1

Assignment 2: Ethics

Jazeeba Ahmad

Ashley Bird

Kelsey Moorhouse

Gloria Ng

Mabel Zheng

Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary

EDUC 525: Ethics and Law in Education

Professor Rhiannon Jones

October 29, 2021

As educators, we are representative of and responsible for maintaining the integrity of the

profession through our actions, which includes what we say and do in the classroom and out of it

(Alberta Teachers’ Association [ATA], 2018a; Ross v NBSD, para. 43). Consider, for instance,

the disciplinary actions in the Ross v. NBSD case, wherein Ross was removed from his teaching

position for his anti-Semitic “off-duty comments” which were considered more serious due to

“the highly public media through which they were disseminated” (para. 47). Should a teacher

post material to their social media that relates to students, colleagues, their school, the

board/district, or the community in which they teach, they must be prepared for this content to be

made public through sharing, reposting, or screenshotting, and therefore prepared for the

consequences. It is imperative that teachers consider the following five principles, considering

not only professional but also ethical conduct, before posting something to social media.

Principle 1: A teacher should ask themselves, before posting something to social media, whether

the content of their post respects the teaching profession and the existing ethical codes and

standards.

Teaching is more than a job; it is a profession. The Alberta Teachers’ Association’s

[ATA] Code of Professional Conduct states that “in relation to the profession: The teacher acts

in a manner which maintains the honour and dignity of the profession” (18), and “the teacher

accepts that the service to the Association is a professional responsibility” (22). When people

become teachers, they enter into a profession that must be represented accordingly, both on- and

off-duty. Teachers are important community members, seen as a representation and medium of

the educational message that society wants to pass on to the next generation. Consider the case of

Ross v NBSD, as mentioned above, regarding this issue of Freedom of Expression (s. 2b), which
 3

is similarly presented in ELIC, Educator Rights and Duties [Referring to R v Keegstra, [1990] 3

SCR 697], wherein Keegstra, a teacher, shared anti-Semitic statements directly with students (as

cited in Young, 2017). Although it was deemed that his s. 2(b) Charter rights were indeed

violated, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the violation was justified under s.1 (Young,

2017). “Thus, a teacher is always a teacher” and “consequently, teachers need to recognize that

even in their off-duty time, their conduct is subject to limitations'' (Young, 2017, p. 98). These

limitations are made clear to teachers as they enter the profession through ethical codes and

standards. This is where professionalism and professional judgement must be used when

deciding whether to post something on social media or not.

In addition to the ATA’s Professional Code of Conduct (2018a) codes 18 and 22, the

ATA’s Declaration of Rights and Responsibilities for Teachers (2018b) for teachers states that

teachers “have the responsibility to support actively their professional organization in its

objectives to regulate relations between teachers and their employers and to improve the quality

of education, the status of teachers and the status of the teaching profession” (10). The teaching

profession must have public trust as schools are places where people send their children. As

stated by Walker and Donlevy (2006), “through these codes, members are charged with the

responsibility of upholding the honor and dignity of their profession in all their actions and

relations with pupils, colleagues, school board members, and the public” (p. 230). Deontological

Ethics suggests that a teacher posting something on social media could be “good or bad”

depending on the set of rules (codes) outlined for the teaching profession, considering questions

like “to whom or what do I owe a duty to in this decision?” and “regardless of the consequences,

is there a principle which must be adhered to in this case?” (Donlevy & Walker, 2011, p. 23). As

well, Alberta Education’s (2020) Teaching Quality Standard #6 - Adhering to Legal

Frameworks and Policies states that “a teacher demonstrates an understanding of and adherence

to the legal frameworks and policies that provide the foundations for the Alberta education

system” (p. 7), something that Deontological Ethics values in order to “do the right thing”. “The

key point for the deontologist is that what is at stake is one’s obligations to act in accord to

ethical principles or rules” (Donlevy & Walker, 2011, p. 23), relating back to the need to follow

the ATA’s Professional Code of Conduct 18 and 22, and the Declaration of Rights and

Responsibilities 10.

