"Distributing that document was sort of a public service," Jensen said, emphasizing that his actions were to inform about the administration's influence on the curriculum and grading.
"The administration gets a say on what's going on in the classroom, what the curriculum is, how you grade; then that balance is removed," Jensen expressed, suggesting a risk of corruption in academic integrity.
Jensen’s attorney, Daniel Ortner, stated that "merely passing out material when your superior doesn't want you to is not insubordination under this court's precedent," defending Jensen’s actions as protected speech.
After the hearing, Jensen remarked on the administration's goals, asserting that they prioritize graduating more students over maintaining academic standards, potentially harming educational quality.
Collection
[
|
...
]