The court did not consider the appropriateness of Kohn’s intended topic or its relevance to the conference. It was clear from Barker’s memo that she had opposed Kohn’s appearance based on his opinion and perspective.
In a radio interview this morning, Kohn said he will donate his portion of damages, $7,500, to charity. The case could have cost the state a lot more money, according to the Globe
As part of the settlement, the Education Department agreed to pay nearly $200,000 to defray Kohn’s legal costs and to drop its appeal of a May Superior Court ruling against it. In exchange, Kohn agreed to drop a request for $300,000 in court costs and fees.
Heidi Guarino, a Department of Education spokeswoman, said that education officials chose to settle the suit in part because the Superior Court ruling sharply restricted their ability to decide who could speak at their conferences.
“The injunction was worded so broadly that we were worried it would create an untenable situation for us going forward,” she said.
Guarino said that education officials continue to believe that Kohn’s speech would have been out of place at a conference on educational advances at charter schools, but that they are eager to put the lawsuit behind them. She said the episode was “absolutely an isolated incident.”
align=”justify”>
–Mb
raj says
<
p>Although the plaintiff was (apparently) correct on the merits, if I were head of the DOE, I would refuse to fund any similar conferences. That avoids the 1st amendment issue.
<
p>If private sources want to sponsor such conferences, they can, of course, and they can invite whomever they want to speak. But, then, others can determine whether to ignore them.
joeltpatterson says
And a leader in education, such as Ms. Barker, should be able to at least hold her own against the evidence & arguments Kohn typically produces.
<
p>After all, shouldn’t people with a decent education be able to debate topics?
<
p>I saw Kohn speak in Austin ten or so years ago, and he certainly throws sharp zingers (“Texas seems to have combined the arsenic of competition with the strychnine of standardized testing”), but he serves a useful function as a gadfly. America’s educational leaders have mostly bought into the ideas of memorizing facts in math and reading with less emphasis on arts and music. Moreover, while competition often gets lauded for the spectacular results of those who wind up on top, Kohn helps remind us that competition necessarily makes losers. And we have many, many students who become discouraged by their experience in our schools. It’s worth trying to figure out if competition is responsible for some of that discouraging, and if we can do something different to keep them from being discouraged.
yellow-dog says
He’s radical in the best sense of the word, the sense that turns the status quo on its head. He’s not dangerous, which makes Barker’s anality that much more foolish. We live in an undemocratic world, one where principled opposition is silenced.
<
p>Raj, I’m not quite sure I understand what you’re talking about.
<
p>Mark
raj says
…If the DOE does not sponsor any conferences (on any topic) it is highly unlikely that it would violate the 1st amendment.
<
p>So at least this plaintiff, and other potential invitees, would not be invitted by the DOE to a conference sponsored by the government.
<
p>It really is as simple as that.
<
p>Why a government agency would be paying people to appear at a government-sponsored conference is something of a mystery, by that’s another issue. At all of the programs that I’ve been involved with, except for the luncheon speakers, those who appeared basically appeared for self-promotion.
yellow-dog says
a government agency shouldn’t be contributing money through grants. Or paying those people for that matter. The state was contributing money to the conference through a grant. Barker said she would pull the funding if Kohn spoke.
<
p>If a speaker has a book to promote, then I can see bypassing a fee. Kohn makes his living speaking. And I think he was the keynote speaker. They tried, but couldn’t get Howard Gardner.
<
p>Mark
raj says
…I did not suggest that a state agency should refuse to provide sponsorship money to conferences. What I did suggest was that a state agency could avoid a 1st amendment issue by not doing so.
<
p>Quite frankly, it appears to me that there are enough professional organizations who are willing to sponsor conferences on their own dime (i.e., using their own resources) that it is highly unlikely that a state agency would need to get involved. Indeed, in the early 1990s, I was involved in organizing a couple.
<
p>If Mr. Kohn demands a fee to speak at a conference, the private organizers can determine whether or not to engage him. I’ll tell you a little-known point about conference organizing. If the conference organizers determine that it actually is worth their while to actually pay an invitee to speak at their conference, it is usually because they believe that the speaker is more likely to “up” the attendance at the conference by those who are paying to attend. It really is no mystery.
<
p>If, as you say, Mr. Kohn makes his living by getting paid for speaking, maybe he should figure out a way of earning a living from what he is speaking about. That’s no mystery, either.