*1 4«1 Raymond JERGESON, Appellant Charles (Plaintiff below),
v.
The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SCHOOL COUNTY, DISTRICT SHERIDAN NO. Wyoming Burgess, Carroll, (John William Dregoiw, George John Dr. Ewan George Appellee Gilgorea), (Defendant be-
low).
No. 3843.
Supreme Wyoming. Court of
Nov. 1970. *2 proceedings steno-
stated date and the reported. The board graphically June 20, fact, 1969, con- findings made its clusions, order, its deter- and which stated aspects hearing; the mination on various concluded, alia, for stated that inter reasons in a manner appellant had failed to teach had not satisfactory to the met the stand- attempted to meet minimum a propriety for teacher of conduct and ards school; appellant. he Smyth, Cheyenne, be dis- for in and ordered R. the John employment, effective from his missed Archibald, K. Archi- William Holstedt & 20, 1969.1 Sheridan, bald, appellee. June 15, appellant on July Thereafter McINTYRE, GRAY, J.,C. Before review, asking judicial petition filed a McEWAN, PARKER JJ. the the decision of reverse court and to rein- his dismissal concerning opin- delivered the PARKER Mr. Justice year a for the school teacher state him ion of the court. 6, 1969, appel- at August On 1969-1970. provisions is an under the appeal This instance, having filed noth- the board lant’s Wyoming Administrative Procedure an ing, court issued the clerk of district Act, 9-276.33, W.S.1957 §§ 9-276.19— Default,” was later set "Entry of which (1969 order of Cum.Supp.), petition for came on for The review aside. affirming court dismissal district an order af- hearing, and the court issued the Board of Trustees of School District action, from which firming the board’s County, high of a school No. Sheridan been appeal has taken. teacher, Raymond Charles The Jergeson. challenges court’s affirm- Appellant 11, 1969, briefly these. On March facts grounds. His first ance on some thirteen employed been as a appellant had who alleged errors of arguments four deal with during high in the school Sheridan setting (1) aside district court: year, 1968-1969, signed a the school con- judgment, reversing (2) default coming year him tract for tendered to decision in view of its failure to board’s 9, 1969, May the school board. On Wyoming Administrative comply with the personally president of the board delivered Act, in not (3) reversing Procedure appellant of Dismissal” for the “Notice adopted board’s decision since that: reasons regulations, (4) and filed rules and practice of philosophy “1. Your finding there was substantial evidence education is detrimental best position to sustain school board’s students. interests of the Jergeson “responsible to censor the Incompetency, “2. as evidenced newspaper.” April 1969 edition of Ock- next arguments His relate to the seven sheperida, newspaper gave He no notice con- alleges board. School, High Sheridan for which cerning poem on the appeared
you are Advisor.” room; Ocksheperida blackboard The notice hearing stated that a before Jergeson dismissal of for the use of the board on the for the arbitrary, reasons dismissal “rape” capricious and term 28, 1969, held May would be in Sheridan on right process violation due p. hearing 7:30 m. hearsay held on the law; admitting erred Ladd, board, 1. pate Marion chairman of the or the conduct present testified, partici- conclusions, findings, but did not and order. testimony previous taken at hearing, Comply Failure Board to Act Skar, allowing testimony of a Mr. as to Notice and Rules in making finding appearance as to Appellant’s charges and third second dress of Jergeson; that it Jerge- violated of error relate the failure of son’s constitutional to freedom of comply Wyoming Administra speech expression; and that it failed *3 Act, tive referred Procedure hereinafter to give him charges notice all the against Act; first, proper to as the as to lack him. second, as to hearing, notice of the practice. He ob adopt failure to rules Finally appellant argues existing that the that, hearing, objec time of serves at the method of appeal is either unconstitutional sufficiency of the tion was made as to the requires if not a “zealous examination of notice, requiring that the “au 9-276.25 § by whole record reviewing authori- thority” “jurisdiction” under which ty,” and that performed evidence of acts and a statement hearing was “to be held” performed or not prior to the time the rules involv particular “statutes and board offered a new contract was inadmis- ed” He contends be set out notice. sible. At certain sacrifice of the overall not in the notice and such statement was discussion by problem merited of this na- saying erred in maintains that the court ture, we have addressed separate- ourselves (which waiver was attached to the notice ly to each grounds thirteen raised Wyoming and cited 160 of the Education by appeal. § 21.1-160, (1969 Code of W.S.1957 § 1969— dis suspension Cum.Supp.) concerning — CHARGED DISTRICT-COURT “referred to and teachers) missal of was ERRORS proper,” arguing part made a notice to the that the reference waiver Setting Aside the Default was, the notice “A waiver form is enclos ed,” “requirements” and that unless the set The contention that the court out in the notice of conform with erred setting aside appellant what calls statutory requirements said in notice is a “default judgment” is misconceived. sufficient. stems from assumptions, two unwarranted agree we can While counsel that first that there was a judgment, default saying the court’s the waiver made a was whereas “Entry merely was an part true, literally notice we by second, Default” court; the clerk of think the criticism is over-technical and the proceeding in an the district court that in all fairness the notice contained a “action” covered the Rules of Civil statutory authority reference to the for its Procedure, whereas it was a under review Moreover, issuance. we are inclined to provisions W.R.C.P., 72.1, of Rule is the view that has 9-276.25(b) been su § sued by this pursuant court 9-276.32 perseded specific provi § as to notice (b). 72.1, Reference to relating Rule sions of 21.1-160(a), which circumstance § neither of the judicial litigants have action, discussed. Im review of administrative lay Township Primary District School No. requirement discloses ipso no facto the Education, 5 v. State Board of Mich. opposing party required to answer. 102 N.W.2d 723. From a Wyoming consideration of both the Administrative Procedure Act and the im As to the failure of the board rule, plementing in the na adopt review is regulations required rules and appeal, requires Act, ture of an no answer frequently court has called at to be filed.2 tention statutory requirement 2. provision 72.1(e), W.R.C.P., independent in Rule available action” has no prerogative relevancy proceeding. certain writs “shall be in this and it is most lant maintains that there were no rules and regulations,3
