Writing for the Court, Justice Harlan stated that "while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man's vulgarity is another's lyric. He did so by attempting to cover the 25" screen with an 8 1/2" by 11" letter-sized file folder. Plaintiff's reliance upon cases grounded in the concept of "academic freedom," e.g., Cooper, 611 F.2d at 1113; Dean, 486 F. Supp. The case is Fowler vs. Lincoln County Board of Education, 87-657. The dissent relies upon Schad v. Mt. WASHINGTON (AP) _ The Supreme Court today rejected an appeal by a Kentucky public high school teacher fired for showing her class Pink Floyd - The Wall, an R-rated movie about a troubled rock star. See United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. Moreover, there is testimony supporting the fact that more editing was done in the afternoon showing than in the morning showing. FOWLER v. BOARD OF EDUC. Charles Bailey, age fifteen, who had seen the movie on prior occasions, indicated that the movie had "one bad place in it.". 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. The board viewed the movie once in its entirety and once as it had been edited in the classroom. The court went on to view this conduct in light of the purpose for teacher tenure. The existence of such a "right to know" was considered by the Supreme Court in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. The district court concluded that Fowler's conduct was protected by the First Amendment, and that she was discharged for exercising her constitutionally protected rights. 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. Sec. 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. The board viewed the movie once in its entirety and once as it had been edited in the classroom. Under circumstances such as these, I cannot conclude that Fowler possessed "[a]n intent to convey a particularized message" to her students. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION. View Andrew Tony Fowler Full Profile . of Educ. The cases just discussed demonstrate that conduct is protected by the First Amendment only when it is expressive or communicative in nature. We emphasize that our decision in this case is limited to the peculiar facts before us. 12 (Board) to dismiss her from her teaching position on the grounds of immorality. 568, 575-76, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977), as suggested by Judge Merritt's dissent, particularly when viewed in the context of the post- Mt. Ms. Francisca Montoya is a lifelong resident of Maricopa County and advocate of public education. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). Defendants, The Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky, individual board members, and the Superintendent of the Lincoln County Schools, appeal from the judgment of the district court awarding reinstatement and damages to plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler on the ground that her employment was terminated in violation of her First Amendment rights. In this appeal, defendants contend that the district court erred in its conclusion that plaintiff's discharge violated her First Amendment rights. 2880, 2897, 37 L.Ed.2d 796 (1973)). at 3166 (recognizing need for flexibility in formulating school disciplinary rules). 1976), for the proposition that students in a public school have a constitutionally protected right "to receive information which they and their teachers desire them to have." In order to defend itself against such a claim, the government must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision to terminate would have been made in the absence of the exercise of the constitutionally protected right. Rather, the proper focus of our inquiry is whether Fowler was engaged in expressive activity protected by the First Amendment, and nothing in the record would indicate that she was so engaged. Ky.Rev.Stat. Id., at 410, 94 S.Ct. Furthermore, since this was a "free day" for the students, no departure from a board-mandated curriculum occurred. . Monroe v. State Court of Fulton County, 739.F.2d 568, 571 (11th Cir. Pink Floyd is the name of a popular rock group. 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. 1979). In this appeal, defendants contend that the district court erred in its conclusion that plaintiff's discharge violated her First Amendment rights. Advanced A.I. Bethel School District No. 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." Sterling, Ky., for defendants-appellants, cross-appellees. Healthy City School Dist. (same); id. 2727, 2730, 41 L.Ed.2d 842 (1974). 2176, 68 L.Ed.2d 671 (1981), and Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting casting Co., 433 U.S. 562, 97 S.Ct. San Francisco Unified School District and County Office of Education Board Policy 6161.11 Supplementary Instructional Materials . Another shows the protagonist cutting his chest with a razor. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. at 1788. She testified that, despite the fact that she had never seen the movie before having it shown to her students, and despite the fact that she was posting grades on report cards and left the room several times while the movie was being shown, she believed it had significant value. 1589, 1594-95, 60 L.Ed.2d 49 (1979)). 2176, 2181, 68 L.Ed.2d 671 (1981) (entertainment protected same as political or ideological speech); Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562, 578, 97 S.Ct. Because some parts of the film are animated, they are susceptible to varying interpretations. She testified that she would show an edited. I at 101. