The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 44, No. 3 - 91

Walls, Halls and Doors

operation and administration of the schools"
(Pickering, p. 564) and terminated the teacher's
employment. the supreme Court determined
that public employees do not forfeit their right
to freedom of speech by virtue of their public
employment, but that the state has a legitimate interest in regulating the speech of its
employees. a key factor was that the employee
sent in the letter as a private citizen, not as a
school employee, and it was about a matter of
public concern. Based on these two factors,
the Court found the letter to the editor was
constitutionally protected free speech. it did
note that similar speech would not be protected if it contained false statements that were
knowingly or recklessly made. the Court balanced "the first amendment right of government employees to comment upon matters of
public concerns versus the interest of government to provide its services efficiently" (Vile
et al., 2009, p. 336). in the context of ras,
this may come into play if ras are critical of
housing or institutional policies.

Understanding what is actionable
and what is not actionable is
critical when thinking about RAs as
simultaneous student-employees .
Proactive conversations with senior
housing administration as well as
human resources is beneficial and
might result in content to include
in RA trainings .

in 1983, the supreme Court addressed the
issue of employee speech on matters of potential public concern, expressed within the workplace (Connick v Myers, 1983). Connick was fired
for opposing a job transfer she said felt was retaliation for having distributed a questionnaire
to her colleagues "asking for her co-workers'
views on the transfer policy, office morale, and
the level of confidence in supervisors" (p. 141).
the Court held that speech of public employees
is generally only protected when they speak on
matters of public concern but not protected if it
deals with personal and internal office issues.
therefore, the questionnaire about office procedures and morale constitutionally was not
protected as it could have "substantially interfered" with the operations of the office (p. 142).
in Garcetti v Ceballos (2006) the supreme
Court determined that speech by a public official is only protected if it is made as a private
citizen not if it is expressed as part of the official's public duties. the Court held that "when
public employees make statements pursuant
to their official duties, they are not speaking
as citizens for first amendment purposes,
and the Constitution does not insulate their
communications from employer discipline"
(Garcetti v Ceballos, 2006, p. 1).
the issue with ras and other student positions within housing is that they have constitutionally protected right to speak and express
themselves as students but not necessarily when they are speaking as ras or housing
staff. yet the nature of the ra position is one
that residents may always see their ra as an
ra and, similarly, an ra always may feel as if
they are "on duty" if they are out in public. in
essence, the question is if the ra is ever off
the clock. institutions must balance the need
V o l u m e 4 4 , No. 3 * 2 0 1 8

91
The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 44, No. 3

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 44, No. 3
