In re the Arbitration between Bernstein & Norwich City School District Board of Education
OPINION OF THE COURT
In May 1998, petitioner, a tenured English teacher in the Norwich High School located within the Norwich City School District (hereinafter District), was charged by respondent with conduct unbecoming a teacher, insubordination, neglect of duty and incompetence for using inappropriate verbiage during the course of a lesson. A hearing was held during January and March 1999. At the hearing, four students from petitioner’s eleventh grade English honors class testified that in the beginning of the 1997-1998 school year, petitioner used the words “penis” and “clitoris” when explaining a literary technique. Principal James Walters testified that he was notified of the incident by a teacher and a parent of a child in petitioner’s class. Upon the suggestion of the Superintendent of the District, he spoke with some of petitioner’s students and acquired statements from them. Walters later met with petitioner who admitted to using these words in a discussion during the second or third dаy of class when introducing the topic of “phallogocentrism,” a theory of feminist literary criticism involving phallic symbolism, as a background to understanding and interpreting literature. Petitionеr believed that he used these terms in response to a question by a student about the meaning of the word “phallic.”
Walters recounted that he had previously notified petitioner of his concerns. Using petitioner’s 1994-1995 end of year evaluation which was admitted at the hearing, Walters detailed several incidents which illustrated petitioner’s undue emphasis upon sexuаl imagery in his selected readings, classroom discussions and writing assignments. Complaints received from students included petitioner’s tendency to compare them to characters frоm the books that they were reading in class whose sexual proclivities he had discussed. His evaluation further noted an incident whereby petitioner, in charge of the school’s literаry magazine, authorized its distribution notwithstanding its inclusion of a student piece entitled “Slut,” a description of a young girl’s sexual encounter. Concern regarding his emphasis upon sexual imagery wаs exemplified by his as
In November 1995, petitioner entered into a settlement agreement which resolved disciplinary charges brought against him pursuant to
At the instant hearing, petitioner remained steadfast in his testimony that he did not violate the settlement agreement by introducing the theory of phallogocentrism because he, and others, have historically taught this theory without incident to this age group and never intended to have these literary themes viewеd in a sexual manner. David Paul, a former department chair and teacher of eleventh and twelfth grade
The Hearing Officer concluded that while the evidence and testimony did not support a finding on each of the specifications charged, a preponderance of the credible evidence did support the charge of conduct unbecoming a teacher and insubordination. Concerning insubordination, the Hearing Officer noted that petitioner had been warned both orally and in writing by Walters that he should deemphasize the sexual aspects of literary works and be cautious about classroom discussions that have sexual overtones. Although the use of these two words in a vacuum may well not have intended to lead to a discussion of sexuаl matters, the Hearing Officer opined that their use by petitioner constituted poor judgment in light of his history with respondent. The Hearing Officer did not find that petitioner violated the settlement agreement. Petitioner was fined $3,000 and received a letter of reprimand.
On appeal, Supreme Court confirmed the Hearing Officer’s determination but found that it was error to impоse both a letter of reprimand and a fine. It ordered a rehearing limited to the issue of penalty. For that reason, petitioner solely appeals the substantive charges sustained.
In ruling upon the charges of conduct unbecoming a teacher and insubordination, the Hearing Officer credited the testimony of Walters regarding the complaints that he received from parents in the community, the extensive history bеtween petitioner and the District, and the notice provided to petitioner concerning his need to deemphasize the sexual aspects of the literary works that he introduced in the classroom. Petitioner, at all times, acknowledged the parameters imposed upon his teaching. Although he posited an alternative explanation for his usе of the challenged words, he did not deny their use or the timing of his introduction of this concept. In our view, the cumulative testimony provided the requisite quantum of evidence to support the charges sustained (see, Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. v State of New York, supra, at 186). The fact that petitioner was found guilty of fewer than all of the specifications alleged is of no merit in challenging the determination rendered (see, Appeal of Grihin, 38 Ed Dept Rep 399, 415-417).
Nor do wе find merit in petitioner’s contention that his academic freedom must be protected because the information that he was presenting has material educational valuе. As we have previously reasoned, “notwithstanding teachers’ rights to choose methodology under principles of academic freedom * * *, school officials ‘must be permitted “to establish and apply their curriculum in such a way as to transmit community values” ’ * * * providing their discretion is ‘exercised in a manner that comports with the transcendent imperatives of thе First Amendment’ ” (Matter of O’Connor v Sobol,
Crew III, J. P., Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.