“I don’t get no respect!” was the catchphrase of famous American comedian and actor Rodney Dangerfield. He died in 2004. The phrase lives on — for Kansas teachers.

The Kansas school finance bill signed April 21 ended the mandatory due-process required before experienced teachers could be fired. No respect.

When a rookie teacher just out of college begins teaching their first several years, a school could always say goodbye and not renew the contract—no reason given. But after three or more years in a district, the school has had plenty of time to assess a teacher’s professional skills. Thereafter, a teacher had some job security as a professional, and due process was required, a status often called “tenure.”

But it never guaranteed a job forever. When No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was mandated over a decade ago, some Kansas schools threw all of their resources into teaching-to-the-tests. Many art and music classes were discontinued. Those veteran “tenured” teachers lost their jobs. No respect.

And it always took competent administrators to get rid of an incompetent teacher. If they somehow do not catch incompetence in the first three years, it can still be documented later. But now teachers are forever “rookies.” No respect.

If an administrator does dismiss an incompetent teacher, that administrator needs a competent replacement waiting in the wings. That talent is now going to become harder to find.

And it can be worse. In eight other states, if students’ scores on external assessment tests decline for two years in a row, a veteran teacher can be fired. No respect.

It is not just legislators and administrators who lack respect for our profession. Disrespect has been growing in American culture for decades.

In 1962, in Anti-intellectualism in American Life, author Richard Hofstadter described our growing public disdain for intellect and our shallow preference for mundane job training.

In 2000, in An Elusive Science, Ellen Condliffe Lagemann detailed our growing disrespect for teachers, and how “antieducationism has helped to undermine the effectiveness of all aspects of education.” This was made clear in our Kansas bill that has also relaxed licensing requirements, allowing districts to hire folks without any teacher training to teach math, engineering, science, technology, finance and accounting. Again, no respect.

Our governor defended this action, according to news reports: “What if you can bring a retired heart doctor into the classroom to teach biology now, which you couldn’t before? And what can that teacher do and inspire and instruct that you couldn’t do before?” —Well, a heart doctor would not know botany and molecular biology and microbiology and ecology for starters.

And Kansas needs over 700 fully-educated biology teachers in our classrooms. But you can count the number of “retired heart doctors” who would want to work a year in a Kansas public school classroom on one hand—and have five fingers left over. Our Governor’s example is unreal. But the attitude is clear. Trained teachers get no respect.

I leave for China May 20. They will be aghast at this Kansas action. Whenever I walk into a classroom to lecture in China, everyone stands up. If I sit with the headmaster at the back of a class, both of us stand along with the students when the teacher enters the room. It makes the hair stand on the back of your neck to feel this respect. Respect that teachers deserve. There is no way I can explain to them the disgraceful way Kansas is treating our teachers today.

My job includes recruiting excellent college biology students into secondary biology teaching in Kansas. Before NCLB, I could persuade them to enter teaching where they could ride the wave of science discovery and enjoy translating new developments to their students with labs and fieldwork. But when many Kansas school districts canceled labs and field trips and turned science teaching into test drillwork, new licenses in science teaching across Kansas dropped to one-fourth pre-1999 levels. This generation of college students is looking to other fields for decent pay—and for respect.

With little protection from arbitrary dismissal, it would be unwise for any new teacher to buy a house—they should probably always rent.

Our legislators will probably get the teachers they deserve. But our future children deserve better.

Rodney Dangerfield lives on for every Kansas teacher remaining today: “We do not get any respect!”

What’s left to say about the ugly, racist views of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling and the vocal reactions to his comments?

Well, from a First Amendment free expression perspective, several things — some of which may well resonate even longer than Sterling’s repugnant remarks and the lifetime ban imposed on him by Adam Silver, commissioner of the National Basketball Association.

Sterling’s views came to light via a “leaked” audiotape given to a relatively new kind of news media, TMZ.com, which is positioned somewhere between a host of serious news media outlets and a long line of popular and widely read Hollywood gossip columns and magazines.

Not long ago, a digital media outlet like TMZ.com — and online phenoms such as Twitter and Facebook — would not have been able to create the kind of national discussion and rhetorical firestorm that followed the first TMZ.com reports of Sterling’s private-remarks-made-public.

But no longer.

A Pew Research Center’s journalism report on the State of the News Media 2014 found that “digital players have exploded onto the news scene, bringing technological knowhow and new money and luring top talent. BuzzFeed, once scoffed at for content viewed as ‘click bait,’ now has a news staff of 170.”

The Sterling incident was yet another example of what the First Amendment’s protection of speech is all about. The amendment restrains government from controlling or punishing most kinds of speech. But nothing in the 45 words shielded the billionaire from public revulsion over his views, suspended endorsement deals, instant campaigns to boycott Clipper tickets and a $2.5 million fine.

The widespread criticism of Sterling echoed earlier public revulsion over negative racial comments by Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who attracted national attention about the same time as Sterling.  Welcome to another aspect of free speech protected by the First Amendment: the “marketplace of ideas.”

The amendment’s guarantee of freedom to speak one’s mind without government restriction or penalty doesn’t bring with it any assurance the speaker will find acceptance or be insulated from critics and negative public reaction. That particular civics lesson rings true across the political spectrum and over the last decade and more.

Still, some people are confused over what the First Amendment does and does not do. Witness what a CBS Radio report datelined from Charlotte, N.C., called a “Twitter firestorm” following the NBA sanctions against Sterling.

“I guess Donald Sterling is not allowed to use his First Amendment rights,” said one post attributed to “Joey Bag O’ Donuts.”

Calling the NBA sanctions “ridiculous,” another tweet, attributed to “Zac Palmer” asked, “Are we just taking his First Amendment rights away?”

Sterling may attempt some legal action against the person who made the tape — presumably without his knowledge. But that would be a civil lawsuit, likely involving state privacy laws in California where the tape is said to have been made. No First Amendment claim applies here — there is no government involvement. And for the record, there is no Fourth Amendment claim (unlawful search and seizure) either, for the same reason.

Owner groups govern their leagues but are not government. They are privately held associations, and when purchasing a team, that person or group agrees to abide by the association’s rules and regulations. In the NBA’s case, it’s Article 24(l) of the league’s constitution that empowered Silver to act in the “best interests of the Association.”

Silver said Sterling’s remarks were “contrary to the principles of inclusion and respect that form the foundation of our diverse, multicultural and multiethnic league.”

We’re more able to be heard and more likely to be heard by many in today’s digital world. But as Sterling and others have demonstrated all too well, we’re also more likely than ever to be held accountable by many for our views.

Or as one might tweet: “Freedom of speech works in both directions.”

Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Washington-based Newseum Institute and senior vice president of the Institute’s First Amendment Center. [email protected]