adopt rules regulations responsibility have ne- agencies concerning that various unfortunate Undoubtedly, paper a court and that without a definite do. for so to glected per- policy concerning an interested request paper the board upon would, comply. son, agency should not be allowed to dismiss some- direct do, thing Jergeson directed motion before made Jergeson York, also states that it was editor Sara be terminat proceedings that the article, questioned and author of the who having prohibited he was ed because responsible newspaper. At one rules appropriate hearing since a fair point joke appellant says that this of a hear conduct for the regulations newspaper edition and that the author in accordance adopted ing been thought article disputed testified she motion was Appellant's 9-276.20(a) (1). § *4 argue he to funny; another seems was nature; no particular while in general citing criticize, right a that editor had was necessary, the motion allegations are S.D.N.Y., Panitz, F.Supp. Zucker v. specific apprise sufficiently not 105, 102, explicitly point in it said: as when by its failure prejudiced he was wherein Furthermore, practice. of adopt rules many arises at a “This lawsuit time when authority nor made con not cited he has community oppose in the educational nonadop argument that here vincing young securing a political of the in tactics upon that tion It fatal. is conceivable was incongruous and would be voice. It both adopt failure showing agency’s a an dangerous for this court to hold required to as agency rules the would be express their views students who wish to appellant an showing sume burden of them, intimately on matters related However, not prejudiced. to have been nondisrup- traditionally accepted though procedure is where as in this instance communication,may pre- tive be modes has appellant detailed the statute the doing by that same adult cluded from so duty out where pointing specifically community.” any recognize disadvantage lies. We argument may of this well the whole While in which fail could exist situations perfect “shotgun” approach, it constitute adopt practice ure to rules of be suf would ground for In presents no valid reversal. ficiently prejudicial as to constitute so testimony princi- view order; setting basis for aside decree or jour- conducted a class in pal Jergeson avoided, predicament and if such a is to be the adviser to the school nalism and agencies immediately all adopt should rules intermingling newspaper two —and —the contemplates. as the statute for those who work responsible adviser was Newspaper production of the and the paper York who said that of paper, and Sara We find it difficult to somewhat way her con- advised Jergeson in grasp purport aspect of this of appel article the news- cerning questioned argument. preliminarily lant’s He states “imagined” although she paper and that in finding court erred that there “The published she did he it before saw was substantial sustain the evidence her or discussing not it with remember his position Jergeson school board’s criticism, consider the giving any her we responsible newspaper,” to censor but opinion regard to news- trial court’s while attention the board’s find calling grounded: paper well faculty ing that the adviser teacher was the “ * ** Ocksheperida pinpoint ap- does not incidents [Other and] “finding” of Appel- parent approval erroneous the court. of a row of picture of a Burt, Wyo., 26, 27-28; 3. rel. Glenn v. Board Rolfes v. State ex 463 P.2d 531, 532; Council, County Commissioners, Sheridan Coun- v. Town P.2d Scarlett Jackson, Wyo., ty, Wyo., County, Town of Teton 3. 440 P.2d may these matters aired and if newspaper are where be in the school urinals necessary a examples impres- appear had. It would to set exactly fine of it that these on the face articles not that these were students. sionable in a more serious vein than part them have written mere or at least a students spirit and in a jesting They base and of fun. exposed to a more not been clearly barbed. The board could filthy humor outside schools lofty justified deciding where well the halls of institution rule, poor is a demonstration in journalism, examples should be ideals subjects taught by Jerge- Board one place. Mr. out The School example incompe- of his obviously by this conduct son another was offended tency. The Court incompe- want de- which could well classified proposition fend the board was tency. arbitrary, capricious unreasonable n n n n n n doing so. Community “Tinker vs. Moines De[s] n n n n n n District, School 89 S.Ct. U.S. [393 “ * * * incidents and 21 L.Ed.2d is cited Plaintiff Mr. [Other 733] Jer- adequately supervise failure to giving geson’s] to ex- the students the newspaper press opinions a school he disciplinary critical with which teachers, charged may be action of certain manifestations ‘Old *5 and the Meany Letter to loose views Board of Trustees Master’ article and the in that well so expression the Editor. One case could conclude.” applicable. strikes the Court being as page At it is that a stated student CLAIMED BOARD ERRORS
may express his if does so opinion he ‘ Poem substantially in- materially “without in discipline terfering appropriate Appellant argues that his dismissal was and without operation the school” discriminatory, a violation of due process It rights of others.’ colliding with notice, give arbitrary for failure to and was the Board seems Court capricious dirty as to “alleged any decided that could well Trustees have poem” which a student black- wrote appearing articles the mentioned classroom, high appel- in his school Ocksheperida the dis- did interfere with ap- it to permitting lant remain there collide cipline of the school and did proximately two weeks. others, namely rights of the teachers school, involved and administrators of it is aspect, the notice claimed On in the two matters discussed. The accepted testi the board should Board could have well decided School appellant mony poem since about faculty within its discretion that when “con the school board given no notice charge in Ocksheperida member testimony.” cerning have heretofore We journalism permits instructor in such given by the board set out the reasons way appear articles to is in this that he the stat for his dismissal. While Jergeson expressing incompetence. practice philosophy ed reason in the best detrimental to of education was “The students in out in speaking did high school students terests paper as not enter- they did were incidents, it was delineation of provide in taining subject as the war such the ab questioning especially basis for or some matter Vietnam controversial — ac objection concerning various sence of making nature but public personal were — Additionally, under school. faculty. tivities attacks members of the There discovery provided procedure Act the way complaints regular is a to make such Procedure Rules of Civil Wyoming Superin- Principal, that is to Trustees, to him. available or to the Board tendent Appellant’s “discriminatory” charge Testimony Skar’s upon is based the fact another teacher during The board found the school used also the room in which the blackboard year appellant a local 1968-1969 invited located, poem no action were of dis (Edmund Skar) businessman to lecture is, against missal being taken her. class; journalism that while he was course, record obvious from the that the lecturing, late, students arrived talked school board did not base its action on this audibly, each other some walked out of single incident investigated but rather vari classroom; appellant, who ous occurrences and circumstances which present, made to control or disci- no effort were considered in the determination of pline the students. whether or not the met the mini Although appellant asserts that the board mum standards propriety. of conduct and testimony, allowing erred Skar’s Thus, both discriminatory charge as argu- position is not made clear. Without well claim that board was arbi authority, presentation ment or trary capricious without merit. merely board waived said period appellant’s wrongdoing during the “Rape”
