During Trump’s first term, a New Jersey teacher was accused of bringing politics into the classroom in the form of an anti-Trump t-shirt. In his second term, Trump’s administration has aggressively targeted education and this includes the threat to eliminate the Department of Education. As such, it makes sense that educators feel threatened and might be tempted to respond within their classrooms. As a professor at a state university, I am both an educator and a public employee and these two roles can conflict because of the distinct duties of each.
An educator at a state institution is a public employee. While being a state employee does not rob a person of their right to free expression, it does impose limitations on this right above and beyond the usual moral limits. As an example of the usual moral limits, there is a popular example about not having the right to yell about a non-existent fire in a crowded theatre.
As public employees are paid by the taxpayers to do a job, it is reasonable that they do not have the right to express political views to the public while working. As an analogy, I do not have the right to sell my books to students during class. Likewise, I do not have the right to try to sell my politics to students during class. There is also the matter of professionalism: while I am on the clock, I am representing my institution and not myself. As such, I am morally obligated to distinguish between my own views and those of the institution.
It might be objected that elected public officials, such as Governor DeSantis of my adopted state of Florida, use their offices for political activities that benefit themselves and their party. As such, it is morally unfair to deny the same opportunity to other public employees. One counter is that elected public officials are politicians, so politics is their job. That said, there are moral concerns about politicians using public resources for their re-election or to campaign against a ballot initiative; but this is more a matter of the use of public funds than a free-speech issue. As such, it seems morally acceptable to insist that public employees refrain from political activities while on the clock. But perhaps being an educator is a relevant difference.
On the one hand, it could be argued that even in political science classes the educator does not have the right to preach their politics. After all, the function of the educator is to teach rather than preach. If a teacher takes a clear stance on a political issue, then students might feel pressured to accept it. There is also the concern that expressing political views will alienate students and harm their education. For example, a teacher who expresses anti-Trump views can create a hostile learning environment for MAGA students.
On the other hand, it can be argued that educators do not surrender their right of free expression in the classroom. If they use it responsibly in the classroom, they have the right to express their political views. This view is appealing at the college level. Professors are supposed to have positions on intellectual and academic issues, and these include political issues. That is, they should be able to profess. But the proper role of a professor is a matter of debate. One classic ideal is the professor as one who professes by advancing their positions on the academic issues and inviting students to engage them. This does raise the usual concerns about the power disparity and, of course, the matter of grades. Another classic ideal is the professor neutrally presenting theories and ideas by laying out the ideas and letting students decide which they like best. The problem with this approach is it does not help students determine which ones are better and this would be a problem in engineering, math and science classes in which there are better and worse answers.
My practical solution to the problem has been to stick to the general issues of politics when they are relevant to the course. Since I do not want my students to just repeat what I think on paper and tests, I am careful to present the positions fairly. If pressed for my opinion in class, I will refer to any writings I have done and warn them to never uncritically accept what I have written. I also make it clear that paper grades are not based on whether I like their view but on how well they argue for their view. When I use examples of politicians (usually for fallacies and rhetoric) I do try to include examples across the spectrum. However, the party in power does tend to be the subject of more examples than the party out of power for the obvious reason that they provide more examples.
I heard something on public radio that disturbed me. This segment of your posts was the only one I could access this afternoon, Sunday, March 30, 2025. A new cabinet Secretary believes Americans are over medicated. He says, roughly, that psychoptopic medications that are helping people lead useful, functional lives, ought to be banned. This is the same person who would ban vaccines, the utility of which has been proven for decades. By now, anyone who has been paying attention knows who I am talking about. I honestly don’t know why this official is taking these unsubstantiated positions. This is dangerous and irresponsible, seems to me. I did not listen to the entire PR presentation. Thought it better to log a note here. That’s done.
I suppose freedom of expression IS offensive to some. Far-right conservatives are initial candidates, though they are not exclusive in any sense. Educators can’t win this debate because they are always already offending someone , some group or interest. I think (differently, from many) that what students wear to class is mostly their business, so long as it does not violate community standards of decorum and propriety. Some think that standard is not exclusive and they want the dubious control of political correctness to overrule all else, including freedom of expression. Please excuse my bluntness, but, that sort of edict reeks of autocracy and totalitarianism. If any reader of this comment disagrees with the content thereof, perhaps they might consider the overall decline and denial(s) of freedoms we used to take as givens. They might also re-assess the direction of governance (if one can call it that), under the current climate. Our chief executive is businessman, not diplomat; opportunist, not negotiator: he exemplifies what I have called organized chaos. That state of affairs is ultimately dangerous, and, as a continuing, steady state, it portends disaster. Don’t take my words for this. *Try harder to think better. Do the best you can with what you have and know*. I bid you peace.