The San Francisco call., 1901-11-29
RIGHTS OF SCHOOL TEACHERS.

{ perior Court III the Dwyer case, one of our
- evening contemporaries declares it amounts
to decision that the School Board has no right to
interfere in a quarrel between teachers, and adds
SHOULD the Supreme Court, if the be finally
referred to that tribunal sustain the attitude OF the
lower court every contentious teacher in the depart
would enjoy free rein to his her spleen
on those with whom he she unable to agree
without mourning the risk of punishment from the
Board of Directors, who employ and pay teachers
their salaries"
That statement OF the decision is not accurate,
and the conclusions drawn from it utterly err
roneous The Dwyer case arose out of a controversy
in which school teacher was charged with slap
ping another teacher in the face The only point
decided by the court is that single display of tenn
per the part OF teacher does not constitute in
competency, unprofessional or immoral conduct"
nor is it a violation of the rules of the Board of
Education provided for in section 1898 of the
Political Code
1t is not contended that display of temper on
the part OF teacher in the presence of her pupils
or otherwise may not be a cause of reprmand from
the Board of Education, nor is it contended that fire.
quent and repeated displays of temper might not so
impair the usefulness of teacher as render her
unfit to teach, and thus liable to dsmissa but it is
contended that a single display of temper is not a
statutory ground for dismissal, and that the
only point involved in the Dwyer case.
Our contemporary in its eagerness to make point
against the and against the school teachers goes
so far as to say. GA large commercial house-and
the Board of Education is purely business organi-
zation-h properly conducted demands harmony
among its employees and uninching loyalty to those
in charge A clerk bookkeeper whose private life
reflects dishonor on his employers or whose office
heha nd
associates is often dismissed without trial or invest
cation. And so it should be in the management of
the school department. The School Board should
have full authority to at any time it sees
fit those whose behavior is in conflict with the rules
of the department.
Should such policy be adopted the spoils system
would be set up in the School Department in its
worst forp. The department is not private business
but publis business. 1t must be conducted not ac-
cordng to personal whim and caprice, but accord
ing to law A bookkeeper of a private firm, as our
contemporary says, may be dismissed by his en-
ployer without trial investigation though it would
be an unfair employer who would do it; but our
school teachers are fortunately subject to such
arbitrary removal. Were it otherwise the positions
and the salaries of the department would be the prey
OF politicians, and teacher would be secure from
unjust removal at any time.
OlefkS ana Other employees In the various branches
of the city government hold their office under civil
service regulations, ard be removed only when
good cause for the removal has been shown. Yet
our contemporary would rob the public school
teachers of the independent of office they
enjoy, and would reduce them to a condition of
something like servlity politicians for that would
surely be the result if their tenure of office were made
dependent upon the pleasure of the Board of Edu-
cation.
Even with the safeguards which have been thrown
around the teachers tenure of office by the law and
by the decision of the Supreme Court in the Ken
nedy case, the position is still far from being one
of security 1t has frequently been the case that
the trial of teacher by the board has not been a
full and fair hearing of all the evidence relating to
the accusations, but simply form which the board
has gone through for the purpose of registering
against the teacher decision which has been already
agreed upon in secret caucus.
The law cannot too carefully guard the indepen-
dence OF the teachers of the public schools and it
ssgratifying to note that the decision in the Dwyer
case like that in the Kennedy case, is proof that
the courts recognize that the intention of the law is
to that independence and construe it accord
ing1y