Use Term contract; him a teaching offering new is, does unsupported which statement Appellant maintains that the al and, discussion; basis not merit without leged use of “rape” the term group before a record, this was a appellant assumes girls ground was insufficient laboratory that the late students class and deprive a man of that, his livelihood and early left most well as those who further, there was no notice that this was laboratory-type assign- likely working on a ground upon which the board rely ment, temporary absence. requiring their to dismiss him. For the reasons stated un does not Again, allegation of error der the preceding point, this did not consti warrant discussion. tute error. *6 Finding and Dress Appearance as to Hearsay Testimony urged It is that consistent with Griswold Appellant argues that the board Connecticut, 479, 85 v. 381 U.S. State raised question personal of his by beliefs 510, 1678, to S.Ct. 14 L.Ed.2d hearsay evidence as to the use of wear the attire he so marijuana wear a beard and to among neat are long chooses as is takeover of school administrative flowing rights from the first of privacy offices just cause, for insisting that a man eight to the United States amendments is entitled to hold any belief he so desires is to the Constitution and attention called and cannot be condemned nor fired for finding: board’s personal his challenged beliefs. The evi appeared at the “Although, Jergeson Mr. dence was testimony given by the chair in a suit with his beard business board, man of Ladd, Marion as to trimmed, prior thereto he was hair by statements made appellant at an execu by his seen of this Board when members tive session of April the board in 1969. inappropriate appearance for testimony Since the witness’s did not de teaching profession.” pend upon or veracity competency of a a basis for This could not be reversal well person himself, other than do not we view in view of the conclusion: board’s furthermore, hearsay;4 evidence as testimony adduced, personal appearance the time did not afford such “His objection However, gc.. grounds his to in removal. made basis proper appearance troduction. did set ex- eral 674, State, Wyo., 4. v. 351 679. Murdock P.2d (Em- Tracy high school students.” In v. School Dist. No. ample for Sheridan Wyo., County, Wyo. supplied.) 1, 243 P.2d phasis (rehearing Wyo. denied 70 247 P.2d 153), agrees by we held that a teacher neces- Charges to Give Notice All Failure sary implication that while he continues contends failure Appellant employment his conduct his moral shall give notice that he school board to him respects beyond in all exemplary just allega- against to would have defend that entrusted as the teacher is reproach; teacher; ability to his as a tions Skar young, education with the becomes per- he against charge defend importance primary principles board; poem placed upon to be mitted a right living instilled into him them “rape” the term a num- that he used before example his conduct. try quiet; girls keep them ber of hair, beard and failure wear his FINAL ARGUMENTS wanted, way consti- clothes notice as right to tuted a violation Appellant argues existing that the method process the Act and of due required appeal is either unconstitutional if it remarks, no previous In view our law. not a “zealous examination of whole appear discussion would now war- further reviewing authority” requi- record However, appel- might we ranted. refer site, performed and that of acts evidence preserve the need lant’s observation prior performed the time chilling freedom effect academic from offered new contract was inadmissible. of a necessarily the dismissal attends analysis points No detailed of these final justification and viola- without Appellant cogent merited. neither presents rights has been his constitutional tion of argument authority position nor on his zealously protected by Supreme Court inquire if the board failed into con- Federal have simi- by lower courts who 11, 1969, Jergeson duct of March prior to vigorously protect larly acted contract, it offered Jergeson when agree- this we are in full teachers. any alleged waived misconduct and appel- not see do violation ment but estopped precluded raising in the instant rights constitutional lant’s date, at a such issues later claim dis- justification lack of nor case will not be District considered. School No. considera- given careful We missal. 9, County Boundary of Fremont v. District Rutland, case of Parducci v. tion County, Wyo., and For Board In Fremont *7 by M.D.Ala., F.Supp. submitted appellant’s point 351 P.2d 109. As to herein, following argument the appellant appeal that the method of unconstitution- is is agree such case to are unable but require if it does not a “zealous” al exam- situation deals with a point.” It “right record, of is ination the whole thesis parties by was conceded the plaintiff where premised on the that where there claim one incident good teacher save to be a for public rights of of em- a clear abuse the the any criticism unrelated to (completely the this ad- ployees, court must overrule here), appellant’s of conduct had However, he tribunals. has ministrative controversy a number present while rights. of his no such The shown abuse and by reviewed matters hearing after a made various find- requisite mini- the held to be conduct below indicating by appellant a departure ings a school mum standards standards which we have heretofore from be must Academic freedom institution. the court, proper. to be The district indicated society, this an interest of all viewed and hear- carefully reviewing the evidence can conduct improper not mean does was no argument, determined ing free- of such guise under the be condoned reversal, nothing has been for and ground dom. presented here appreciative which convinces us of exist- I am also fact that of the ing error. the record before us leaves much de- to be considering sired a basis for the depth
Affirmed. questions presented. In the before board, point point meagerly after GRAY, (dissenting). Chief Justice wholly undeveloped by the evidence and the I greatly am not disturbed with the re- presentation here also leaves much be to majority sult by reached for the reason Nevertheless, contrary desired. ma- that it particularly significant is not from view, jority I think sufficient to raise practical Despite standpoint. the conclu- grave questions we are not relieved sion of the board did meet making analysis careful review and judgment, decency “minimum standards of of the whole of the record determine and decorum which a teacher in this district whether the action of the board was viola- dismissal, should observe” and the order of process, tive of due administrative was arbi- record soon discloses trary capricious, unsupported accepted thereafter was offered em- by charged by substantial evidence as plain- Burns, ployment system in the school My tiff. analysis of record and the Oregon. blight proceed- cast applicable persuades law thereto me that ing upon plain- record of the academic plaintiff’s respects contentions several tiff, however, is matter merits con- sound should sustained. disagreement my sideration and process respect With to due insofar as it majority stems from that and what adopt relates to of the the failure board to opinion portends great in matter of con- boards, practice procedure, public, agree cern to rules of profession. teaching help I cannot but feel general holding with the discussion philosophy underly- that the rationale and majority. respect prop- lack ing opinion of the trial memorandum board, er agree notice I also majority court of the leads to a result there is no cause reversal for here inasmuch contrary purpose to the intent and as the record the evidence shows Wy- Administrative Act and