Principle 2: A teacher should ask themselves, before posting something to social media, whether

the content of their post respects the dignity and rights of all persons.

Something as simple as making a post on social media can either have a rewarding or

devastating outcome regardless of one’s 'true' intentions. In making the decision to post, a

teacher should practice and consider Virtue Ethics to determine how their actions might impact

their teaching identity, and the individuals (students, colleagues, staff, and community members)

around them. This school of thought considers the predispositions of the person’s character, and

possible questions such as, “is this decision which I may take in concert with my fundamental

and true character?” or, “if I make the proposed decision would it be in accord with those

persons that I admire for their strength of character?” (Donlevy & Walker, 2011, p. 23).

Teachers are bound by the ATA’s Code of Conduct (1) (2018a) with a duty to their pupils

to “teach in a manner that respects the dignity and rights of all persons without prejudice as to

race, religious belief, colour, gender, gender identity, gender expression, physical disability,

mental disability, family status or sexual orientation”, or any other factor(s) (p. 1). The case of

Ross v NBSD demonstrates how “a teacher does not necessarily [take off] their teaching hats at
 5

the school year gates and may be perceived to be wearing their teaching hats even off duty”

(para. 44). Through Ross’s anti-Semitic actions, he no longer “provide[d] an inclusive learning

environment in which diversity [was] respected and members of the school community” could

feel safe, welcomed, and respected (Alberta Education, 2020, p.1). This point illustrates that

anything a teacher posts on social media can be viewed as an extension of their teaching duties

with the potential to harm and undermine the dignity and rights of individuals around them.

Moreover, it shows that the conduct of a teacher is evaluated based on their position more so

than the teaching and learning that occurs in the classroom. As such, a teacher needs to be ethical

in their decision making as they consider how their own actions might impact their view of

themselves and others' sense of self (Donlevy & Walter, 2011).

Furthermore, Teleological (Utilitarian) Ethics focuses on examining the consequence of

the action, not just the action itself, asking “Do the ends justify the means?” (Donlevy & Walter,

2011, p. 27). “The greatest good, for the greatest number of people” is at the centre of this ethical

school of thought, which can be drawn upon when a teacher decides whether or not to post

something on social media. Possible consequences, such as job loss or backlash came into focus,

beyond simply the duty to do the right thing. Teleological Ethics encourages questions like

“what will be the immediate consequences of my proposed decision with respect to the matter at

hand?” or “how does this proposed decision relate to the general happiness of most of those

people affected by the decision?” (Donlevy & Walker, 2011). In terms of posting on social

media, a deep sense of thought for all people and the possible consequences needs to be

considered in hopes of treating all individuals with dignity and respect.

Principle 3: A teacher should ask themselves, before posting on social media, whether the

content of their post breaches the confidentiality and privacy of anyone in the school community

(students, teachers, administrators, families) or the wider school district/board.

The ATA’s Code of Conduct (5) outlines that all educators have the responsibility to not

divulge information about students, teachers, and other members of the school community

(ATA, 2018a). Platforms such as social media are not the place to disclose nor comment on

content related to students or other community members. Regardless of whether the account is

public or private, teachers must be careful and consider the potential consequences if any post

becomes public (ex. screenshot). However, it is important to note that such platforms can be

considered appropriate for content sharing, such as showcasing activities or sharing educational

content, provided no individuals or criticisms are present in it.

