The court rejected plaintiff's vagueness challenge on the ground that his behavior "was sufficiently odd and suggestive that the ordinary person would know, in advance, that his image as an elementary school teacher would be gravely jeopardized." Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S. Ct. 1855, 1858, 75 L. Ed. Judge Milburn does not inquire into the motivation of the school board but rather bases his decision on the fact that Ms. Fowler's action in showing the film to her classes was not conduct protected by the First Amendment. 2d 15 (1974), the Court concluded that the term "such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service" was not an unconstitutionally vague standard for employee discharge. 2d 637 (1966) (sit-in by black students in "whites only" library was symbolic speech); West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 633-34, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 1183, 87 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969), has acknowledged that students and teachers do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Cited 6 times, 99 S. Ct. 1589 (1979) | Trial Transcript Vol. Id. 2d 842 (1974). Writing for the Court, Justice Harlan stated that "while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man's vulgarity is another's lyric. 1987) 105 Geller v. Markham, 635 F.2d 1027 (1980) 106 Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410 (1979) 108 Knight v. Board of Regents of University of State of New York, The basis for this action was that she had an "R" rated movie, Pink Floyd -- The Wall, shown to her high school students on the last day of the 1983-84 school year. She was discharged in July, 1984 for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher. The clerk who rented the "R" rated tape to Fowler told her that there was some nudity in the movie during a song called "Young Lust" and warned that she might wish to delete that section. Cited 533 times, 418 F.2d 359 (1969) | CO.. 319 U.S. 624 - BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery 418 U.S. at 409, 94 S. Ct. at 2730. Healthy case, involving actions by a teacher outside the school environment, must be viewed in light of the court's deference to the autonomy of school boards in regulating the educational process. 2d 49, 99 S. Ct. 1589 (1979)). Healthy standard, a public employee establishes a prima facie case of a constitutional violation if she shows that she was engaged in protected activity, and that such activity was a substantial or motivating factor in the decision to terminate her employment. $('span#sw-emailmask-5383').replaceWith(''); v. DOYLE. Joint Appendix at 83-84. The Mt. Under the circumstances of that case, the court concluded that plaintiff's discharge was not constitutionally offensive. . See generally Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603, 17 L. Ed. She has lived in the Fowler Elementary School District for the past 22 years. Similarly, in Wishart v. McDonald, 500 F.2d 1110 (1st Cir. Cited 3021 times. Similarly, in Wishart v. McDonald, 500 F.2d 1110 (1st Cir. . 2d 775 (1977); diLeo v. Greenfield, 541 F.2d 949 (2d Cir. Fowler was unfamiliar with the movie and asked the students whether it was appropriate for viewing at school. Davis stated that the school's indifference and lack of preventative action of sexual harassment towards her daughter by another student hindered her daughter's educational rights as guaranteed by Title IX of the Education Amendments . On its distinctive facts, Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky' is almost ideally suited as a vehicle for reexamining some of the "deeper" issues associated with the in-school speech of public high school teachers in particular and with free speech law in general. appellant's activity was roughly simultaneous with and concededly triggered by the Cambodian incursion and the Kent State tragedy, also issues of great public moment . Healthy City School Dist. Cited 305 times. NO. Id. The court noted that " [t]he evidence indicates that there was serious misconduct of an immoral and criminal nature and a direct connection between the misconduct and the teachers' work." Cited 630 times, 94 S. Ct. 2727 (1974) | As we have noted, the "R" rated movie was shown on a noninstructional day to students in Fowler's classes in grades nine through eleven who were of ages ranging from fourteen through seventeen. The board viewed the movie once in its entirety and once as it had been edited in the classroom. . 1098 (1952). Joint Appendix at 83-84. 