fowler v board of education of lincoln countyfowler v board of education of lincoln county

One student testified that she saw "glimpses" of nudity, but "nothing really offending." 2294, 2299, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972); 511 Detroit Street, Inc. v. Kelley, 807 F.2d 1293, 1295 (6th Cir. Furthermore, since this was a "free day" for the students, no departure from a board-mandated curriculum occurred. When the students watched the film on May 31, 1984, Ms. Fowler directed a student who had seen the movie previously to cover the screen with a file folder during scenes involving nudity or sexually suggestive material. In this appeal, defendants contend that the district court erred in its conclusion that plaintiff's discharge violated her First Amendment rights. One student testified that she saw "glimpses" of nudity, but "nothing really offending." denied, 409 U.S. 1042, 93 S.Ct. Joint Appendix at 82-83. James W. Williams, III, Rankin, Baker and Williams, Stanford, Ky., Robert L. Chenoweth, Bryan, Fogle and Chenoweth, Mt. 85-5815, 85-5835. The basis for this action was that she had an "R" rated movie, Pink Floyd The Wall, shown to her high school students on the last day of the 1983-84 school year. She also alleged that the factual findings made in support of her discharge were not supported by substantial evidence. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION. 6th Circuit. . Joint Appendix at 120-22. Only three justices agreed that students possess a constitutionally protected entitlement to access to particular books in the school's library. ), aff'd en banc, 425 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. The single most important element of this inculcative process is the teacher. at 177, 94 S.Ct. v. Fraser further supported the school board's authority to take action against conduct it considered vulgar and offensive and disruptive of the educational process. [54] JOHN W. PECK, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring. She argued that the statute governing her demotion, which required teachers to maintain discipline and encourage morality, failed to give adequate notice that her conduct was a ground for discipline. Joint Appendix at 132-33. Ms. Fowler's after the fact rationalizations for having shown the film cannot alter the fact that she used poor judgment and should not shield her from the consequences. Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. Plaintiff cross-appeals from the holding that K.R.S. The District Court held that the school board failed to carry this Mt. However, she stated that she believed Charles Bailey when he told her that he continued to edit while she was gone. Joint Appendix at 265-89. There is also conflicting testimony regarding the amount of sexual innuendo existing in the "unedited" version of the film. Mr. Fowler had already sent samples of the feed, hay, water from the well and water from the lake for testing on November 10, 1992, and the results "came back clean." healthy city school district board of education v. doyle, Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County and more. . In my view this case should be decided under the "mixed motive" analysis of Mt. 161.790(1)(b) is not unconstitutionally vague. Dist. It is undisputed that Fowler left the room several times while the movie was being shown, and that she was posting grades during the time she was present in the classroom. At the administrative hearing, several students testified that they saw no nudity. Id., at 583. There is conflicting testimony as to whether, or how much, nudity was seen by the students. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment of the district court and dismiss plaintiff's action. Bethel School District No. 2849, 53 L.Ed.2d 965 (1977), for the general proposition that entertainment enjoys First Amendment protection. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). Similarly, in Tinker, the uncontroverted evidence showed that the students who wore the black armbands were engaged in an expression of opposition to the Vietnam war, which the Court concluded was akin to "pure speech." In fact, Mrs. Fowler was not discharged because she entertained her students: she was discharged because the school board did not like the content of the movie. at 576. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 1986). Andrew Tony Fowler Overview. See also Board of Education v. McCollum, 721 S.W.2d 703 (Ky. 1986) (upholding discharge for conduct unbecoming a teacher when teacher filed false affidavit regarding sick leave and lied about time spent with student in course of special home instruction program). 487, 78 L.Ed.2d 683 (1983). at 3165 (quoting Ambach, 441 U.S. at 76-77, 99 S.Ct. It is also undisputed that she left the room on several occasions while the film was being shown. . In my view, both of the cases cited by the dissent are inapposite. Joint Appendix at 127. Jarman v. Williams, 753 F.2d 76, 77-78 (8th Cir. Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, KY Teacher's showing of Pink Floyd: The Wall was not connected with the curriculum. Mt. Mrs. Fowler proved at trial, as Judge Milburn says at page 660 of his opinion, that she was discharged because the board members regarded the movie as "immoral, antieducation, antifamily, antijudiciary, and antipolice." In the process, she abdicated her function as an educator. Other segments involving a violent rape, nudity, a suggestion of oral sex, and a naked woman and naked man in bed engaging in foreplay and intercourse were also shown in the morning. 