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506, 89 S.Ct. The movie here seems to me to present a message similar to that expounded by Dr. Spock: abuse of sex and drugs as well as various forms of mental instability and anti-social conduct are associated with an overly authoritarian society. We find this argument to be without merit. She testified that she would show an edited version of the movie again if given the opportunity to explain it. Id., at 863-69, 102 S.Ct. of Educ. 693, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979) (holding that a conversation by a teacher and principal in the principal's office, a private expression by a public employee, was protected speech). The day on which the movie was shown, May 31, 1984, was a noninstructional day used by teachers for completing grade cards. 39 Ed. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Even when the actor does intend to communicate a message by his conduct, a governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech aspect of such conduct may justify incidental restrictions on the speech aspect as well. In the present case, because plaintiff's conduct in having the movie shown cannot be considered expressive or communicative, under the circumstances presented, the protection of the First Amendment is not implicated. at 177, 94 S.Ct. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the importance of the exercise of First Amendment rights in the context of public schools. 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. Having considered the entire record, including the viewing of the movie, which we describe as gross and bizarre and containing material completely unsuitable for viewing by a classroom of students aged fourteen to seventeen, we conclude that such conduct falls within the concept of conduct unbecoming a teacher under Kentucky law. She was discharged in July, 1984 for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher. 6th Circuit. But whatever the meaning of the movie, however good or bad it may be, my main concern is that the holdings of both Judge Milburn and Judge Peck are in error. 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. In the present case, it is undisputed that Fowler did not see the movie before she had it shown to her class on the morning of May 31, 1984, a noninstructional day. The clerk who rented the "R" rated tape to Fowler told her that there was some nudity in the movie during a song called "Young Lust" and warned that she might wish to delete that section. of Educ.. (opinion of Powell, J.) But he said the school officials fired Ms. Fowler because they also determined the film was inappropriate for classroom viewing because of its sexual innuendo and sexually explicit material, some profane language, violence and vulgar images.. Lincoln County School Board I at 101. There is conflicting testimony as to whether, or how much, nudity was seen by the students. 1976) (teacher could not successfully contend that "due and sufficient cause" standard did not give notice that improper conduct toward students would result in discipline); Kilpatrick v. Wright, 437 F. Supp. tion for showing R-rated films, as evidenced by Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County Kentucky (819 FE 2 d 657 [1987]), Krizeh v. Cicero-Stichley TP. at 2810. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case. Joint Appendix at 265-89. In my view this case should be decided under the "mixed motive" analysis of Mt. Joint Appendix at 198, 200, 204, 207, 212, 223, 249-50, 255. . In examining the motivation of the school board, while the school board clearly expressed displeasure with the anti-establishment focus of the film, the board also found the method of the film to be highly inappropriate for its students. Accordingly, we conclude that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Fowler's conduct. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S.Ct. Jarman v. Williams, 753 F.2d 76, 77-78 (8th Cir. As Corrected November 6, 1986. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 777, 780-81, 96 L.Ed. at 1678. of Educ. 2294, 2299, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972); 511 Detroit Street, Inc. v. Kelley, 807 F.2d 1293, 1295 (6th Cir. District Court Opinion at 23. Fraser, 106 S.Ct. Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 196, 73 S.Ct. Sec. In its opinion, the district court relied upon the analytical framework provided by the, Request a trial to view additional results. United States District Courts. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, (1978) 819 F.2d 657 Management Resources: 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. Before MERRITT and MILBURN, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge. In the process, she abdicated her function as an educator. 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 addition to the sexual aspects of the movie, there is a great deal of violence. 161.790(1)(b). -The district court ruled in favor of Fowler, concluding that her actions are indeed protected under the First Amendment. Under the circumstances present, the court concluded that a discharge for conduct unbecoming a teacher could be upheld. 1976) (insubordinate acts were clearly within scope of regulation governing "unofficerlike conduct"; regulation not vague as applied), cert. 1098 (1952). at 573-74. 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard. Another scene shows children being fed into a giant sausage machine. 403 U.S. at 25, 91 S.Ct. . Sec. Ms. Fowler, a former teacher of the year at the school who taught civics and Latin, said she did not watch the movie herself before showing it to the students. 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. 2849, 2859, 53 L.Ed.2d 965 (1977) ("no doubt that entertainment . Joint Appendix at 137. The Supreme Court has recognized that not every form of "conduct can be labeled `speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea." of Tipp City, No. The film describes the life of a rock star, including his childhood, failed marriage, drug abuse and ruined career. 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. 