This script is based on Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15. This video portrays a general focus of the case and is not intended as a full account. For an actual account of the decision, read Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825 found at the Resources tab.
April: So I just finished my prep time. I didn't get through a single report card, I've been spending so much time on those assessments, maybe it's because I'm a new teacher.
Dania: Don't tell me about it. I'm already behind because I've been working on the programs for the concert.
Ricky: I don't celebrate Christmas so this is all a new experience for me. And I don't have a lot of time because I have Friday off. Ooh Nice. Timbits. Are they fat free?
Ann Marie: Well I finished all my reports last night. I can give you a hand. I was reading the Ross vs New Brunswick case in the paper over the weekend and I'm so happy how it ended. It took them long enough. Did you know the complaints about Ross started as early as 1978 and the board continued to employ him? I'm really pleased that David Attis stepped up and got things rolling.
April: Wait, what are you talking about? I don't know anything about this case.
Dania: Really, April? Let me bring you up to speed. Years ago, Malcolm Ross actually taught at this school. After he left, he made repeated attacks on the Jewish people. It was crazy. He was making all kinds of racist comments. It was awful. All on his off duty time, which some people felt, created a poisoned school environment in the school district, as well as negatively affecting Jewish children and other minorities. Ross felt that his views were protected by the Charter under the freedom of speech since he was doing it on his own time.
Ann Marie: So glad that David Attis, a Jewish parent, complained about Ross in 1988 and Attis wasn't even a parent in the school where Ross taught. I can't imagine how awful that parent must have felt about the books, letters and interviews from the local media that Ross carried out. I felt so terrible during that time.
April: So, wait a sec, the board continued to employ Ross even though they knew about his off duty conduct and writings? But wait a second. Does this mean you all agree that our off duty conduct as teachers needs to be monitored at all times? I mean, I want to be able to do what I want outside of school, right? And it says right there in section 2 of the Charter that I have the right to freedom of expression just like anyone else.
Dania: Well, that's true, but I do know that in a school board we have to find a balance between freedom of expression, and also create a school system free of bias. To balance all of these, one must understand the influence of teachers on students. The court discussed the important social objective of delivering "an equal and discrimination free educational environment, and the perception of fairness and tolerance in the classroom."
April: Yeah I can see what you're saying. As teachers our rights need to be limited somewhat due to the nature of the profession, and again, as teachers we really need to be sure that our conduct meets a certain, you know, standard because that's really what the community expects of us.
Dania: On one hand, it's the duty of the school board to provide a discrimination free environment at school, and, on the other hand, the Charter clearly states that it's a fundamental freedom for an individual to publicly express their views and exercise religious beliefs, but with limitations. In Ross' case, the Board balanced Ross's freedoms against the ability of the school board to provide a discrimination-free environment and against the interests of Jewish students. Ross's activities denied Jewish people respect, dignity and equality.
April: Ok so what actually happened?
Ricky: Well it took 8 years for the case to settle. My friend works for the board and you wouldn't believe the amount of letters they got complaining about Ross's conduct. They even had people in monitoring his class. But, I don't think I'd want people in monitoring my class based on my off duty conduct.
Dania: I see your point, Ricky, but let's not forget the effect on the students; I remember when a committee was established to review the impact on the students. The case went through two New Brunswick courts and the Supreme Court of Canada also ruled on it.
April: But I don't understand, why did they have to go through all that monitoring and investigation when they had all the written proof they needed?
Ricky: Well they gave him several chances but he continued to poison the school environment.
Dania: Oh yeah. The human rights board of inquiry issued a two part order, one was that Ross had to take a leave of absence without pay for eighteen months, he could take a non-teaching job at this point if one came up and for the future the board was to terminate his employment if he published or wrote about any Jewish people in a negative way or attacked the Jewish religion. Then the New Brunswick Court of Appeal decided the board of inquiry had no grounds to enforce these restrictions.
Ann Marie: In the end, the School Board removed Ross from the classroom. Ross couldn't remain in teaching because his writings were discriminatory to the school environment.
Ricky: This is exactly what David Attis was talking about, how much of an influence we as teachers have on students.
April: Ok, that sounds like a horrible 8 years of confusion. But the recess bell is about to go, so tell me what happened in the Supreme Court of Canada.
Ann Marie: Ok so, the Supreme Court decided that the Human Rights Board of Inquiry was right, that keeping Ross employed as a teacher amounted to discrimination against a group of people, but that he could be employed as a non-teacher such as a job in the board office where he doesn't work with the students in the school system. The Court agreed that the board of inquiry order infringed on Ross's expression and religion but that this was a reasonable limit that could be justified. Let me read to you a part of the Supreme Court from the paper: So it says, "Young children are especially vulnerable to the messages conveyed by their teachers. They are less likely to make an intellectual distinction between comments a teacher makes in the school and those the teacher makes outside the school. They are, therefore, more likely to feel threatened and isolated by a teacher who makes comments that denigrate people's characteristics of a group to which they belong. Furthermore, they are unlikely to distinguish between falsehoods and truth and more likely to accept derogatory views espoused by a teacher. The importance of ensuring an equal and discrimination-free education environment, and the perception of fairness and tolerance in the classroom are paramount in the education of young children. This helps foster self-respect and acceptance by others." That's quite a statement.
April: I can't believe any of this. But, you know, I do believe that spreading hate propaganda strays far from the core values of freedom of expression. Ross's teachings really can't be excused for reasons of freedoms of expression, because they denigrate the integrity, dignity, and values of others.
Ricky: While I see your point, um, would I be creating a poisoned environment if I joined a group that only ate vegan food or joined a militant anti-meat group? Or if I picketed a company for dumping waste materials into a lake? Or if I joined LEAF, that's the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund? Would that be open to scrutiny?
April: Wow. I'm not sure Ricky. Those are great questions, but there goes the bell and, I'm gotta pick up my kids. Remember the pot luck on Friday.
