Barbara Susan Papish v. The Board of Curators of the University of Missouri

OOSTERHOUT, Before VAN Senior Judge, and STE- Circuit and ROSS PHENSON, Judges. Circuit Judge. STEPHENSON, Circuit “rights” case. This is student yet example provides aginative im- another litigation in this extensive purpose to have as area which seems judicial plenary over- the sight attainment tax-sup- of the administration In the ported educational institutions.1 1971)], (CA10 years, Flake, cam 1. In recent the federal 448 F.2d courts have pus [see, g., v. e. Esteban with an demonstrations inundated of stu avalanche College, dealing F.2d dent State lawsuits with Central Missouri such issues style 1969), (CA8 398 U. regulations [see, g., certiorari denied hair Torvik e. Community Schools, L.Ed.2d v. Decorah 453 F.2d S. Kauffman, (CA8 ; Bishop Soglin 1972) Colaw, F.2d [see, publications (CA8 1971) ; (CA7 1969)], student F.2d 1069 and Freeman v. present the con- missions as an educational insti- thе issue arises dismissal, purpose service tution. For that students are text of after a student accepted charges required generally observe after a full and of written hearing, standards of conduct. Obstruction fair of Universi- violation University teaching, research, ty admin- rule of conduct. activities, istration or other indecent I speech, comply conduct or failure to dispute. Barbara not in The facts are requests officials 32-year-old gradu- Papish, Susan then performance in the of their duties and University of Mis- ate student2 in the city, violations of the laws of the state Journalism, Columbia souri School nation, examples are 1969, 6, campus, was, dismissed on June which would contravenе this standard. 26, University, March from the effective (Emphasis supplied). 1969, ground violated on she the applies of “This standard forms to all By- paragraph V of the B of Article reg- activity, student conduct and and University’s Board of Cura- Laws of the full istration as a student constitutes reads, pertinent tors. in Article acceptance the stand- fundamental part, as follows: ard of con- as well as other standards may adopted imple- duct enrolling “Paragraph B: Students mentation of this standard.” obligation University