63 S. Ct. 1178 (1943) | Furthermore, Fowler never at any time made an attempt to explain any message that the students might derive from viewing the movie. Mrs. Peggy Eastburn appellant's activity was roughly simultaneous with and concededly triggered by the Cambodian incursion and the Kent State tragedy, also issues of great public moment. A flag bearing a peace symbol and displayed upside down by a student today might be interpreted as nothing more than bizarre behavior, but it would have been difficult for the great majority of citizens to miss the drift of appellant's point at the time that he made it. Plaintiff cross-appeals from the holding that K.R.S. These cases are based upon the notion that teaching is a form of activity protected by the First Amendment. . Sec. That method was to use sexual innuendo and sexually explicit material, some profane language, violence, and vulgar images, to tell the story of the film. The inculcation of these values is truly the "work of the schools.". v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL. The accommodation of these sometimes conflicting fundamental values has caused great tension, particularly when the conflict arises within the classroom. She argued that the statute governing her demotion, which required teachers to maintain discipline and encourage morality, failed to give adequate notice that her conduct was a ground for discipline. When Fowler had the movie shown on the morning of May 31, 1984, she instructed Charles Bailey, the fifteen-year-old student who had seen the movie, to edit out any parts that were unsuitable for viewing at school. Defendants, The Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky, individual board members, and the Superintendent of the Lincoln County Schools, appeal from the judgment of the district court awarding reinstatement and damages to plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler on the ground that her employment was terminated in violation of her First Amendment rights. Healthy, 429 U.S. at 282-84, 97 S. Ct. at 573-74. 2d 842, 94 S. Ct. 2727 (1974). Ala. 1977) ("immorality" standard not vague as applied to teacher discharged for making sexual advances toward his students). Trial Transcript Vol. Cited 6992 times, 91 S. Ct. 1780 (1971) | of Educ., 431 U.S. 209, 231, 97 S. Ct. 1782, 52 L. Ed. "Consciously or otherwise, teachers demonstrate the appropriate form of civil discourse and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class. 2d 471 (1977), as suggested by Judge Merritt's dissent, particularly when viewed in the context of the post-Mt. The Court in the recent case of Bethel School Dist. District Court Opinion at 23. 393 U.S. 503 - TINKER v. DES MOINES SCHOOL DIST.. 408 U.S. 104 - GRAYNED v. CITY OF ROCKFORD. 5. Assuming that the school board could have properly discharged Mrs. Fowler for poor judgment and lack of remorse in showing an "R-rated" movie which had short scenes depicting nudity and sexual foreplay, but not for the other reasons given, this case must be decided under the "mixed-motive" analysis of Mt. denied, 411 U.S. 932, 93 S. Ct. 1899, 36 L. Ed. The evidence in Wood established that the teachers had been smoking marijuana with two fifteen-year-old students in the teachers' apartment. 397 (M.D. Inescapably, like parents, they are role models." One particularly controversial segment of scenes is animated in which flowers appear on the screen, are transformed into the shape of male and female sex organs and then engage in an act of intercourse. Joint Appendix at 129-30. Ms. Montoya is a product of the public k16+ education system and a graduate of Arizona State University currently finishing a masters at Penn State. Cited 61 times. The board viewed the movie once in its entirety and once as it had been edited in the classroom. Ala. 1970), is misplaced. See, e.g., Mt. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions. . It is not a principle designed to convert into a constitutional dilemma the practical difficulties in drawing . 1980) ("conduct unbecoming an officer" standard gave notice that reckless gunplay was subject to discipline); Kannisto v. San Francisco, 541 F.2d 841, 844-45 (9th Cir. What one judge sees as "gross and bizarre," another may find, as did District Judge Scott Reed below, mild and not very "sexually suggestive.". See also Ambach, 441 U.S. at 76-77, 99 S. Ct. at 1594-95. This segment of the film was shown in the morning session. The clerk who rented the "R" rated tape to Fowler told her that there was some nudity in the movie during a song called "Young Lust" and warned that she might wish to delete that section. Joint Appendix at 265-89. Healthy City School Dist. 2d 842 (1974) (per curiam) (display of flag with peace symbol attached was expressive conduct entitled to protection under First Amendment); Tinker, 393 U.S. at 505, 89 S. Ct. at 736 (wearing black armband was conduct akin to pure speech); Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131, 141-42, 86 S. Ct. 719, 724, 15 L. Ed. In Minarcini, this court held that this "right to know" was violated by the removal of library books solely on the basis of the social and political tastes of the school board. The district court found that the movie "contains a very limited amount of material which is sexually suggestive," that the movie does not contain "any 'simulation' of a sexual act," and that "any scenes involving nudity or suggestive conduct were edited from the view of students" during both showings. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the importance of the exercise of First Amendment rights in the context of public schools. He did so by attempting to cover the 25" screen with an 8 1/2" by 11" letter-sized file folder. Judge Milburn does not inquire into the motivation of the school board but rather bases his decision on the fact that Ms. Fowler's action in showing the film to her classes was not conduct protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, I would affirm the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Stachura v. Truszkowski, 763 F.2d 211, 215 (6th Cir. Moreover, even these three justices explicitly noted that the decision regarding this right did not extend to the classroom. Moreover, there was a direct connection between this misconduct and Fowler's work as a teacher. However, I conclude that Fowler's conduct in having the movie shown under the circumstances present here did not constitute expression4 protected by the First Amendment.5 It is undisputed that Fowler was discharged for the showing of the movie, Pink Floyd -- The Wall. Id. 161.790(1) (b), which proscribes "conduct unbecoming a teacher," is unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute failed to give notice that her conduct would result in discipline. It is undisputed that the audio portion of the movie, which contained enough offensive language to mandate an automatic "R" rating under motion picture industry standards, was played through the entire movie. DIST. On the afternoon of May 31, 1984, Principal Jack Portwood asked Fowler to give him the video tape, and she did so. He did so by attempting to cover the 25"' screen with an 8 1/2"' by 11"' letter-sized file folder. After the movie was viewed by the superintendent and members of the Lincoln County Board of Education, proceedings were instituted to terminate Fowler's contract. See also Board of Education v. McCollum, 721 S.W.2d 703 (Ky.1986) (upholding discharge for conduct unbecoming a teacher when teacher filed false affidavit regarding sick leave and lied about time spent with student in course of special home instruction program). 2d 261 (1977) ("But our cases have never suggested that expression about philosophical, social, artistic, economic, literary, or ethical matters--to take a nonexhaustive list of labels--is not entitled to full First Amendment protection."). The plurality opinion of Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 102 S. Ct. 2799, 73 L. Ed. Cited 673 times. Cited 656 times, BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, KY Teacher's showing of Pink Floyd: The Wall was not connected with the curriculum. Sec. 598 F.2d 535 - CARY v. BD. She introduced a controversial and sexually explicit movie into a classroom of adolescents without preview, preparation or discussion. It is not a principle designed to convert into a constitutional dilemma the practical difficulties in drawing statutes both general enough to take into account a variety of human conduct and sufficiently specific to provide fair warning that certain kinds of conduct are prohibited. In Spence, the undisputed facts established that the appellant hung a United States flag with a peace symbol affixed to it because he "wanted people to know that [he] thought America stood for peace." " Arnett, 416 U.S. at 161, 94 S. Ct. at 1648 (quoting Meehan v. Macy, 392 F.2d 822, 835 (D.C. Cir. Safe Return to In-Person Instruction and Continuity Plan, Maintenance, Operations and Transportation & Facilities, Advancing Academic Achievement (AAA) Days. Healthy case, involving actions by a teacher outside the school environment, must be viewed in light of the court's deference to the autonomy of school boards in regulating the educational process. See Schad v. Mt. There is no support for the proposition--nor does the school board argue--that a teacher's academic freedom or a student's right to hear may be abridged simply because a school board dislikes the content of the protected speech. 1628 (1943) (flag salute is a form of expression); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 368-69, 51 S. Ct. 532, 535-36, 75 L. Ed. Moreover, there was a direct connection between this misconduct and Fowler's work as a teacher. ET AL. ), aff'd en banc, 138 U.S. App. In the present case, it is undisputed that plaintiff's employment was terminated because she had the "R" rated movie shown to her students and because she said she would do it again. She did not preview the movie, despite the fact that she had been warned that portions were unsuitable for viewing in this context.