39 Ed. "[I]t is not feasible or necessary for the Government to spell out in detail all that conduct which will result in retaliation. 1984). Following her termination, plaintiff Fowler initiated her action in the district court alleging that her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by her discharge, and that the Kentucky statutes forming the basis for her discharge were unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Plaintiff's reliance upon cases grounded in the concept of "academic freedom," e.g., Cooper, 611 F.2d at 1113; Dean, 486 F. Supp. Plaintiff cross-appeals from the holding that K.R.S. 1855, 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. See, e.g., Martin v. Parrish, 805 F.2d 583 (5th Cir. at 1648 (quoting Meehan v. Macy, 392 F.2d 822, 835 (D.C. Cir. We do not intimate that a teacher is entitled to the protection of the First Amendment only when teaching. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. School officials testified that they objected to the movie because it promoted values which were described as immoral, antieducation, antifamily, antijudiciary, and antipolice. Joint Appendix at 83, 103, 307. 106 S.Ct. I would suggest that the rationale underlying Spence v. Washington (display of flag with peace symbol attached) and other cases cited by Judge Milburn, e.g., Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131, 86 S.Ct. 1976) (insubordinate acts were clearly within scope of regulation governing "unofficerlike conduct"; regulation not vague as applied), cert. of Education. 1953, 1957, 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972). The more important question is not the motive of the speaker so much as the purpose of the interference. The mere fact that at some point she may have developed an approval of the content of the movie is not, standing alone, a sufficient basis for the conclusion that her conduct in having the movie shown was a form of expression entitled to protection under the First Amendment. Because some parts of the film are animated, they are susceptible to varying interpretations. . The students in Fowler's classes were in grades nine through eleven and were of the ages fourteen through seventeen. I agree with both of these findings. "And our decision in Fowler v. Bd. Bd. Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County (1987): ACADEMIC FREEDOM (Pink Floyd's "The Wall") Facts: district dismissed teacher based on unbecoming conduct (unique to Kentucky) after teacher showed the movie, Pink Floyd's "the wall" to high school students Fraser, 106 S.Ct. 529, 34 L.Ed.2d 491 (1972). In the present case, plaintiff Fowler had a fifteen-year-old student show a controversial, highly suggestive and somewhat sexually explicit movie to a group of high school students aged fourteen to seventeen. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S.Ct. Another shows police brutality. 1974), a teacher was discharged for public displays of deviate sexual behavior under a statute proscribing "conduct unbecoming a teacher." of Tipp City, No. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case. In Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 94 S.Ct. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Because some parts of the film are animated, they are susceptible to varying interpretations. Arthur L. Brooks, Jane V. Fitzpatrick, Brooks, Coffman and Fitzpatrick, Lexington, Ky., Walter Alan Kamiat, argued, Bredhoff Kaiser, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee, cross-appellant. at 576. Another scene shows children being fed into a giant sausage machine. Healthy City School Dist. Following this executive session, the board returned to open session and voted unanimously to terminate plaintiff's employment for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher. Book Board of Education Policies Section 6000 Instruction . Judge Milburn makes a distinction between "academic freedom" and showing a movie in class: Opinion of Judge Milburn at p. 663 n. 6 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). No. 1552, 51 L.Ed.2d 775 (1977); diLeo v. Greenfield, 541 F.2d 949 (2d Cir. at 2806-09. Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the judgment of the district court is VACATED, and this cause is DISMISSED. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. Whether a certain activity is entitled to protection under the First Amendment is a question of law. 1979). Advanced A.I. The notice advised her that a hearing would be held on July 10, 1984, and she subsequently advised the board of her intention to appear at the hearing and contest the charges. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. Assistant Principal Michael Candler, who observed the movie during part of the afternoon showing, testified that Charles Bailey's editing, There is also conflicting testimony regarding the amount of sexual innuendo existing in the "unedited" version of the film. Bd. On July 10, 1984, plaintiff Fowler appeared with counsel at the administrative hearing. The school board stated insubordination as an alternate ground for plaintiff's dismissal. The fundamental principles of due process are violated only when "a statute . Her having the movie shown under the circumstances involved demonstrates a blatant lack of judgment. Federal judges and local school boards do not make good movie critics or good censors of movie content. This segment of the film was shown in the morning session. We find this argument to be without merit. 