do. It has also been suggested that the whistle blowing communication be shared with media sources, thereby introducing a legitimate free speech dimension.  While many whistle blowers would be reluctant to go public, protecting themselves from retaliation may be sufficient motivation to do so.

Several states are finally coming to grips with the need to tackle a most important issue related directly to the critical First Amendment of the United States Constitution. That issue, in case you have forgotten, was stated this way by the nation’s forefathers:

“Freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

What noble words and thoughts those are! And how important they have been as an earmark of the greatest democratic republic in the history of the world! In this instance, I want to dwell particularly on the importance the forefathers ascribed to a free press and the need to make sure its freedom is forever protected. For that reason, the rights of practitioners of a free press — in this case, the reporters who cover and report the news — are an integral part of the Constitution and of every citizen in America. It is a fundamental concern, then, that the rights of reporters and the press must be protected from outside sources — and that includes even the courts of the United States.

As a lifelong member of the print and broadcast news media, I have been vitally interested in protecting the free press and those men and women who, as members of the press, seek out the news wherever it resides. The public’s right to know the details of what happens in America is sacrosanct, and, thus, so is the right of reporters to report those details.

As the editor of Seattle’s morning newspaper, the Post-Intelligencer, I directed my staff to dig into indications that several city and county departments, including the police, were involved in bribery scandals in which various merchants made payoffs to police as “protection.” The money thus collected was shared by members of the City Council, the police chief, the sheriff, and, worst of all, by the county prosecutor

Our reporters received extremely valuable assistance from tipsters, who volunteered crucial inside information on condition that their identity would never be made known. Our reporters and editors honored that request, and the tipsters were never identified — a practice that has been honored for many years by the nation’s print and broadcast news media.

However, some judges in various parts of the country have disregarded that tradition and the First Amendment itself by jailing reporters who refused to divulge the tipsters’ names. Hence the need today for the states to pass what are called “shield laws” to honor the dictates of the First Amendment and protect both the tipsters and the reporters.

Without those shield laws in all 50 states, vital information the public should have will not become available — and lawbreakers within our own city and county governments will be able to practice their chicanery and their criminal actions with the knowledge that tipsters will be afraid to tell reporters about the lawbreakers.

In addition, it is doubly important to note that police officers and city and county officials themselves would be reluctant to break the law if they knew that tipsters could blow the whistle on them to members of the “free press.” In effect, shield laws are immensely important in guaranteeing the validity of our First Amendment rights.