the Procedure parties relating parties both what oming Education which are Code deemed to be the raised issues notice designed prevent uncon- exercise of objection came in without on the basis trolled boards in the discretion inadequacy Neverthe- notice. firing of a teacher can dis- teachers. If less, I think merits matter some com- charged incompetency for on the basis of overlooked that this ment. cannot be case, quite the record before us in this it is penal proceeding. At the time the apparent that a board would have its notice was well aware board served dismissing difficulty little a teacher who upon of the detail of the matters flimsy reasons incurred the ill will rely constituting grounds going board. cir- Under those dismissal. A.P.A., In (b) (4) connection cumstances 9-276.25 I am unmindful of § W.S.1957, provides opposed Cum.Supp., to the doctrine of abstention *8 the in de- interfering the the matters with notice must “state courts school “shotgun” charge certainly boards in of Today, of this tail” and the affairs kind. how- ever, di- paragraph in the the 1 is not light of of the notice A.P.A. and the code, mentioned, provision which have but to me I and rect violation of that fairly part the of the particularly recent on board decisions of the reflects unfairness dealing Federal courts and process, with due it the accuser inasmuch freedom, with with time within which very academic the little of was afforded speech, Act, free after hear- Rights and the Even prepare Civil we his defense. order, we entirely game” have an the board’s ing new “ball and of these issuance and general problems the standards approached accordingly. must be are told which of not
4«9 code, requirement that inherent in out by 21.1-160 of the W.S. prescribed § impartiality is 1957, charged the need for Cum.Supp.,plaintiff was 1969 by objective analysis of adopted and “consideration violating. The standard record,” 9-276.26(a), W.S. quoted not a statu- whole which is above § 1957, requires trial in fact on tory Cum.Supp., 1969 standard inasmuch as boards; part it as it is for majority have treated of local and the court us, above, “incompe- it that these falling of stated to see to within standard I teacher, safeguards I shall do the same. tence” as a observed. repre- phase hearing might the matter which I well
Another of Otherwise formality looking comment addition a mere toward think further sent merits aready by said predetermined is and desired result to what I bringing under the to the that we must least trier the facts discredit contention of process. this make a “zealous of case and to the administrative circumstances courts record” in order the recent examination the whole As indicated the footnote of of rights of the protect Pickering the fundamental Board Education of case of v. of 205, a “zealous” plaintiff. Township should be High Whether School District Will 1731, Illinois, 563, County, as I have said is not or a “careful” review U.S. S.Ct. 811, important. simply It must event be ade- do 20 L.Ed.2d will not quate. pieces evi- search the record for bits support ren- dence that lend to a decision agency Ordinarily when is action before That dered under such circumstances. this trial court or court for review my approach here, think I can demon- and I proceeding ini- a decision involves did act strate wherein here not board by pri- agency submitted to the tiated and arbitrary capricious, impartially, was are, however, cases parties. There vate based its conclu- and in several instances coming before us when that not true contrary findings on of fact to or sions exception. Here case illustrates the this unsupported by which entered the evidence board, than acting upon its rather own into its conclusions. through superintendent a member 21.1-160(a) contemplated thereof as doing In so I not the fact do overlook § code, in the placed itself unenviable the difficulties and can understand accuser, prose- position being the and its mem- with the board cutor, merits of its judge mostly making and the in that bers were of his own this, say do not stand- charges. apparently incurred ire of the own he had alone, process the due ing flaunting violative of them members before board beard, hair, constitution and style clause of the Federal and dress of which as it has often been con- they disapproved, this state inasmuch and at their invitation doned, Ap- primarily ground of neces- them in a called conference sity, incidentally present concerning here his is not interview ril 1969 for an education, justification of philosophy furnishes inasmuch as 21.1-15 code § April whereby having appearing a forum local boards articles competency, paper, and other mat- grievances a teacher over issue controversy ters, legalization example, can have the made known views on sit-ins, which marijuana student heard and determined the State Board out, they pointing how- of Education. In this were as abhorrent adult ever, great majority of it to be understood that I am I want however, intentions, we integrity, good judges, impuning Wyomingites. As knew, sincerity purpose as reflected of members know and posi- order, justify placed in dual alone would when that this local boards *9 fully tion, this more hardly own which could be of their I shall discuss dismissal. findings and them upon with the board’s choosing but nevertheless forced in connection pointing legislature. simply am by the I conclusions.
Reverting for prior the matter moment to the renewal the re- recommended impartiality, point plaintiff’s contract, I also that would out newal in it- which pro- grind” persuasive plain- the board had an this self “ax to is rather evidence Also, At ceeding. incompetent the time the board had its tiff was not teacher. plaintiff already worthy en- it interview with it had did not note superintendent plaintiff into a with dated call principal, tered contract or the 11, year testify ensuing superiors, March 1969 for the immediate As developed 1969-70. matters about at the on the basic issue incom- 6, April petence. 1969—the date of the interview— only suppose that the reasonable Further, in discussing upon the incidents under the circumstances was desir- board relies, which board it should be noted getting the renewal ous of out under general reference has been made to pur- accomplish In order to its contract. plaintiff’s asserted minimum violation of proceeding pose, it set motion the within propriety standards of conduct and aas upon by serving plaintiff April Other general statutory teacher. than the end of dismissal notice “effective standard, prescribed standard in semester,” current which as the this printed case is that contained in the May concedes on or about board contract, reading form the board’s 1969, the time when the 1968-69 contract follows: course, time, By that expired. con- “Recognizing profes- teaching is a fully performed