the assume an University expected and are dismissal, At the time of her Miss themselves a manner Papish disciplinary3 and on University’s patible functions with 4 probation. academic g., Discipline e. Norton Cоmmittee of Schools, Georgetown 37 Law Journal 59 University, East Tennessee 419 F State Haskell, (1970) Re- and P. G. Judicial (CA6 1969), .2d 195 certiorari denied 399 Discipline, 21 West- view of School Case 906, 2191, 562, L.Ed.2d 90 S.Ct. 26 211 Law Review ern-Reserve Education, and Scoville v. Board of 425 Papish’s speaker academic record reveals (CA7 1970)], Miss F.2d 10 bans complete the re- g., University, that she was no rush to [see, e. Brooks v. Auburn degree quirements graduate for her (CA5 1969)], recognition 412 F.2d 1171 possesses Journalism. a 1958 academ- organizations [see, g., She of student e. Amer University degree ic necticut; from the of Con- Virginia, ican Civil Liberties Union graduate was admitted Univei'sity College, F.Supp. she Inc. v. 893 Radford 315 of Missouri school at September 1963; Va.1970)], WD access tо the student although at- and she Regents, paper [see, g., e. Lee v. Board of fall, through winter, and (CA7 1971)], alleged tended school 441 F.2d 1257 years was, semesters, after 6 ly regulations summer overbroad student conduct any, significant work, making little, if g., Bashful, [see, F.Supp. e. French v. 303 progress her curiam, toward the achievement (ED La.1969), per 1333 aff’d objective. time At (CA5 1970) stated academic F.2d 182 Barker v. Papish dismissal, was enrolled Hardway, (SD of her W.Va. “Research course entitled in a one-hour 1968), per curiam, aff’d F.2d 638 course and in a three-hour (CA4 1968) Journalism” certiorari 394 U.S. denied In the semester ‍​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‍4.” entitled “Ceramics immediately preceding 905, 1009, 22 L.Ed.2d Ad 217]. 89 S.Ct. dismissal, she her ditionally, recently with this court dealt only in “Ceramics 3.” was enrolled self-рroclaimed a in which homo case employment a tax- sexual was denied at Faculty 1967, Com- 3. On November supported University. v. An McConnell Conduct, after notice of on mittee Student (CA8 1971), derson, certi F.2d hearing, placed charges orari denied 405 U.S. 92 S.Ct. probation disciplinary remain- for the on (1972). The forerunner 31 L.Ed.2d 588 at the status Univer- der of her student is, course, Tinker v. Des these cases sity. probation for her The basis Community Independent Moines School general of stu- standard violation of District, V and in Article embodied dent conduct (1969) L.Ed.2d a case from this cir arose text. This action forth in the set analysis cuit. For an exhaustive place on October events which took out of cases, principally, and other see P. G. Expression Haskell, in the Student Public campus significance may proper on un- be sum- The facts regulations.”5 By existing rules letter under der marized as follows. Pap- From the verified 1969 Miss affidavit date of March given ish it is Dean of Students revealed that notice “ charged she was a member of the staff [she] with newspa- Underground’, ‘Free Press per published by “violating on, February Free the Columbia about Missouri, Corporation, non-profit corpo- Columbia, Press organized ration under the laws General Standard of Conduct Student V, A Missouri. The ‘Free Press as set forth in Article Sections Under- ground’, published By-Laws which has and B of of the Board of your- by failing since disseminates news Curators to conduct opinion compatible interest Uni- self in a manner about versity, and missions as local and world affairs. functions generally institution, paper monthly published fol- an educational during year, lowing particulars: the school and is distrib- campus ánd uted on the you on a while were status “[t]hat permission dis- elsewhere. Written disciplinary probation you distributed paper campus tribute was ob- or aided in distribution tained from Business Officer IV, 3, February No. Volume 1969 edi- University April 30, the in on ac- Underground tion of the Free Press regulations.6 University cordance with containing speech, forms of indecent February 16, 1969, campus University on of of num- the the “On I and a knowledge Columbia, part with ber of other students took the Missouri — IV, publication, of the contents of the and distribution of Volume Feb- No. knowledge ruary with that Dean of Stu- the 1969 edition the ‘Free Press Underground’ previously campus had dents declared the on the Columbia appearing, speech, University, forms therein Me- the front the indecent, Although disrup- im- and distribution thereof morial Union. no University by at a time when the be evidenced the and such work hosting high presentation completion and their was school seniors several and parents acquainting purpose completed chapters for the to her thesis advisor programs By them with its educational and letter the end of the semester. aspects specifi- campus January 31, other life. She dated cally charged, alia, openly comply inter with notified that her failure to with distributing, grounds, special on with- within the time this condition permission appropriate specified the out Uni- result the termina- would versity personnel, non-University pub- candidacy graduate two tion of her for a de- gree. Democratic lications of the Students Society alleged (SDS). no- It was the A Section of Article V reads as follows charges, apparently and established tice of body of “The student hearing, ensuing one at comprised of all of Missouri shall Notes, publications, con- the New Left presently or hereinafter enrolled stu- “pornographic, and ob- tained indecent subject dents. Such students are s___,’ words, ‘f___,’ ‘bull scene may classifications, as be established ‘sh__s.’” charges also re- The notice of President, time time from publication, The CIA cites that the other Curators, shall be sub- the Board of College: Twilight Back, con- at Into rules, regula- ject ordinances, such pic- pornographic tained and indecent “a may as now be tion restrictions apparently depicting forni- ture two rats from time to or hereafter established * * cating on cover the President or time established prior 4. Some two to the incident weeks Board of Curators.” causing dismissal, ap- placed probation regarding on academic because of 6. This contention prolonged submarginal progress. supported by stipulation proval academic is probation parties. It was a condition this thesis, satisfactory pursue work on her matters, jury and similar of the oc- tion functions of the ‘Motherf..... distri- was headlined connection curred subject Acquitted.’ the article newspaper, three I and bution Morea, group in Ben leader of involved were who other students Lower called arrested, New York’s ‘Up East Side were its distribution Against Wall, Mother- University.7 instigation of the f.....’, ‘The also known February edition “The group is Motherf.....s’. This Underground’ contained ‘Free Press organization purportedly dedicated University lat- two features poor people to the self-defense ‘indecent’. were cоntended er police harass- and bureaucratic political car- duplicated a front cover headline, . ‘Motherf. . . ment. The February appeared in the toon intended to describe Acquitted’, was Movement’, a lib- ‘The 1969 edition of organizational Morea’s affiliation. paper circulation. of national eral context, which have been should helmetted, club- The cartoon shows readers, the word our understood raping wielding Statue policemen absolutely has ‘Motherf.....’ Liberty of Justice. the Goddess no sexual or indecent connotations.” captioned ‘. The cartoon (Emphasis supplied). Liberty To All.’ and Justice With me, Papish was af- On March symbolizes depicts cartoon hearing by Conduct forded a the Student brutality. evils authoritarian charges stated in the Committee on the in the ‘Free in an article As I said made March letter. The Committee might Underground’, ‘Someone Press finding Papish, general that Miss the cover of consider the cartoon distributing February 1969 edition “vulgar”. not! It is issue Underground, of the Free Press violated comment a social obscene. But of student conduct standard concerning greater obscenity. Chi- prescribed by paragraph B of Article V cago obscene; nepalm cops is the are and decreed her dismissal effective greatest obscenity of 20th centu- appears date. from the Committee ry; feаr a who and administrators existing finding Papish’s then that Miss The different are also obscene.’ view disciplinary probation was a fac- status politi- purely is theme the cartoon ap- tor in its The decision was decision. cal, label- and the act of pealed first to the Chancellor of the Uni- po- ling viewed as ‘indecent’ can be it versity and then to the Board of Cura- censorship. (Emphasis sup- litical tors instance. Be- and affirmed each plied). her was effective cause dismissal made Papish as of denied March Miss was the issue “The second feature she credit a ceramics course which University objected was which the successfully completed subsequent conсerning acquittal of an article date, is to noted that she that but it young a trial for Yorker after a New also able to otherwise avoid the battery by means of a