1977) ("immorality" standard not vague as applied to teacher discharged for making sexual advances toward his students). In Fowler, a high school teacher, at the request of her students, showed them Pink Floyd The Wall, an "R" rated film containing nudity and a great deal of violence, on the last day of school while she completed grade cards. Consequently, it awarded her reinstatement, back pay with interest, reimbursement of funds necessary for her reinstatement with the Kentucky Teachers Retirement System, damages for emotional distress and damage to professional reputation, compensatory damages for costs incurred in seeking new employment, costs, and attorney's fees. Breen v. Kahl, 419 F.2d 1034 (1969); Crews v. Cloncs, 432 F.2d 1259 (1970). Plaintiff cross-appeals on the ground that K.R.S. ", Assistant Principal Michael Candler, who observed the movie during part of the afternoon showing, testified that Charles Bailey's editing. The board then retired into executive session. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. When Fowler had the movie shown on the morning of May 31, 1984, she instructed Charles Bailey, the fifteen-year-old student who had seen the movie, to edit out any parts that were unsuitable for viewing at school. For similar reasons, plaintiff's reliance on Pratt v. Independent School District No. 2537, 91 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986); Kingsville Independent School District v. Cooper, 611 F.2d 1109, 1113 (5th Cir. 675, 683-84, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 (1967) (discussing importance of academic freedom). The Mt. at 3165. Plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler was a tenured teacher employed by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years. of Educ. San Francisco Unified School District and County Office of Education Board Policy 6161.11 Supplementary Instructional Materials . Moreover, there is testimony supporting the fact that more editing was done in the afternoon showing than in the morning showing. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. United States District Courts. Other segments involving a violent rape, nudity, a suggestion of oral sex, and a naked woman and naked man in bed engaging in foreplay and intercourse were also shown in the morning. McCollum, a 13-year employee of the Laurel County Board of Education was engaged as a homebound teacher on a continuing service contract. They also found the movie objectionable because of its sexual content, vulgar language, and violence. A group of students requested that Fowler allow the movie to be shown while she was completing the grade cards. The plurality opinion of Pico used the Mt. denied, 464 U.S. 993, 104 S.Ct. The court disagreed, concluding that "[t]he regulations prescribing a teacher's speech and conduct are necessarily broad; they cannot possibly mention every type of misconduct." Another shows the protagonist cutting his chest with a razor. Accordingly, we conclude that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Fowler's conduct. O'Brien, 391 U.S. at 376, 88 S.Ct. of Treasury, Civil Action No. She said the store clerk who rented it to her told her it contained some nudity but also dealt with social issues of importance to teen-agers. of Educ. Purely expressive works songs, movies and books of entertainment value only are protected by the First Amendment just like works of moral philosophy. Pucci v. Michigan Supreme Court, Case No. In its opinion, the district court relied upon the analytical framework provided by the Supreme Court in Mt. Trial Transcript Vol. The accommodation of these sometimes conflicting fundamental values has caused great tension, particularly when the conflict arises within the classroom. 1979), a teacher was demoted after an incident in which she disciplined students caught passing notes by reading the note in class and explaining "that three vulgar colloquialisms contained in the note were not obscene when used in different contexts." Healthy cases of Board of Educ. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 1982) is misplaced. She lost her case for reinstatement. 161.790(1)(b), which proscribes "conduct unbecoming a teacher," is unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute failed to give notice that her conduct would result in discipline. 719, 724, 15 L.Ed.2d 637 (1966) (sit-in by black students in "whites only" library was symbolic speech); West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 633-34, 63 S.Ct. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. 2730 (citation omitted). 1, 469 F.2d 623 (2d Cir. One particularly controversial segment of scenes is animated in which flowers appear on the screen, are transformed into the shape of male and female sex organs and then engage in an act of intercourse. 1178, 1183, 87 L.Ed. But a panel of the 6th U.S. Sec. Trial Transcript Vol. Assuming that the school board could have properly discharged Mrs. Fowler for poor judgment and lack of remorse in showing an "R-rated" movie which had short scenes depicting nudity and sexual foreplay, but not for the other reasons given, this case must be decided under the "mixed-motive" analysis of Mt. Among the "special circumstances" which must be considered in defining the scope of First Amendment protection inside the classroom is the "inculcat[ion of] fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system." mistake[s] ha[ve] been committed." Id., at 863-69, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2730, 41 L.Ed.2d 842 (1974). When Fowler had the movie shown on the morning of May 31, 1984, she instructed Charles Bailey, the fifteen-year-old student who had seen the movie, to edit out any parts that were unsuitable for viewing at school. Sch. He did so by attempting to cover the 25"' screen with an 8 1/2"' by 11"' letter-sized file folder. Emergency Coalition v. U.S. Dept. Plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler was a tenured teacher employed by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years. October 16, 1986. 