Judge Set to Decide Sullivan County Teacher’s Future
Bristol, Tenn. — A significant legal decision is on the horizon as Judge Katie Priester prepares to rule on the appeal of Matthew Hawn, a former social studies teacher from the Sullivan County school district. Hawn’s dismissal in 2021 after showing a contentious video to his class has sparked a heated debate, drawing attention from educators, parents, and community members alike.
The controversy began when Hawn, during one of his Contemporary Issues classes, played a video titled “White Privilege,” interpreted by Kyla Jenee Lacey. The video, punctuated with profanity, prompted a complaint, leading to Hawn’s eventual dismissal. Fast forward three years, and Hawn now seeks reinstatement and back pay for the period he has been out of work.
In this crucial hearing, two primary arguments have taken center stage: whether Hawn’s actions were insubordinate and if his dismissal was a justifiable response. Hawn’s attorney, Rick Colbert, firmly believes that his client’s actions did not constitute insubordination. Colbert argued that the dismissal was unjust, ill-considered, and conflicted with social studies standards and best practices.
“So, let’s not elevate his unintentional failure to completely mute every profane word in Ms. Lacey’s poem,” Colbert emphasized. He further asserted that the climate of fear created by such dismissals discourages teachers from addressing controversial topics, ultimately disadvantaging students. “The students are the losers when teachers become afraid to teach,” Colbert said.
On the flip side, Chris McCarty, representing the school system and Board of Education, painted a different picture. McCarty argued that Hawn did not provide other viewpoints for his students and repeatedly ignored directives from his superiors about classroom content.
“That’s why we’re here, your honor,” McCarty stated. “Not because of one incident. Not because of one quote, horrible thing. But because you have a teacher who believed and who still believes that he’s above the authority.” McCarty stressed the importance of maintaining educational standards, describing Hawn’s judgment as poor for not consulting other administrators or parents regarding his classroom content.
The hearing saw four witnesses taking the stand, including key figures involved in Hawn’s supervision and reprimand during the tumultuous 2020-2021 school year. One such witness, Brent Palmer, Supervisor of Curriculum Instruction in Secondary Education, recounted a specific incident from September 2020. Hawn had posted incorrect material to his personal finance course, which included the statement “white privilege is a fact.” Palmer intervened not to discipline but to provide guidance, emphasizing the district’s stance against profanity.
“In a professional world, we’re trying to teach students to become the citizens and people we want them to become to be successful in life,” Palmer testified. “Those are not words of young people who will become professionals in the society that we live in.“
The courtroom also heard from two experts in social studies education, including Vanderbilt education professor Andrew Hostetler. His review, commissioned by Hawn’s team, defended Hawn’s pedagogical approach. “Hawn’s view on white privilege is clear and ethically sound,” Hostetler stated.
McCarty did not shy away from questioning Hostetler’s stance on the necessity of censoring profanity in educational settings. Referencing an article by Ta-Nehisi Coates provided to students prior to the Lacey Poem, McCarty pressed on the issue of redaction. “I’m saying that’s something he did intentionally as an author, and redacting it completely changes his intended meaning,” Hostetler responded. “So, if the goal is around student learning, you can’t redact that stuff and expect students to learn what Ta-Nehisi Coates was trying to communicate.”
As these arguments and testimonies were heard, members of the audience reacted visibly, underscoring the emotionally charged nature of the case. Judge Priester, acknowledging the complexity and significance of the matter, expressed her intent to deliver a thoughtful and well-considered decision. She is expected to release her opinion within the next 60 days, aiming for a resolution by late October or early November.