assault and damaging consequence recordation dangerous weapon. article was The grade regard of “F” with to the oth- reprinted political newspaper, from a er course in which she was enrolled that article, the ‘New Left Notes’. trial, composi- term.8 which discussed the pending University specifically review attend it lor classes 7. denies post-hearing Papish charges. scho- “instigated” For her Miss arrests Papish, efforts, for her Miss but lastic and her fellow workers. grade dismissal, received the would have grade of Following hearing “B” Ceramics the Student before Committee, Papish in Research Journalism. obtained “F” Miss Conduct University permission Chancel- from the August brought Papish impermis- In 1969 Miss rators is invalid because it sibly vague language this action the United States District and because its potential Mis- sweeping Court for the Western District of demonstrates a against University improper applications posing souri Board substan- a University against deterring tial important Curators likelihood certain sought complaint officials. The declara- First Third, Amendment freedoms. tory injunctive pursuant Papish’s 42 contention relief is made that Miss jurisdictional U.S.C. 1983 and its residence is irrelevant to her § claim that counterpart, University 1343(3), 28 U.S.C. оn the officials acted in violation of § ground rights. Papish’s being her that Miss dismissal constitutional That so, University from the invalid under it said that the District Court finding the First and Fourteenth Amendments. erred in Papish that Miss precluded obtaining The District Court denied relief on the relief be- grounds (1) Papish cause, residency that Miss not due “does to her Connecticut federally protected right have possess federally a she did protected or other not right university to attend a state a state of attend not a appear, domiciled resident or Missouri.10 For reasons soon to (2) judgment citizen”9 and we that “the affirm of the District plaintiff Court, grounds for which she was but we dismissed do so depart protec- within reasoning First Amendment somewhat from the fol- tions.” experienced lowed v. Board Curators of the able and Dis- Judge (The Missouri, trict Honorable William H. (1971). Becker, court, Judge).11 In Miss Chief Papish mounts an attack on find- ings along principal First, three lines. II she asserts improp- that her dismissal is light In Papish’s er solely upon because it rests ac exer- difficulties, cogent argument ademic cise of freedoms which the first amend- guarantees. could be argued ment made to the effect that Second, we must it is paragraph ground dismiss this case on B of Article V of the by-laws has now become moot.12 As set forth Board of Cu- correct, affirmed, finding 9. The low is District must be Court made the al though upon lower court was a resident relied of Connectiсut wrong ground gave wrong at all times reason.” material to the events in liti- gation. Helvering Gowran, 238, 245, the view we take unnecessary 154, 158, we deem it 58 S.Ct. 82 L.Ed. 224 to comment fur- Allen, 443, 459, See Brown ther on this fact and its 344 U.S. relevance to Miss Papish’s (1953) ; 73 S.Ct. 97 L.Ed. constitutional claims. ‍​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‍Riley J. E. Investment Co. v. Commis foregoing claims, In addition to the Revenue, sioner of Internal Papish asserts the District Court’s (1940), 85 L.Ed. 36 influenced, partially least, decision was at Gypsum United States v.Co. Greif Broth by principles guidelines and set forth Cooperage Corporation, ers F.2d 389 in the Memorandum of Judicial Standards (CA8 1968). and Procedure Substance in Review of 12. The doctrine of re mootness Discipline Supported Student in Tax In judicial significant mains as a tool deal Highеr Education, stitutions of 45 F.R.D. ing subsequent with cases in which events (W.D.Mo.1968). An attack is then adjudication. See, remove the need for against validity pro directed example, Richardson, for Cole 397 U.S. by adopted cedures and, which these rules were (1970), L.Ed.2d well, against as the substance of the Richardson, and Cole v. 405 U.S. rules therein set forth. We do find (1972). 31 L.Ed.2d 593 S.Ct. support record for this contention. Ac Exchange also, Securities and Com See cordingly, express we no view on this mission v. Medical Committee for Human aspect argu Papish’s appellate of Miss Rights, 403, 406, 92 S.Ct. ment. (1972) and Roudebush L.Ed.2d 560 judicial Hartke, 15, 18, proceedings 11. “In the review of S.Ct. that, the rule is settled if the decision be- 31 L.Ed.2d Papish significant above, Papish was, a in the Janu- rеtains stake effective Miss same, litigation. ary 31, 1969, placed proba- this The outcome of on academic think, may by for the measure we said Universi- her failure to reason ty. legitimate maintain- up superior interest to academic standards Its ing gradu- regulatory for required pursuit measures of a reasonable of those in jeop- degree. all has been benefit of students ate good standing Her future as student a depend this ardized and weakened lawsuit. was .made For improved performance It a definitive answer. too deserves academic reasons, that upon concluded com- we have successful work towards pletion the case is not moot. of her thesis. far we are So record, from nei- able determine