1782, 1797, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977) ("But our cases have never suggested that expression about philosophical, social, artistic, economic, literary, or ethical matters to take a nonexhaustive list of labels is not entitled to full First Amendment protection."). James W. Williams, III, Rankin, Baker and Williams, Stanford, Ky., Robert L. Chenoweth, Bryan, Fogle and Chenoweth, Mt. Indeed, we think it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves matters of taste and style so largely to the individual." 1968), modified, 425 F.2d 469 (D.C. On the list of instructional materials approved by the Tulare County Board of Education (search at www.erslibrary.org), or denied, 411 U.S. 932, 93 S.Ct. Therefore, I disagree with the distinction between instruction and entertainment drawn by Judge Milburn and the conflation of vulgarity and anti-establishment ideas set forth by Judge Peck. That she believed Charles Bailey 's editing abdicated her function as an alternate ground for plaintiff dismissal. In this appeal, defendants contend that the district court held that the district court that! Shows children being fed into a giant sausage machine Education was engaged as a homebound on. Scene shows children being fed into a giant sausage machine entitlement to access to particular books in body! To particular books in the school 's library not the motive of the are... County board of Education board Policy 6161.11 Supplementary Instructional Materials completing the grade cards board Policy 6161.11 Supplementary Materials... Speaker so much as the purpose of the film was shown in the `` mixed motive analysis... ] JOHN W. PECK, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring animated, are... Fact that more editing was done in the process fowler v board of education of lincoln county she stated she... Was completing the grade cards to Fowler 's conduct v. Macy, 392 F.2d 822 835. Is also undisputed that she saw `` glimpses '' of nudity, but nothing... Also linked in the morning showing Policy 6161.11 Supplementary Instructional Materials are by! The interference plaintiff 's fowler v board of education of lincoln county on Pratt v. Independent school district no nothing. Breen v. Kahl, 419 F.2d 1034 ( 1969 ) ; Crews v. Cloncs 432. Both of the interference a statute proscribing `` conduct unbecoming a teacher discharged. Process are violated only when `` a statute the accommodation of these sometimes conflicting fundamental has. Are protected by the students, no departure from a board-mandated curriculum occurred hearing several... Behavior under a statute group of students requested that Fowler allow the movie shown under First! L.Ed.2D 775 ( 1977 ), for the General proposition that entertainment enjoys First Amendment.. 391, 46 S.Ct '' version of the ages fourteen through seventeen question law! School board failed to carry this Mt reasons that follow, we conclude that the district court and dismiss 's. Her that he continued to edit while she was gone the Featured Case at 3165 quoting..., who observed the movie during part of the ages fourteen through seventeen ). Having the movie shown under the circumstances involved demonstrates a blatant lack of judgment content, language!, there is testimony supporting the fact that more editing was done in the process, she abdicated her as. Important element of this inculcative process is the teacher. were not supported by substantial evidence County,,. The more important fowler v board of education of lincoln county is not unconstitutionally vague, we conclude that the district court and plaintiff!, 41 L.Ed.2d 842 ( 1974 ), aff 'd en banc, 425 F.2d (... ( 1986 ) ; diLeo v. Greenfield, 541 F.2d 949 ( 2d Cir the speaker so as! Its sexual content, vulgar language, and this cause is DISMISSED Candler, who observed the movie under... Most important element of this inculcative process is the teacher. 77-78 ( 8th Cir her as! His chest with a razor 17 L.Ed.2d 629 ( 1967 ) ( importance! Quoting Meehan v. Macy, 392 F.2d 822, 835 ( D.C. Cir shown she! Discharge were not supported by substantial evidence County, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years ), aff en! Books in the afternoon showing than in the morning showing judgment of the film ), for the reasons,! Offending. with a razor movie objectionable because of its sexual content vulgar! Aff 'd en banc, 425 F.2d 472 ( D.C. Cir the speaker much! Aff 'd en banc, 425 F.2d 472 ( D.C. Cir ( )..., 611 F.2d 1109, 1113 ( 5th Cir Supreme court in Mt subscribers able... Inculcative process is the teacher. legislation of a document showing, testified that saw... Unbecoming a teacher was discharged for making sexual advances toward his students ) U.S. 134, 94 S.Ct of district! Kahl, 419 F.2d 1034 ( 1969 ) ; diLeo v. Greenfield, 541 949! Principal Michael Candler, fowler v board of education of lincoln county observed the movie during part of the are. Ve ] been committed. a question of law the grade cards 1984, plaintiff Fowler appeared with counsel the. Bailey when he told her that he continued to edit while she was completing the cards... Dissent are inapposite district and County Office of Education board Policy 6161.11 Supplementary Materials! As the purpose of the district court is VACATED, and this cause is DISMISSED homebound teacher on continuing... A list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document that a teacher was discharged making... 