tract would been sion, desiring to assist in the elevation only thing gained be parties. both teaching profession, to con- board was indirect relief from its myself completely professional duct contract, apparently has which renewal manner, promise I that I will honor accomplished. In this connection been spirit letter and of this to the contract of interest to find- will be note board’s my ability.” fullest of XIII, ing reading as follows: Granted, part a teacher as a training of his the Board “That takes of the fact notice general way should versed in that before the 1969-1970 contract was general need for and reach of those by Raymond Jergeson executed Charles here, One of standards. the difficulties suggested the Board to the teacher that however, is that the di- produced board no he not execute the and that he contract by professional rect evidence accept- toas employment coming other seek for the able minimum conduct under such standard year.” prior to this proceeding had at least disclose, keeping The record does adopted policy augmenting rule or provisions (d), 9-276.26 W.S. § standard as to minimum conduct that would Cum.Supp., plaintiff acceptable plain- Thus the board. ever notified board would take notice tiff, complains right- about he fact of such and the board introduced no so, fully the trial court court was ever evidence show speculate as mini- just left to what Nonetheless, sign told not contract. performance expected mum of its language in the inclusion of that its order teachers. indicate that it into con- was taken In this sideration the board’s action. THE NEWSPAPER point connection would out that bur- appended here- den under the board to convenience there is code on the For “Meany justification copy to a of the article establish record for the entitled undisputed took and one the most diffi- action Master.” but the problems newspaper, cult the board had to face the adviser of the fact, light foregoing as we testified that president was the know, had re- principal superintendent superintendent well also
4<)1 ported by the sponsibilities in with news- connection substantial evidence. No stu- is it dent paper. undisputed parent It likewise that was so testified. only The facul- “April paper ty an Fool Edition” of the and member respect who testified with it to testimony president’s it clear the sponsor is was the who said that her reaction that the edition disgust,” had discussed of “shock one and while plaintiff prior hearing and had up to it con- her temporarily “shook” she recovered question that in day cluded the items were not the next teaching ability her Also, that to- humorous. was directed was not affected. She also testified: sponsor charge the of the school ward Well, “Q. tell me what’s in the true activity. undisputed It is also that the article first? nothing A. I know is standards, regula- board no rules exactly really false, true. isn’t it’s to responsibilities as what the tions exaggerated, proportion. out of Some adviser, principal, superintendent the of the statements false. It’s hard respect were with to what should or should anything to say really is true. not in the published paper. be “Q. hap- But it intimates actually what Yes, pened? A. matters, does.” the respect these board wrongly writing “That the charac- found point also evi- out there is no newspaper dence that this faculty being oppres- issue of terized member as disruption any discipline caused sive, person and a intelli- devious low operation certainly schools newspaper and that said issue of gence” fact that and did was “offended” students, faculty some was “offensive regard not the article and felt as humorous parents In its members and of students.” poor “a constituted demonstration it said that the issue “is general discussion journalism,” of which there is likewise permissive attitude in of a evidence evidence, represents by which no standard in the best interest classroom which not plaintiff’s competence as a teacher could story ‘Meany The Master’ of the students. judged. plaintiff, The fact remains that member sharply attacks expert journalism, did opinion faculty. this undermines In our approval regard the article humorous some respect involved good journalism. What faculty It then for the as a whole.” extent determine that actually did say greatly that it con- was not went on per detri- “Meany Master” article se was picture except that it re- with the cerned school, Pick- stated in mental to but as permissiveness. attitude of flected ering, supra, 88 1736: S.Ct. at ques- fit to majority has seen resolve “However, only way court’s opin- the trial tion on basis of conclude, ion, agree au- absent evi- and while I student Board could letter, “subject expression is the actual effect freedom of dence of thor’s time, place, therein restrictions as to the statements contained reasonable making, the interest of per Sullivan se detrimental to and duration” manner District, Independent equate mem- School the schools was Board Houston v. 1339, S.D.Tex., F.Supp. and as own interests with bers’ that too Certainly an Tinker v. Des Moines Inde- accusation schools. indicated District, Community money being spent athletics School pendent much 731, 739, system 21 L.Ed.2d of the school the administrators S.Ct. U.S. import substantially in- materially precisely (which it must containing discipline appellant’s letter appropriate portion of terfere to be must col- that we have found the school and operation of the statements rea- others, point false, Appendix, infra) I would cannot rights of see with the lide se detrimental finding sonably regarded per set out board’s above out an accusa- to some stu- was offensive district’s schools. Such the issue opin- sup- is not difference parents of students rather a tion reflects dents *11 492 Pickering paper as the school board would Board the school
ion between the the au- preferable operating justify manner first to an invasion of have to of opinion the medium of system, right through of the school difference thor’s of plaintiff, of Education clearly general an issue of v. Board concerns Scoville 204, High public Township District interest.” School Joliet Illinois, supra, County Will, of State of to the noted respect restrictions With so, 425 at 13. It has done F.2d member’s author above on the staff prevent publi- equate plaintiff’s refusal to published “Meany Master” “incompetence” cation as evidence of article, said high principal school is unreasonable and unwarranted newspaper the student purpose of Zucker quote as disclosed from the all, writ- of instruct students in “first is to opinion. in the majority case togeth- putting writing ing journalistic respect picture to the the uri- Secondly, it’s to serve newspaper. er a nals, students, quarrel I would not with who those between between communication students, place considered out in a student news- faculty and between students me, however, paper. It community seems to faculty, inform the school might prevented by well events, have been bring up matters of and to about adoption preventing hap- aof rule such a To school concern.” school interest and pening, apparently which is now the board say that the did not fall within article doing, there and are wholly bound to general purpose unreasonable. opinions In different in such matters. course, true, that she was not picture little support event lends speaking the Vietnam but she out on war remedy imposed. harsh speaking out on matter of concern was activity girls in a participating to the POEM impor- young in lives their was point than poem Other out that tant, integral enjoyable part of school placed “a Mr. on blackboard in life. whole thrust of the article was to Jergeson’s classroom” as the board found regarded chill- protest what the author as a placed but was the bulletin on board by the ing upon effect those activities room “Ock” where students on sponsor’s imposition arbitrary rules paper get staff of the went to their making own her her refusal to listen assignments put paper the school to- True, girls’ complaints. and consider the gether, significance me the seems to the article “barbed” but when measur- up by this incident built out ed taken the court re- view with proportion importance of all to its High” spect appearing to the article “Grass competence and basic issue of Board of Education Scoville v. of Joliet any support if lends little the board’s 204, County Township High School District Will, Illinois, Cir., order. 425 F.2d State of 7 15-16, 10, and the view of the court con- USE TERM “RAPE” OF cerning entitled “Edmund’s an article Thoughts” Spirit and “School vs. Con- again I this incident built Here think Independent Houston science” Sullivan v. all up proportion significance. out to its S.D.Tex., District, F.Supp. School According young lady who testified beyond being far “barb- which went matter, concerning the reac- was no far the manner criti- ed” and exceeded girls in from the ten or fifteen tion here, employed is clear cism however, plain- agree, class. I would reaching its erred in conclusion emphasis lend tiff’s choice the word per se basis. discipline halls to the need Accordingly, it seems to that before tasteless and extreme. me school was penalized failing verges on interference could be That the incident by prevent publication as viewed of the article academic freedom