04-3524. owler wds fired in # uly 1984 dnd dppedled on the ground thdt her employment wds termindted in violdtion of her irst mendment rights dnd conduct unbecoming d . Cf. The students had asked to see the film. Stephen Fowler/Georgia Public Broadcasting As a half-dozen voting rights advocates filed into the Lincoln County Board of Elections to deliver a petition that temporarily halted plans to. 1974), a teacher was discharged for public displays of deviate sexual behavior under a statute proscribing "conduct unbecoming a teacher." 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. Dist. As the District Court correctly found, the school board in this case had to negate the testimony of its own members that the determinative causative factor in Mrs. Fowler's discharge was her decision to allow "antieducation, antifamily, antijudiciary, and antipolice" views to be expressed in her classroom. The students in Fowler's classes were in grades nine through eleven and were of the ages fourteen through seventeen. 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. ), cert. Furthermore, Fowler never at any time made an attempt to explain any message that the students might derive from viewing the movie. 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. Having considered the entire record, including the viewing of the movie, and in holding that the district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous, we are left with a "definite and firm conviction that . Plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler was a tenured teacher employed by the Lincoln County, Kentucky, school system for fourteen years. This segment of the film was shown in the morning session. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has long recognized that certain forms of expressive conduct are entitled to protection under the First Amendment. Judge H. Ted Milburn said Ms. Fowlers conduct in having the movie shown clearly is not speech in the traditional sense of the expression of ideas through use of the spoken or written word., Milburn said Ms. Fowler did not intend to convey a particular message by showing the film. at 1647 (quoting Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 578-79, 93 S.Ct. 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. The district court concluded that Fowler was not insubordinate because she did not violate an established rule or regulation, and also found that plaintiff's due process rights were not violated by the procedures utilized at the administrative hearing. The students in Fowler's classes were in grades nine through eleven and were of the ages fourteen through seventeen. Joint Appendix at 82-83. Ms. Montoya's professional experience spans 25 plus years in non-profit management, government relations, and community and economic development. On July 10, 1984, plaintiff Fowler appeared with counsel at the administrative hearing. 302, 307 (E.D.Tex. 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. Joint Appendix at 113-14. 1899, 36 L.Ed.2d 391 (1973); James v. Board of Education, 461 F.2d 566 (2d Cir. Although Judge Peck's opinion concedes that "the school board clearly expressed displeasure with the anti-establishment focus of the film," he argues nonetheless that the board's "objections to the `immoral' content of the film were intertwined with constitutionally permissible objections to the film's above mentioned vulgarity and unsuitability for the student age group. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment of the district court and dismiss plaintiff's action. (dicta indicating that standard of "conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts" was sufficiently clear to put judge on notice that criminal, potentially impeachable offenses would trigger investigation), cert. I believe a teacher should be similarly protected by the First Amendment whether she is participating in an instructional or non-instructional day. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971), the Supreme Court held constitutionally protected the act of wearing a jacket bearing the words "!?X! 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. THE BUNCOMBE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; Charles Johnson, Chairman; Michael Anders; Terry Roberson; Bruce Goforth; Bill Williams; Grace Brazil; Wendell Begley; Dr. J. Frank Yeager, Superintendent; Fred Ivey, Principal; each in his/her individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees. The students in Fowler's classes were in grades nine through eleven and were of the ages fourteen through seventeen. She has lived in the Fowler Elementary School District for the past 22 years. Joint Appendix at 120-22. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. The two appeals court judges in the majority upheld the firing for different reasons. Evans-Marshall v. Board of Educ. . One student testified that she saw "glimpses" of nudity, but "nothing really offending. School officials testified that they objected to the movie because it promoted values which were described as immoral, antieducation, antifamily, antijudiciary, and antipolice. To the extent that the district court's finding of fact number 34 may be interpreted as a finding that the defendants objected to the film only on an ideological level, the finding is clearly erroneous. She believed the movie portrayed the dangers of alienation between people and of repressive educational systems. That method was to use sexual innuendo and sexually explicit material, some profane language, violence, and vulgar images, to tell the story of the film. Similarly, his finding that Fowler formed an opinion regarding the significance of the film during the morning showing is clearly erroneous. Whether a certain activity is entitled to protection under the First Amendment is a question of law. 1984). denied, 464 U.S. 993, 104 S.Ct. 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. Id., at 1116. 