Educators follow several codes and policies regarding the duty to uphold the integrity of

the profession, the endeavour to be good citizens, and to hold themselves to a higher ethical

standard (Donlevy & Walker, 2011). The actions of a teacher outside the classroom also require

a commitment to these professional constraints, in relation to students, colleagues, and members

of the school community (Donlevy & Walker, 2011). Educators should consider to whom or to

what they owe a duty to in their decision. Additionally, educator codes of conduct aim to prohibit

that which may interfere with independent and objective judgments of a teacher. Examples

include making critical comments about colleagues that can give rise to charges of

unprofessional conduct, or posting pictures of students or coworkers that can constitute a

violation of privacy laws (Donlevy & Walker, 2011). Furthermore, it is also important to

consider when disputes or the need to report issues arises, that there is a methodological and

procedural way of going about it. Taking the Deontological approach, teachers have the right to
 7

“do the right thing,” but as reflected in the ATA’s Declaration of Rights and Responsibilities of

Teachers and Code of Conduct, they have the obligation to go through the proper channels in a

professional manner (Donlevy & Walker, 2011; ATA, 2018a; ATA, 2018b). Taking to social

media as a means to protest or criticize students or colleagues blatantly disregards the policies

and practices in place by the ATA. A deontologist would question whether teachers have

considered the following questions when creating their social media content: “does the proposed

decision meet the Golden Rule condition?” or “does the proposed decision meet the categorical

Imperative Condition?” [i.e., would the teacher want someone else to post about them in such a

way?] (Donlevy & Walker, 2011).

Principle 4: A teacher should ask themselves, before posting something to social media, whether

the content of their post can be constituted as misrepresentation, defamation, or slander of

anyone in the school community (other teachers, students, administrators, and families) or wider

school district/board.

Given the inherently public nature of social media and the high standards set for teacher

professionalism in the ATA’s Professional Codes of Conduct and Declaration of Rights and

Responsibilities, posting material that harms the reputation of an individual in the school

community reflects negatively on both the target of the content and the teacher posting it. This

can be demonstrated in the case of Pridgen v U of C, when students were disciplined for the

public defamation of a university instructor on Facebook. In this case, the University argued that

“freedom of expression is not an unqualified right” and further “that defamatory speech is not

entitled to constitutional protection given its negative effect on reputation” (para. 80). The

invocation of the constitution in this manner calls upon the Deontological school of ethics,
 8

wherein one must act in accordance with obligations and rules. Deontologists consult the

Categorical Imperative, in which “it is necessary to always follow the same rule in ethical

decision making” (Donlevy & Walker, 2011, p. 23), which could refer to the Charter, the

Education Act, and/or the ATA’s Code of Conduct. In the case of a decision to post potentially

defamatory material online, a deontologist may ask, “to whom or to what do I owe a duty in this

decision?” with regard to the teaching profession’s adherence to affiliated legal texts.

Similarly, a teacher’s decision to post misinformation, while reflecting poorly on the

profession and thus violating Code 18 of the Code of Conduct, can also be considered in light of

relational reciprocity, and through that, Postmodern and Virtue Ethics. Relational reciprocity

asks us to make ethical decisions with “respect for ourselves as leaders and as persons” while

affording equal “respect and dignity to those persons involved, implicated, or affected by our

decisions” (Donlevy & Walker, 2011, p. 229). Thus, it is critical that teachers follow Code 5, 12,

13, and 16. Additionally, the ATA’s Declaration of Rights and Responsibilities states that

teachers have the right to “criticize educational programs” with the responsibility “to do so in a

professional manner” (4). Public social media posts do not account for professional channels of

complaint, nor do they reflect professionalism and respect for students or colleagues.

Lastly, Virtue Ethics is concerned with character as opposed to a particular decision and

considers practical wisdom in the making of a given decision. “A decision made with practical

wisdom is made with eyes wide open to all the pre-existing elements, the contextual factors, and

the consequences to those affected with the decision” (Donlevy & Walter, 2011, p. 22). A

teacher must consider the potential harms of slander and defamation, particularly of their
 9

students in any context, especially a social media post that has the potential to be made public

and permanent.

Principle 5: A teacher should ask themselves, before posting something to social media, whether

the content of their post upholds the credibility of themselves as a person and educator, as well as

the credibility of the profession. This iteration of the principle of credibility is concerned with the

issue of plagiarism or otherwise misrepresenting another's work as one’s own.

