The identified article emanates from the ethics of freedom of thought and expression. Allowing students to explore divergent, possibly antithetical points of view on a single issue is synonymous with allowing them to discard these views and arguments which they, as individuals, find unpersuasive and search for those which are more consistent with their own thoughts. Its ethical rationale further emanates from that set of precepts which dictate the imperatives of directing ad guiding students towards the exploration of multiple viewpoints both as a strategy for the development of critical thinking skills and as a means for providing them with the means by which they may formulate their own, independent, points of view (Fullan, 22007).
Upon violating the said student right, teachers are not simply engaging in the violation of the Code but are undermining the very basis upon which creative and critical thought, on the one hand, are based, and that which the capacity to engage in freedom of expression is predicated upon, on the other (Fullan, 2007). The implication here is that not only are teachers violating their profession's espoused code of ethics but, in so doing, are stilting their intellectual curiosity and constraining their potential capacities for creativity. Accordingly, the violation of Article 3(a) of the code has far-reaching repercussions, both as regards individual students and society as a whole.
Given the societal and student-centered consequences of violation, violators/professional teachers are confronted with disciplinary action should they "unreasonably deny a student access to diverse points of view" (The Code of Ethics, 3a). To ensure, however, that teachers/professional educators are fully cognizant of their responsibilities and are knowledgeable of student rights, on 25 September 1991, the ESC unanimously voting that training in the code and principles be required of all preservice teacher education programs and be included as a component of the Professional Orientation Program. The commission also made recommendations related to giving publicity to the code and principles and offering technical assistance to school districts for training of educators (Fullan, 1992, Haynes, 1998). The recommendations approved by the full commission directed the ESC and its staff to (a) produce a videotape about the code and principles for district use in training of personnel, (b) develop and disseminate a brochure about the code and principles to students in preservice education and educators already in service, (c) develop a document summarizing cases related to each principle, and (d) provide training and materials to district personnel who will be providing inservice to educators within the district. All of these efforts focused on providing information and education to school personnel about the code and principles which govern their profession (Fullan, 1992).
The EPC formed a rules committee during 1992 to examine the feasibility of establishing penalty guidelines based on past cases and penalties to assist teacher and administrator panels in their deliberations. During the public hearing held at the EPC meeting in Tampa on October 1, 1992, the committee reported its preliminary findings. Several commission members noted the committee only examined cases and