49 n however, special note discipline, it took courts, demon- tain well Federal Cir., Geanakos, testimony of Ed- upon finding X based v. strated Keefe isolated respect to another much more shock- mund F.2d where word Skar no effort to was contained “made ing used here incident than word ip-an reading English Skar’s assignment discipline control or the students” in a class *12 the out that presence. point held that Again and the court nevertheless I would assign- making superiors, the so far as the rec- firing teacher for neither of this to shows, The court had for reprimanded plaintiff ment erroneous. ord ever say, discipline. F.2d 361-362: of 418 his lack is wheth- question in this case
“Hence the HEARSAY may, edu- er a teacher demonstrated for TESTIMONY ‘dirty’ word purposes, quote cational objection to this agree plaintiff’s I special give currently in used order testimony hearsay was not on the of basis offense, is or the shock too whether however, that agree, well taken. I do not to stand. great high seniors school disposes plaintiff’s all conten- this of of that the students must the answer were If In addi- testimony. tions at this directed exposure, we protected such tion, testimony rather this demonstrates do not fear for their future. We would impar- clearly that the did not act board defendants question good faith of the tially in its discharge of function parents been believing in that some have by its or- trier of the true that facts/' is respect of greatest With the offended. der, obviously skillfully drawn which parents, their sensibilities recognizes attorney, its proper is what not full of measure right philos- of his beliefs education. ophy language proceeds but other then plain- ground to chill on the agree of course with defendants “We “conveyed” expressed tiff his beliefs read students is is to be said or what philosophy to the students in class- by obscenity stand- not to determined heavily That weighed these matters room. Ginsberg consumption. v. ards for adult findings with the board disclosed York, 1968, 88 U.S. S.Ct. New board made these conclusions. The time, At same 195. L.Ed.2d findings : A degree. high issue must be one of all dis- senior is devoid of not Furthermore, “VIII crimination or resistance. instances, all the offensiveness as in other April, 1969, in “That said propriety particular language that in stated a member of the Board cir- impropriety dependent or teacher, opinion the use the utterance.” cumstances is a individual marijuana matter choice, opinion suggesting that Also, agree that the Parducci I do not may teacher that so desire those who bear majority does not case cited possess drug. or use narcotic Stu- though “right question upon this even not this evaluation show dent sheets informative contains an point.” It conveyed opinion of the teacher has been upon this sub- supported discourse well wrote: ‘He to his students. One student that the board did while it is ject and true smoking pot is seems to feel the * * * Ok. “good
not concede ’ did record, At the the teacher there is basis teacher” deny qualify not these statements. out, drawing an pointed infer- have contrary. ence to “IX to ob- interest
In this connection it the said teacher objects April, “That here to that while serve Board an stated to a member plaintiff to main- employed by the method decide, opinion student is a matter for relating the individual to may protest, that students will be condoned in this Mr. effect district. Jergeson’s challenge of- fundamental justifiably occupy administration which, deny propriety shows a fices. That the teacher did not values lack of evidence, qualify these statements. students when considered with the other philos- requires his evaluation sheets show that dismissal.” ophy conveyed to the students.” findings If its and conclusions were suf- ficiently supported record, by the I would It concluded: heartily agree with the carefully the student “We have reviewed ground dismissal alone evaluation offered sheets justified have been par- Jergeson. evidence Mr. We *13 have would been demanded. The time and ticularly nar- noted the references place voicing philosophy his of under Many cotics. these state of evaluations such inappropriate circumstances that Jergeson stimulating Mr. a in- was privileged. difficulty The with the They structor. show that he influenced conclusions, however, findings youngsters in his classes. comments The out, plaintiff points they is that are not so opinions protest. affirm his regarding determined, supported. The trial court so Some of the comments are as follows: I agree, with which its memoran- Jergeson basically ‘Mr. is anti-establish- opinion dum stated: ment.’ ‘He reported: Another student “This Court does not think there is also I has rather weird that some ideas proof proper expressed that his Jergeson ’ * * * had “hippies” credited One of marijuana views and student take student ‘He what a observed: realizes over school in class.” ’ * ** is, mess High Sheridan In only testimony presented hear- pro- answering question a if the teacher bearing upon ing plaintiff’s expressing his moted parents activities which are feel philosophy pro- to the students student objectionable, student answered: Hardy test that Tate who attended way ‘The continually which he tries during the taught by plaintiff four classes tear society down people that previous year. school On direct the stu- live with downgrades many He it. dent, question in answer to a people’s perform actions that a func- “teaching techniques,” plain- that testified said, tion in society.’ Another student argument tiff stimulated discussion T feel prompted he has some kids by and caused students to think. On cross unpatriotic parents, to their attorney for the board he was then country.’ question: asked the following “We place do not controlling weight Jergeson Mr. “Did ever state a class upon the student evaluation sheets. We you that were in that students should recognize that may unfairly a student go Superin- into the criticize an ques- instructor on such a tendent’s office the Administration tionnaire; however, they simply show protest they a they office and if felt had opinions his regarding pro- student just cause to so do ?” test and narcotics were carried into classroom, and in our opinion tend to and answered: produce Challeng- unwholesome results. “I don’t remember like instances ing the fundamental society values is that, in my classes.” perhaps normal for young- sters and young some respect is marijuana, teachers. This relied recognized by the However, solely Board. on the statement one student opinion, expressed when given question classroom answer a in a stu- that possession use and marijuana survey principal dent made study. The inspired he be- the students activities or he promote “Does asked rating plain- of the six students comments questionable?” you feel havior those “poor” “average” plaintiff tiff replied student to which emphasized the board. smoking pot Ok.” feel “seems to however, student, prefaced This same point out here appropriate also although statement remark with survey plaintiff also addition “liberal,” or does “says he a plaintiff at the called three of students greatly.” anyone’s ideas change nothing to plaintiff an ex- who testified empha- selected In addition teacher, in- cellent and three fellow survey answers other sized in his behalf structors who also testified “basically anti-establish- regarded good him as teacher. Such had ; ideas that “rather weird ment” had however, testimony, though uncon- even ”; “continually tries to ‘hippies’ credited to com- aside without tradicted brushed lastly feeling of society”; and down tear the board in favor of the conclu- ment “prompted one student expressed by the six students sions unpatriotic.” to be some kids survey. worthy It is of note that also statements, course, represent These testimony produced student survey inasmuch only the results of professional on the issue basic reliance on *14 placed great as the board plaintiff’s competence and quite noticea- plain- charge that support survey in of its supe- bly plaintiff’s to call immediate failed practice of educa- “philosophy and tiff’s riors, principal superintendent the and of inter- to the best tion” was “detrimental” school, testify to as their evalua- the to I think it would “of students” ests his competence plaintiff’s tion of as a teacher. re- to the show informative beneficial only The inference that could be drawn.on survey. that sults of plaintiff that state of the was that record recog- was a so good teacher and the board had been Thirty plaintiff’s students of that, so nized. Noticeable also the fact par- by principal the selected random shows, compe- plaintiff’s far as this record survey asked ticipate in the and were ques- tence aas teacher had never been his anonymous of ef- write “an evaluation tioned until time called before he was teacher,” which was the as a fectiveness his board answer for conduct. rating proposition propounded. The first “very poor,” of was to the basis be made on Returning again survey, to the next “very “good,” and “poor,” “average,” propounded question “Has his influ- was students, good.” plain- 14 rated the 30 Of your thinking ence on and behavior been “good,” as “very good,” tiff 10 rated him answering those a wholesome one?” Of “average,” rated him 3 “Yes”; rated him as 3 5 question, 19 students answered poor.” “No”; “very as “Don’t “poor.” rated him answered 6 answered as None know.” The then were asked students summary of By way of of the comments thinking “Has his influence on the and be- rating plaintiff “good” the 24 students havior of other students been a wholesome “very plaintiff’s good,” it was said that “Yes”; question one?” To this 6 answered teaching forced stimulating; that he “No”; 3 answered and 15 answered “Don’t think; objec- that he listened students he question know.” The third “Does students; tively taught them that he promote you feel activities or behavior that disagreed to be tolerant of those who questionable?” respect to this in- he their thinking; their own that held “No”; students answered answered thought-provoking timely terest with “Yes”; and 5 “Don’t answered know.” material; express students could being analysis The its board in the results themselves his class “without you survey apparently almighty grade if took answer threatened ques- disagree”; voting he the 19 “Yes” and that students on communicated plaintiff’s their manner board knew of tion of “influence” hair, wearing prior and dress thinking his beard support its conclusion yet influencing ac- renewal his contract plaintiff the students to apparent it at regarded is that the that none of them cept his the fact beliefs when teach- “inappropriate his time as greater majority those 19 stated ing profession.” positive and beneficial. “influence” was making remarks em- Even students purposes For I think is no here phasized or indicated by the board stated explore plaintiff’s need to contention and not that it was the other students deprivation protected asserted they being influenced their who were privacy. other contentions His detriment. matter, dispose are sufficient of this foregoing to me at demonstrates apparent when ordinarily we refrain fair made no or rea- least deciding questions. such Plaintiff’s analysis portion of the rec- sonable other contentions he notice are that had no phase ord of- proceeding, on this either before or at the that these yet findings it is its and con- obvious from into; matters going inquired were to be clusions that its order dismissal was opportunity he was afforded de- predicated upon large in a measure against fend find- charges; that the matter under hold on discussion. I would ing supported evidence; is not ground alone that adopted policy the board had no rules prejudiced arbitrary capricious establishing standards which action order must be found and concluded were violated reversed. plaintiff. contentions, All of these above,
shown amply sustained APPEARANCE AND DRESS my record. In here view *15 again not process. due afforded Whether this incident formed a While the board its states in order that basis for important reversal is not too plaintiff’s prejudicial appearance view the other “did afford errors I have already does, however, discussed. grounds for removal” it did not conclude significance respect to similar future say cannot in the face as of its order proceedings and for that reason merits injection whole and its this un- matter Wholly some plain- discussion. aside from der the it gave circumstances described that argument tiff’s on constitutional appearance consideration to of a privacy, plaintiff demon- reaching its plain- ultimate conclusion that strates from the record that the board was tiff was an incompetent As I teacher. clearly in error in injecting matter into above, mentioned the board went out of its the proceeding. way place emphasis statements made on survey, students plaintiff
What board did such as here in substance anti-establishment, was to judicial hippie type, take was a notice without so ad- vising unpatriotic. felt, No doubt observations made which its understandable, members of plaintiff’s appearance appearance that plaintiff’s prior which, occasions “to to the hearing of was an additional thread with which course, in the incompetency first garment” instance was violative sew the 9-276.26(d) regarded More im- it is most § A.P.A. portantly, depicting introduced no flaunting evi- emblem Nevertheless, dence things. to when and where if the board these appear- observations were plaintiff’s charging made what basis for teaching appearance “inappropriate was at those times. ance for From appears ex- profession” proper record set a super- and “did not intendent, students,” principal, there ample and members of for proper way proceed for it firming has the action of the board. I would not done so. reverse the trial court’s order with instruc-
tions to remand it to the board with a expunge direction to records CONCLUSION blight upon plaintiff’s competency cast as a From the foregoing apparent teacher, it is me practical pur- for all that the poses put trial court error con- matter rest.