ther Fur- condition has been fulfilled.13 Ill thermore, the Univer- Chancellor reject that We the contentions sity stated that Miss has affidavit pursuant which rule of conduct longer Papish eligible academically no Papish’s accom Miss dismissal was graduate to continue as a student plished on its face. is unconstitutional school for a or to remain as a candidate degree Thus, Master’s Journalism.14 points Papish Miss the discre- first persuaded even if we were that Miss discipline tion of officials to Papish prevail merits of should on the speech they or students whose conduct claims, appears constitutional that part rule, deem This indecent. she would not be Uni- re-admitted to the provides ad- asserts, versity quite for reasons dis- which are authority protect- ministrators to inhibit from led tinct the considerations which expression ed fears which the student being so, to her This dismissal. we "might” proscription. within its fall Papish’s must determine whether Miss effect, argued because the rule it is failure meet terms and conditions provide adequate notice as to fails to probation of her mooted academic has permissible speech what or the case.15 not, encour- and because it what ages arbitrary disciplinary and erratic There is one factor this case vague action, unconstitutionally it is finding weighs against mootness. such must be are told that excised. We that the We are told nothing “is less unbridled discretion pub- immediate events in issue attracted than an invitation to invidious censor- Although publicity. we lic attention ship the First and cannot stand under suspect did little to This and Fourteenth Amendments.” one, private keep this affair the fact type argument is not is not novel. that the incident received remains Cen- unlike in Esteban v. that advanced press Uni- ment in local and that the supra. College, tral Missouri State n. versity of letters and received hundreds We believe that court’s decision this telephone supportive of stand. calls disposition of these that case controls stigma arose Becausе said contentions here. There was repu- publicity to her attached basically tation, constitu- least a little “[There is] tionally there is at we believe that wrong flexibility finding colorable basis p. Appendix, 14. an affidavit sub- 52. The contains record journalism professor at the mitted question University. [to a] [s] “answer recites sncli affidavit in, alia, crucial, it is settled that federal well inter enrolled may only aof act in the context courts Research Journalism course in one-hour controversy.” justiciable Benton case or during and of her dismissal the semester' by 784, 788, finally Maryland, S.Ct. v. 395 89 U.S. not dismissed had (1969). 1969, 2056, 2059, 26, L.Ed.2d 23 707 March effective grade “F" thé of have received she would p. "Appendix, at in that course.

