Tullahoma board hears legal briefing and dozens of public comments after teacher’s social-media posts

Scott Bennett, the school district’s attorney, gave the Tullahoma City Schools Board of Education an extended public legal briefing on Sept. 23 about an employee’s social-media activity and the district’s response. Bennett explained the First Amendment’s protections for private speech, the balancing test that applies to public employees and why Superintendent Dr. Stevens pursued a methodical, evidence-focused review that resulted in a written reprimand placed in the employee’s personnel file.

The brief outlined the district’s inquiry into whether the employee’s posts had a substantial impact on the operation of the school or the teacher’s ability to serve students. Bennett said Dr. Stevens and other administrators monitored the school environment, interviewed staff and reviewed social-media activity before concluding the reprimand was warranted, particularly citing use of vulgar language in the posts. He noted the employee has 10 days to submit a written response that will also be included in the personnel record.

After the briefing the board temporarily suspended a portion of policy 1.404 for the meeting to allow expanded public comment. Dozens of residents filled the meeting room and a long speaker list included several parents, educators and community leaders who urged stronger discipline or termination, saying the posts were “vulgar,” appeared to endorse or justify political violence and undermined trust in the criminal-justice classroom. Janice Bowling told the board the post and subsequent social-media likes were “unacceptable” for someone teaching criminal justice and urged the district to reconsider the response. Several speakers cited concerns about students being pulled from the teacher’s class and alleged classroom bias.

Other residents defended the teacher’s record and her classroom work. Catherine Barrientos said many who criticized the teacher do not know her and described the teacher as a strong fundraiser and advocate for students; Susan Harris recommended sensitivity training rather than firing and said the full post should be considered in context.

The board’s attorney repeatedly cautioned about the district’s limited authority to regulate protected speech and emphasized the need for evidence that a teacher’s speech has materially harmed the educational environment before taking more severe discipline. The board did not take additional personnel action at the meeting; Bennett’s remarks and the public comments concluded with the board retaining the superintendent’s authority to handle personnel matters and the employee’s right to file a response that will be public record.

The next procedural step the board noted is that Dr. Stevens and the policy committee will continue to examine relevant policies and may bring recommendations or a study session to the board. The record of the reprimand and any written response from the employee are maintained in the personnel file and are available as public records per board practice.