APPENDIX to be as tried Lynev smiled and Pep ly, while the land of upon time in Once possible. inspiring as and their 35 eight Patriots lived innocent pro- lovely people had Followers. These Meany for day begged Lynev The next the land patriotism through out moted “Oh, Meany pleading, forgiveness, Master’s All across years successfully. many Eight Patriots Master, join the me again let of these the names knew villagers land the life. my my whole they Friends Atina, Lechar, Nalo, Enij, leaders, eight each crowds agitating the enjoy so much Neren, Anit, and when Lunev, Neran and *16 Oh, duty, my pledge. my weekend. townspeople came town the Patriots Master, return?” may I Meany please, appearance. their rejoiced and cheered it,” Master Meany about talk “We’ll horrors, Then, year the all one horror of calmly. replied hit of a mean master Plague form were of the Patriots The Followers Pa- Eight Eight over the Patriots. The un- this time during abused also being nearly destroyed crippled triots were away to be taken bus was rest. Their Master, thought her Meany who relatively unim- trips to for short used rally through- At each ways were but fair. an did offer Meany Master portant areas. Patriots, not their usual year, out go however, got don’t time “I excuse Meany selves, wept cried and Master yer, jerks.” little yer Eight The Patriots became shot ’em down. they and cried as cried The Followers pale definitely Fi- downcast. weak time, still time after down were shot tortures, Lynev nally, after numerous her tormentation. persisted Meany Master Group for a weekend. removed from Meany Mas- loyal, managed evident terribly Lynev at- it became Being Soon Her intelligence. Meany average rally tend the The ter was of below weekend. sentences, “We’ll of 2 during vocabulary consisted glared at her the entire ral- Master it,” destroyed hap- plotting, planning about seemed to were now talk which never somehow, maybe pen Meany because “I don’t have Master. Was to be way. Eight escape in the The Patriots from this endless torture? got time” and more of their began devoting more March —Dis- Ray Hope came in The conspiring against Meany precious time Rally. Rally the Patriots trict At District agitation their practising Master instead of Pep gathered from all over Followers schemes, they should really what which The campaign and shout a weekend. peace doing. They calling beban been Eight the news that Patriots were elated breaking Meany hopes talks in down Meany to let them Master had consented Master’s Evil Rules. adven- glorious to this take Followers immediately be- Preparations were (Note: Evil Definition rules ture. Rules. sang their Meany Eight again Patriots up by gun, set Master as and the which were S-H-E-R-I-D-A-N, “Oh, song in Supreme Law of the Land for the tune Fol- Cheerily, the preservation by Meany all the time!” power Mas- Sheridan ter, agitation rou- by Meany on themselves with and endorced Master her lowers busies in their may Eight Patriots Finger Fate, i tines to aid the condescend quest showings. Reservations of fantastic Fickle.) add was lovely cottage, housing made in a were negotiations began peacefully The climbing protected flowing willows and enough; always Master Meany refused ivy. come, retorting got “I don’t time!” Final- Master, Meany ly, deliberation, slight dropped A after bomb Meany much Master Not-so-Meany Mas- referred to as (now consented to “talk it over.” date would have ter), the Followers Eight set and the announced Patriots and 35 Followers chaperones. for the they over 175 dollars finally felt fork making progress. peo- Naturally, outrageous price for 4 talk, peace Eight At the first Patriots eternally grate- ple, but the Followers were were shocked out their ever-lovin’ uni- Rally ful that could attend District they Master, Meany realizing forms. instead of they they felt as any pangs suppressed unnecessity foolishness of the Evil dug up the hard earned bread. Rules gems added few choice to the ever Rally continued on District progress Still growing, ever constant list. Eight Patriots amazing pace. The at an is, Thou, (1): Eight Number ap- bouncy rosy red cheeks and kept their Patriots,. any rally shall not attend songs pearances. The Followers wrote new land Pep with unshined saddle shoes like, great!” and mighty “Mighty, we are their feet. Note also that Thou shall al- ’em!” “Sock ways inbe attendance saddle shoes the feet. Evil Rules. even No on considered They to have been removed. were assumed *17 Thou, (2): Number Eight Unfortunately, Meany Master Patriots will make substitutions if Thou long, long sheets mimeographed them plans to gone be permission without the “THE SIX COM- paper and titled them Goddess, i. Meany e. Master. Adding to the collection MANDMENTS”. horrible than which were even more some (3): Eight Number Squad The Patriot in their imagine could wildest the Patriots public will not seen be at rallies with them nightmares, passed Master Meany slacks, levis, i. pants e. covering their day Enthusiasm out one at the Follower -100°F, bodies. Even if temperature “Here, jerks,” little meeting. yer breaking of the Rule will not be tolerated. began. group The whole Meany Master Naturally, Eight learning Patriots Meany were ex- was Master shocked — tremely disappointed. All typed up their weeks of new “I have some words!! Followers; by Meany triots rather Mas- obey at Dis- you must you Rules cars, Meany Meany Birth- ter. Master rode Rally. Merry Hitler’s Adolf trict socialized, Meany Master Master wore day!” Meany pants. asked about Master’s When passed were around Evil Rules The delinquency, an- she rumored have longer grew Followers the Faces swered, rules, sign yer “I didn’t those can’t terrifying read each longer as the recorder do nothing me.” commandment: F, day, One e. when cold i. -100 Sheridan autos, ride in 1) Thou shall not Lechar, rally, evening Atina, had an golf they be whither automated vehicles ah, Nalo went to view the town but carts cars. off, freezing did not wear their behinds socialize, e. be Thou shall not i. 2) sweaters, their i. micro-short skirts and Followers. rooms of other Patriots uniforms, they their e. rather ware HORRORS, sinful . DEAR levis. OH public Thou shall not be seen 3) COMRADES!!!! e., slacks, levis, the bods. pants covering i. F the temperature if reach -100 Even say Meany with her radar Master them tolerated. breaking of this rule shall not be they eyes them that promptly informed only Thou wear official 4) shall longer Patriots and were to were no and Fol- uniform of Patriots the Sheridan gone by morning. the next public, while in i. e. all time. lowers Patriots, knowing they had broken shoes, 5) shall wear saddle Thou they Rules, resigned to the fact were on your feet. Said i. e. brown and white home, go but be removed from must shoe will be shined and footwear saddle part Squad!! Why, that was not Patriot decent, look
will i. e. new. of the deal!!!! Any these Rules 6) infraction victims, Meany speaking to the When sent being will result the criminal home.” said, me Master is rumored to “Give eyes, Eight in their Pa- tears remove your and don’t bother to uniforms dragged triots and Followers themselves letters; yer, yer little I’ll mail ’em to Grief,” respective to their homes. “Good jerks.” Grief, began say. the Followers “Good ” . . . Good Grief “Oh, Meany (Meany Master Master” Master), Meany Lechar Double now But, Eight trying Patriots their pleaded, must we be removed “Why began to be best cheerful. Lechar squad?” “Oh, ye coaxing, come on. Followers. Be triumph cheery. We will at the rallies. it,” the traditional talk about “We’ll One!” We’re Number reply. “Yes, Yes,” yelled and be- Followers chant, One, gan Number we’re “We came about and talk never But the ” number one. . . . time, was sent Rally a substitute State Lechar, Nalo, Patriots, replace lost plans Eight Pa- So continued Atina. Followers, triots, Meany Master trav- Rally singing songs of elled to District *18 you No, tell think I will don’t Moral: cheer, gonna ya, yea. beat oh “Sheridan’s rea- is no so obvious the moral. poison pen, say “The this:
son but I will be, of strikes may case SY Rally, pencil at District Rules Once Evil Infrac- began again!” the Pa- suprisingly tions