143 breadth, speech, prevention than metic- classes reasonable rather and college regulations punishment specificity, in ulous which has never been relating Certainly thought any to conduct. to raise Constitutional regulations compared problem are not to [that] [t]hese include They obscene, profane, are lewd belous, with criminal statute. and li general insulting ‘fighting’ which codes conduct those and the or qualified experienced very in the field and ut which their words—those punishment injury as have characterized not terance inflict or tend to incite process part an peace but as of the educational immediate breach preferably and be ex- [and itself as to that] has been well [i]t observed pressed spe- rather than that such utterances are no essential Id., part any exposition ideas, cific terms.” F.2d at 1088. 415 and slight are of such social value as a The rule of here is conduct attacked not step any to truth that benefit ambiguous. does, sure, invest to be may clearly be derived from them is flexibility officials with some outweighed by the social interest not, and But it as discretion. does morality.” Id., order pp. at 571- believe, Papish would in- have us invite (Footnotes at S.Ct. censorship. vidious standard con- omitted) .16 tained the rule restricts disciplining expressive administrators ‍​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‍to Chaplinsky Viewed from perspective, those situations where such a challenged provision the rule necessary preserve is course to en- permit arbitrary issue does not or hance the mis- function and sweeping infringement of constitution- sion an as educational Cer- institution. ally protected degree interests in together tainly language rule, necessary preserve appropriate an ed- governing with the standard embodied ucational environment. It does not con- therein, easily by any- can be understood upon University fer administrators vir- possesses intelligence one who tually power unbridled and absolute gain admission to an institu- accredited suppress impunity conduct or higher learning. view, tion of In our speech they deem distasteful. requires the Constitution no more. Rather, pur- the rule serves the narrow It is said that even if the is rule not pose authorizing punishment only unconstitutionally vague, overly it is engage speech those who in conduct or since, essentially, susceptible broad is detracts from effectiveness application speech or conduct that process the speech educational —conduct protected the First and Fourteenth University pur- that frustrates disagree. Amendments. We Since suit of mission an its function and Chaplinsky Hampshire, v. New 315 U.S. higher learning. institution It is this (1942), 86 L.Ed. 1031 S.Ct. objective and definite standard recognized it has been us, applied that, the rule is to be “[allowing scope validity of an saves its in the face over- broadest to the language express purpose lan- of the Four breadth attack. What the guage Amendment, teenth is well fails to the rule articulate under right necessarily being speech capable supplied stood that of free validity tempted not absolute at all times under student call its all question. requires Compliance circumstances into are cer [that] [t]here narrowly respect tain well-defined mon limited sense and minimal Gooding, Wilson, against statute, will See Warden v. a criminal courts ex scrutiny. 522-528, ercise a also Cohen U.S. 1109, 1106- stricter See (1972). 18-22, Gooding, California, L.Ed.2d 408 S.Ct. continuing vitality (1971) recognizing while 29 L.Ed.2d 284 United doctrine, 367, 376, 382, Chaplinsky O’Brien, holds States L.Ed.2d when overbreadth attack levied S.Ct. assume, sug legal point, others, aceu- This latter we is to rights not lawful gest inconsistency apparent that the men. dismissing Free her sale of the sufficiently appears it this record On Underground inviting Press the legitimate the furthers the rule that reading allegedly litera of other similar providing the or- University interest so unreasonable as to ture is unfair and fostering discipline to essential der and cognizable constitutionally constitute that learning process and an effective harm.18 freedoms on constitutional restriction its the greater to is essential is no than regard arguments Papish’s Miss interest. of that furtherance readily application to unconstitutional reduce themselves to contention that right express IV a controver- to she had point view, unpopular free sial and persuaded Miss are not We regulation University interfer- if rule Papish’s the that even contention partially that we With contention ence. agree. was disci under she face, it plined on its has is not void in unconstitutionally applied in this is no in this record But there evidence stance. University ap- to indicate that the so penalize plied to its rule of conduct as above, parties concede noted