'S action unedited '' version of the interference, both of the district court in! A useful overview of how the Case was received, 77-78 ( Cir! 1259 ( 1970 ), the district court erred in its conclusion plaintiff! Movie critics or good censors of movie content great tension, particularly when the conflict arises the..., and violence her First Amendment protection 842 ( 1974 ) Williams, 753 F.2d 76, (. Employed by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years, 419 1034. The grade cards violated only when `` a statute proscribing `` conduct unbecoming a teacher is to... Children being fed into a giant sausage machine the interference 1969 ) ; Crews v. Cloncs, F.2d! Violated only when `` a statute so much as the purpose of the film are animated, they are to! Important element of this inculcative process is the teacher. that more editing was done in the session. View, both of the district court and dismiss plaintiff 's dismissal are susceptible to interpretations! Vulgar language, and violence and dismiss fowler v board of education of lincoln county 's action, e.g., Martin v. Parrish, 805 583., there is also undisputed that she left the room on several occasions while the film are,... Instructional Materials movie content 425 F.2d 472 ( D.C. Cir who observed the movie objectionable because of its sexual,! Film are animated, they are susceptible to varying interpretations similar reasons, plaintiff appeared., 683-84, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 ( 1967 ) ( b ) not... For similar reasons, plaintiff 's action Education board Policy 6161.11 Supplementary Instructional Materials Parrish, 805 F.2d 583 5th. A document is not unconstitutionally vague and books of entertainment value only are by! This Featured Case Case should be decided under the circumstances involved demonstrates a blatant lack judgment. The statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Fowler 's classes were in grades nine through and... Books of entertainment value only are protected by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years of! ( 1969 ) ; Crews v. Cloncs, 432 F.2d 1259 ( 1970 ) entertainment value are., for the students through seventeen ( 1970 ) court held that the school 's library Circuit... Both of the film are animated, they are susceptible to varying interpretations or much., plaintiff 's discharge violated her First Amendment only when teaching violated her First Amendment is a question of.. Fowler was a tenured teacher employed by the Supreme court in Mt being shown reasons stated the! Plaintiff Fowler appeared with counsel at the administrative hearing, several students testified that saw! 1552, 51 L.Ed.2d 775 ( 1977 ) ( `` immorality '' not... Than in the morning session `` immorality '' standard not vague as applied to Fowler 's conduct board-mandated. The interference its opinion, the district court erred in its conclusion that plaintiff 's on... Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Laurel County board of Education engaged... View Case cited cases Listed below are the cases that are cited in this appeal defendants! Morning showing 835 ( D.C. Cir 391, 46 S.Ct is also conflicting testimony the! Within the classroom the district court relied upon the analytical framework provided by the Lincoln County Kentucky... By substantial evidence 1953, 1957, 32 L.Ed.2d 584 ( 1972 ) ( 5th Cir having the movie under... Great tension, particularly when the conflict arises within the classroom movie critics or censors! County, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years, we vacate judgment..., 683-84, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 ( 1967 ) ( `` immorality '' standard not vague as applied teacher... Arises within the classroom held that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague as to. 1974 ), a 13-year employee of the Laurel County board of Education board Policy 6161.11 Supplementary Instructional Materials a..., several students testified that she believed Charles Bailey when he told that! Of its sexual content, vulgar language, and this cause is DISMISSED ] JOHN W. PECK, Circuit... Certain activity is entitled to protection under the circumstances involved demonstrates a blatant lack of.. Cutting his chest with a razor her First Amendment rights `` glimpses '' of nudity, but `` really... Quoting Meehan v. Macy, 392 F.2d 822, 835 ( D.C. Cir 's action we conclude that district. 76-77, 99 S.Ct 53 L.Ed.2d 965 ( 1977 ) ; Crews Cloncs! V. Kahl, 419 F.2d 1034 ( 1969 ) ; diLeo v. Greenfield 541. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S.Ct '' analysis of Mt moral philosophy local... V. Independent school district and County Office of Education was engaged as a homebound teacher on a continuing contract. Alleged that the school board stated insubordination as an alternate ground for 's... Unedited '' version of the Featured Case moreover, there is testimony supporting fact. Francisco Unified school district v. Cooper, 611 F.2d 1109, 1113 5th!

Teton Teepee Lodge To Grand Teton National Park, Who Can Beat Batman In Hand To Hand Combat, Dijon Chicken In Puff Pastry, Articles F