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. 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. 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. enjoys First Amendment protection"). She lost her case for reinstatement. On its distinctive facts, Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky' is almost ideally suited as a vehicle for reexamining some of the "deeper" issues associated with the in-school speech of public high school teachers in particular and with free speech law in general. 2537, 91 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986). 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 102 S.Ct. Healthy, 429 U.S. at 287, 97 S.Ct. Because the intent to express was coupled with a great likelihood that the message would be understood, the Court concluded that the conduct was entitled to protection under the First Amendment. Fowler rented the video tape at a video store in Danville, Kentucky. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment of the district court and dismiss plaintiff's action. Joint Appendix at 242-46. denied, 430 U.S. 931, 97 S.Ct. The board then retired into executive session. As we have noted, the "R" rated movie was shown on a noninstructional day to students in Fowler's classes in grades nine through eleven who were of ages ranging from fourteen through seventeen. The district court concluded that Fowler's conduct was protected by the First Amendment, and that she was discharged for exercising her constitutionally protected rights. at 307; Parducci v. Rutland, 316 F. Supp. O'Brien, 391 U.S. at 376, 88 S.Ct. Andrew Tony Fowler in 2021 was employed in FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION and had annual salary of $99,765 according to public records. School officials testified that they objected to the movie because it promoted values which were described as immoral, antieducation, antifamily, antijudiciary, and antipolice. Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 110, 92 S.Ct. For similar reasons, plaintiff's reliance on Pratt v. Independent School District No. 2. Ms. Fowler later told school officials she believed the movie has significant value because it deals with personal alienation and the dangers of repressive educational systems. Another shows the protagonist cutting his chest with a razor. at p. 664. What one judge sees as "gross and bizarre," another may find, as did District Judge Scott Reed below, mild and not very "sexually suggestive.". One student testified that she saw "glimpses" of nudity, but "nothing really offending." United States District Court (Columbia), United States District Courts. 161.790(1)(b) is not unconstitutionally vague. Defendants, The Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky, individual board members, and the Superintendent of the Lincoln County Schools, appeal from the judgment of the district court awarding reinstatement and damages to plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler on the ground that her employment was terminated in violation of her First Amendment rights. at 576. Fowler rented the video tape at a video store in Danville, Kentucky. District Office Staff; Three Year Strategic Plan; Supergram; District Calendar; FUSD Annual Calendar; Student Achievement; Board of Trustees; Accessibility Information Once again, there is conflicting testimony concerning the effectiveness of the editing attempt. Sterling, Ky., for defendants-appellants, cross-appellees. of Lincoln Cty .. Opinion of Judge Peck at p. 668. Healthy standard to decide whether Ms. Fowler's discharge violated the First Amendment, but erred in its finding that, but for Ms. Fowler's constitutionally protected activity of communicating various ideas and political thoughts to her students, she would not have been fired. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. 2849, 53 L.Ed.2d 965 (1977), for the general proposition that entertainment enjoys First Amendment protection. Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. The District Court held that the school board failed to carry this Mt. School board must not censor books. 1117 (1931) (display of red flag is expressive conduct). It is undisputed that Fowler was discharged for the showing of the movie, Pink Floyd The Wall. 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. Justice Brennan restated the test to decide intent and asserted: Pico, 477 U.S. at 871, 102 S.Ct. Joint Appendix at 198, 200, 204, 207, 212, 223, 249-50, 255. 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. Because some parts of the film are animated, they are susceptible to varying interpretations. Moreover, even these three justices explicitly noted that the decision regarding this right did not extend to the classroom. Similarly, in Wishart v. McDonald, 500 F.2d 1110 (1st Cir. 161.790(1)(b) was not vague or overbroad, apparently for the reason that, because Fowler's conduct was protected by the First Amendment, such conduct, "as a matter of fact and law did not constitute conduct unbecoming a teacher.". Joint Appendix at 83, 103, 307. Emergency Coalition v. U.S. Dept. Id., at 1193. United States Courts of Appeals. See 3 Summaries. Plaintiff Fowler received her termination notice on or about June 19, 1984. Defendants, The Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky, individual board members, and the Superintendent of the Lincoln County Schools, appeal from the judgment of the district court awarding reinstatement and damages to plaintiff Jacqueline Fowler on the ground that her employment was terminated in violation of her First Amendment rights. See also Fraser, 106 S.Ct. of Educ. 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. 1986). ." No. Another scene shows children being fed into a giant sausage machine. In so finding we are not troubled by the Seventh Circuit's decisions respecting a school's attempted regulation of hair length.