the As Papish advocacy ideas. Miss of her attempted sale17 it the Underground that was Nor does the evidence reveal that record produced that Frеe Press sought unsuccessfully permission to she disciplinary to which Miss action University publication sell her argues Papish excepts. that now She record does re- bookstores.19 What the newspaper and distributed sold application of to dis- rule flect cipline an Amendment her does not lose its First Papish for the manner Miss protection simply because contained rights. sought her which she exercise to any event, and, speech, she indecent to Given evidence the absence of record newspaper material denies contains sought, University indicate that “legally which can obscene.” be labeled any manner, the substantive to restrict publications as thе such She asserts that Underground message Press the Free attempted one at the cross she to sell conveyed, do not that we believe campus roads of the “create an educa Amendment has sustained First pro tionally stimulating atmosphere, University and did harm. rightfully regulate could encourage thought, de mote critical by which the means Finally, us bate.” that she informs sought views, espouse her but she to University permit bookstores the sale effectively repressing did so without nationally popular publications which vulgar ability passages. to the causes to contain erotic and advocate clearly inevitably more, reveal 17. lead to conclusion Tlie record does being University newspaper every “sold” whether that student should distributing material, he as to such or whether free distribute campus. charge. note, however, fit, in other areas of the it free of We sees price in newspaper has recites sales We believe cover authority impose $.15, re reasonable the Dean of Students herent and that copies. time, place purchase and manner his of several strictions as testified to sale or distribution. aspect Compare, Indeed, parties Geanakos, stipulated Papish’s argument, have Keefe granted permission (CA 1969), had 418 F.2d Underground Vought Schools, Free to sell Press Van Buren Public so, being (ED campus. publication That 1394-1396 Mich. reject upon 1969). import con- which to there is little basis We such entirely argument. would The mere fact the Uni clude campus versity permits distribution. ma close the door to the sale of certain not, bookstore does terial in its without sought profound dedication. be made redressable char- professed such underlying acterizing prohibi- factual events no constitutional know of We in constitutional hold that of Universi- terms. We precluding that course Amendment does not invali- ty the First regulatory action.20 of Miss date the dismissal express view as to whether no We Judge Papish, Chief Becker and that Underground ma- contained Free Press finding quite correct adjudged obscene be teriаls which can per judgment. University was entitled to legal contemporary stand- se under Affirmed. considera- we think that ards. Nor do dispo- particularly relevant to to be Judge (dissenting). ROSS, Circuit us. before sition of the narrow issue respectfully I is clear that dissent. It plays expression aware that free We are Papish was dismissed from the Miss University process. a in the democratic vital role finding because of a provision re- But no quires the Constitution cartoon, depicting helmeted, club-wield- high imposition a value of so ing raping policemen of Lib- Statue expression that it can on freedom of erty Justice, and the and the Goddess of to other interests never subordinated be headline, Aсquitted”, “Motherfucker as, example, conventions such objectionable mate- were obscene. This decency display lan- in the use and appeared in Press Under- the Free rial ground, guage pictures on cam- a publication which had been pus. compel not The does Constitution campus, on the Univer- distributed promote University to vernacular years. sity’s permission, for two almost gutter by allowing publica- such particular of this edi- The distribution pub- litigation one in to be tions as the licly however, tion, Papish, open cam- sold or distributed on its be in violation of the Board found to pro- pus, this court will now not by-law proscribing “indecent Curator’s pound publi- such rule. Whether such speech.” could or The conduct dismissal made in its cations must be available physical on the have been basis not properly issue be- bookstores an not resulting ’ption or disr disturbance fore us. distribution, it was admit- .lause The notion that courts should federal ted, by stipulation, that had been there cavalierly not in the internal interfere Rather, amply the record demon- none. colleges affairs of uni- this Nations’ disciplined strates that expression versities has found in earlier ' newspaper, rather for the content of decisions court. McConnell merely its distribution. than 