Workplace Free Expression

School administration moves slowly. Kids, however, rarely wait for the rules to catch up with their culture. They will be expressing their identities whenever and however they can. Are there basic principles that administrators in public education can use to avoid the conflicts that they are encountering daily? Perhaps.

On June 2, 2022, when Ontario voters went to the polls for the province’s 43rd general election, organizations employing more than 25 workers were obligated to have put in place a written policy on disconnecting from work; the so-called ‘right to disconnect.’

Freedom of Expression is an important foundation of a democratic society and protected as a “fundamental freedom” in Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Yet, in both countries, free expression is being used paradoxically to justify censorship. A disturbing recent example is the enactment of Texas House Bill 3979: “An Act relating to the social studies curriculum in public schools.”

Barely a day goes by without reading a new story about employees being punished, fined, fired or shamed for engaging in online conversations about the workplace. Social media is radically transforming the relationship between employees and their employers in a host of ways not the least of which is its capacity to simultaneously augment peoples’ ability to express their voice and employers’ ability to monitor and discipline employees. 

Whose speech is compelled more than anyone’s in the country? Why teachers and students in K-12 schools, of course. From the singing of the National Anthem each morning, to the recitation of historical dates and multiplication tables, to astronomical theories, to dress codes, to the pep rallies, to the macaroni covered mothers’ day cards, to the schedule of mandatory holidays, each school student and teacher is compelled to express herself in the correct fashion at the correct time. 

Is it ever appropriate to crack sex jokes at work?  I hope so - since I’ve been known to do it on occasion.  But a recent one-liner made by a Canadian parliamentarian has prompted me to interrogate my risque behaviour, and reflect on the line that divides harmless suggestive bantering from sleazy unwanted innuendos.  When it comes to erotic talk at the office, is one person’s discomfort another person’s delight?  If so, how to tell the difference?  And what should be the consequences when we get our signals crossed?