Credibility is concerned with trust, thus, when a teacher is considering credibility as it

relates to a social media post, they should consider whether it maintains trust in their position as

an educator, and the profession as a whole. Plagiarism is a surefire way to undermine trust in

both. Working with Virtue Ethics, where the understanding of credibility when it comes to

accurately representing work is formed throughout a person’s life, the thing to note is respect and

relational reciprocity (Walker & Donlevy, 2006, p. 231). As discussed in previous principles, a

teacher should make decisions with consideration about the possible consequences for both

themselves and others (Donlevy & Walker, 2011). The decision to directly plagiarize work, or

otherwise misrepresent another's work as one's own, demonstrates a lack of respect and relational

reciprocity: would you want your own work copied and not credited properly? This

understanding of respect for oneself and others is made explicit in the profession by the ATA’s

Declaration of Rights and Responsibilities: “[teachers have the right to] adhere to and to expect

other members to adhere to the organization’s code of professional conduct” (2018b).

This principle of credibility is also tied to both the conduct of teachers, and what is taught

to students. In relation to conduct of teachers, this can be connected most clearly to the ATA’s

Code of Conduct 18, which has been discussed previously, and 19, which highlights how
 10

teachers should refrain from activities that are detrimental to the quality of service (2018a). In

the Ministerial Order on Student Learning, the second Outcome for Learning is character

development (Government of Alberta, 2020, p. 2). This outcome includes the development of

qualities, such as honesty, integrity, truth, and commitment to the common good (Government of

Alberta, 2020, p. 2). Considering that this outcome is a component of a legal document in

relation to the standards of the teaching profession, teachers have a responsibility in the

deontological sense to uphold those qualities in themselves in order to authentically model them

to students.

Conclusion

When teachers are considering whether or not to post something to social media, the set

of five principles stated above regarding professionalism, dignity and rights of all persons,

confidentiality and privacy, misrepresentation and defamation, and credibility and plagiarism,

should always be considered. The ATA’s Code of Professional Conduct is essential for

understanding that teachers have an obligation to the profession both on- and off-duty. As well,

the Ethical Schools of Thought; Deontological Ethics, Virtue Ethics, and Teleological

(Utilitarianism) Ethics can guide teachers through deciding whether what they want to post on

social media meets the ethical codes and standards of the profession.
 11

References

Alberta Education. (2020). Teaching Quality Standard. https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/14d92858-

fec0-449b-a9ad-52c05000b4de/resource/afc2aa25-ea83-4d23-a105-

d1d45af9ffad/download/edc-teaching-quality-standard-english-2020.pdf

Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA). (2018a). Code of Professional Conduct.

https://www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/Publications/Teachers-as-

Professionals/IM-4E%20Code%20of%20Professional%20Conduct.pdf

Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA). (2018b). Declaration of Rights and Responsibilities for

Teachers.

https://www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/Publications/Teachers-as-

Professionals/IM-5E%20Declaration%20of%20Rights.pdf

Donlevy, J. K., & Walker, K. (2011). Working Through Ethics in Education and Leadership.

BRILL. https://brillcom.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/view/title/37858

Government of Alberta Department of Education. (2020). Ministerial order on student learning.

https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/270e1a34-3338-461d-b761-

c761f943fa2d/resource/5a510797-645e-419f-acbd-6a9dfdb41cd0/download/edc-mo-28-

2020-student-learning.pdf

Pridgen v. University of Calgary, 2010 ABQB 644 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/2cxd9>

Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15, 1996 CanLII 237 (SCC), [1996] 1 SCR 825,
 12

<https://canlii.ca/t/1frbr>

Walker, K. D., & Donlevy, J. K. (2006). Beyond Relativism to Ethical Decision Making.

Journal of School Leadership, 16(3), 216–239.

https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460601600301

Young, D. (2017). Education Law in Canada: A Guide for Teachers and Administrators. Irwin

Law.

https://ucalgaryprimo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/1vibdgm/TN_cdi_cel_books

_479262.