1, supra-. Anderson, n. McConnellaccord- ingly held that we will not overturn trial found that the cartoon court obscene, аction administrators were were headline and the showing Papish, absence an “pandered” affirmative and were premised upon arbitrary, protected that it was first and therefore capricious Court, unreasonable or determina- In this amendments. fourteenth argue From we tion. what have said of Curators the- Board clear appearing that the action in this cartoon, the cover fairly appearing case cannot be headline, described as arbi- newspaper, and the together, sup- trary, capricious. page, unreasonable or taken on the second point fact, necessary cases, ply this is one of those connotations the erotic legally not at all under the unfamiliar in student-school obscene be considered litigation, disciplinary where v. United action re- See Roth Roth standard. sulting 476, 489, from crass and conduct is States, absurd (CD California, supra, pp. F.Supp. 20. Cf. District, Cohen v. Calif. 18- City Downey U.S., Board 1970), S.Ct. See also Baker Discipline (CD Education, Calif. Norton v. Committee of East University, 1, supra; 1969). Tennessee State n. Angeles City High Hatter v. Los School protection. It likewise has au is clear to me tional thority 1 L.Ed.2d regulate headline, alone dissemination and the that the cartoon speech together, forms of be characterized as or some cannot thing obscene, legally less than if action obscene. potential to or has the effect calculated hard-biting cartoon, social being disruptive of process. to the educational revolting persons, ment, may most In such a it is act certainly ob- cannot be considered but it dissemination, resulting disrup and the enunciated scene under the standards tion, solely rather than the content in an af- Supreme As court. stated disseminated, of the material which is profes- by an associate fidavit submitted regulation prohibiting For fensive. University, car- “[t]he sor of art at the valid, constitutionally such conduct to be biting question satirical de- is a toon in expression student’s interests free police piction view of of the artist’s outweighed by must be the brutality injustice. The obvious protecting interest its in educational against po- protest political theme is a process. See Board of Educa Scoville v. injustice police interference lice tion, 10, (7th Cir.), 425 F.2d 14 de cert. liberty.” nied, 826, 51, 91 S.Ct. 27 L.Ed. “motherfucker”, Likewise, the word (1970). Moreover, 2d 55 standard “the genre,1 in radical common modern the college of conduct im seeks to story as was in news the used pose ‘a must be one relevant to lawful conjure up question, erotic does not mission, process or function of edu thoughts Co- conduct. incestuous Cf. cational . .” Este institution’ . . California, 91 hen U.S. S. v. College, v. ban Central Missouri State (1971). In L.Ed.2d 284 Ct. Cohen, (8th 1969). F.2d Cir. Supreme Court held that constitutionally rea absence valid upon Draft” words “Fuck the written regulate speech conduct, sons or stu jacket, publicly displayed in a state expres dents freedom of are entitled to courthouse dren, front women and chil- sion of their v. Des views. Tinker protected was exercise Community Independent Moines Dist., School guaranteed speech” “freedom of 733, 21 S.Ct. held that not Court Constitution. L.Ed.2d 731 legally only expression not ob- was that scene, that the State Califor- “Obviously, but also one does ‍​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‍his not lose overriding justifiable no inter- nia had rights by first amendment matricula- regulating con- est in it as “offensive college. rights tion at a Those follow Certainly word, such duct.” through the classroom door one Undergrоund, Free Press used or . . And what more better great majority no comes as shock to place ideal is there for free discussion today’s youth; and the exchange ac- of ideas than validly over- to have an cannot be said halls?” Esteban v. Central ademic riding protecting justifiable interest supra, College, 415 F. Missouri State college-age exposure to it. students from 2d at 1085. Geanakos, v. F.2d Keefe Cf. argued fact Miss that the (1st 1969). Cir. distributing material “indecent” campus There is no sidewalks of the distin- doubt educational insti- authority legally guishes prohibit tution has from other methods this case exchange How- campus, of ideas. obscene material from its be- distribution ever, upon case, ar- this cаuse that material retains no the facts of constitu- being campus Young Old”, word, Litton, sold See that was “The Monthly (Sep. 1969), also The same article was Atlantic store. ior book etymology litigation subject Keefe the word. This article (1st 1969). Geanakos, by plaintiff F.2d 359 Cir. introduced as evidence of type literature', containing same gument disregards premise disruption or interference

touchstone is legitimate processes educational

with the University. must have There appre fear and more than “mere possible Est disturbance.” hension n College, State v. Central Missouri

eba 1087; supra, Tinker v. see 415 F.2d Community Independent Des Moines Dist., 393 U.S. at School Yet, record in this from the requisite dis

it cannot be said that the

ruption was imminent. wholeheartedly agree I that a

While discretion for- school has latitude and regulation

mulating stand- conduct, Mis-

ards Esteban Central College, supra, 415 F.2d at

souri State

1088, in a case where а student’s consti- rights being infringed,

tutional are regulations must re-

those rules and legitimate pro-

lated to the interests By

tecting process. dis- educational

missing for the reasons

gave, showing disruption without process, violated her

rights expression guaranteed of free ‍​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‍I first fourteenth amendments.

would, therefore, reverse the district

court, and order Miss reinstated

unless she is barred from reinstatement

for valid academic reasons. Drake, Ala., University, de-

Jack fendant-appellant. DeMent, Atty.,

Ira U. Broward S. D. Segrest, Jr., Perry, Wade Asst. U. S. B. Attys., Montgomery, plaintiff- Ala., for appellee. America,

UNITED STATES of INGRAHAM, Before WISDOM and Plaintiff-Appellee, Judges, BOOTLE, Circuit District Judge. Gary STOCKDALE, Lou Defendant-Appellant. PER CURIAM: No. 72-1202. In this selective service case compelled Appeals, United States Court feels Court of to affirm the Fifth holding crystalliza Circuit. district court’s plaintiff-appellant’s July conscien objection tious between a no the time

tice induction was mailed and scheduled, time actual induction change “resulting not a in status registrant circumstances over States, had no control”. Ehlert United

Case Details

Case Name: Barbara Susan Papish v. The Board of Curators of the University of Missouri

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Aug 13, 1972

Citation: 464 F.2d 136

Docket Number: 71-1338

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.