2537, 91 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986). 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." Andrew Tony Fowler Overview. 216 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) (emphasis supplied). Bryan, John C. Fogle, argued, Mt. At the bench trial in the district court, Fowler repeated her contention that she believed the movie contained important, socially valuable messages. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S.Ct. 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. 161.790 provides in relevant part: In Board of Education v. Wood, 717 S.W.2d 837 (Ky. 1986), two tenured teachers were discharged for conduct unbecoming a teacher under section 161.790(1)(b). 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." 1628 (1943) (flag salute is a form of expression); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 368-69, 51 S.Ct. 2537, 91 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986); Kingsville Independent School District v. Cooper, 611 F.2d 1109, 1113 (5th Cir. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 285-87, 97 S.Ct. Healthy City School Dist. 1970), is misplaced. 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 1594-95. Joint Appendix at 83-84. Moreover, in Spence. 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. The students in Fowler's classes were in grades nine through eleven and were of the ages fourteen through seventeen. . 04-3524. The district court found that the movie "contains a very limited amount of material which is sexually suggestive," that the movie does not contain "any `simulation' of a sexual act," and that "any scenes involving nudity or suggestive conduct were edited from the view of students" during both showings. O'Brien, 391 U.S. at 376, 88 S.Ct. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. She also said she would show an edited version of the movie again if she had the opportunity to explain it to the students. 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. 1987). However, for the reasons stated below I would hold that the school board properly discharged Ms. Fowler. They also found the movie objectionable because of its sexual content, vulgar language, and violence. Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, (1978) 819 F.2d 657 Management Resources: There is also conflicting testimony regarding the amount of sexual innuendo existing in the "unedited" version of the film. She did not preview the movie, despite the fact that she had been warned that portions were unsuitable for viewing in this context. at 1594-95, and Tinker, 393 U.S. at 508, 89 S.Ct. 733, 736, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969). of Educ., supra (finding a teacher's communication with a radio station regarding school board policies was constitutionally protected activity); Givhan v. Western Line Consol. In Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 94 S.Ct. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. The justices, without comment, let stand a ruling that the teachers free- expression rights were not violated. Sterling, Ky., F.C. 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. 1628 (1943) (flag salute), are inapposite because they involve examples of symbolic expression, not verbal communication, and articulate guidelines for determining what symbolic acts may constitute expression. However, the fact that Fowler's conduct was unrelated to the educational process does remove it from the protection afforded by the concept of academic freedom. 1731, 1734-35, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968)); see also Anderson v. Evans, 660 F.2d 153, 157 (6th Cir. Fraser, 106 S.Ct. School officials testified that they objected to the movie because it promoted values which were described as immoral, antieducation, antifamily, antijudiciary, and antipolice. of Tipp City, No. Board of Education, mt. This court need not go as far as the Court did in Pico and Bethel because those cases respectively involved school library and a school assembly and did not have the captive audience factor with the teacher acting in loco parentis that is present in this case. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. Another shows the protagonist cutting his chest with a razor. At the administrative hearing, several students testified that they saw no nudity. The District Court held that the school board failed to carry this Mt. I at 108-09. At the bench trial in the district court, Fowler repeated her contention that she believed the movie contained important, socially valuable messages. Cmty. Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, KY Teacher's showing of Pink Floyd: The Wall was not connected with the curriculum. finding that a prohibition on "conduct unbecoming a teacher" was constitutional and explaining that the "most conscientious of codes that define prohibited conduct of employees includes 'catchall' clauses prohibiting employee 'misconduct,' 'immorality,' or 'conduct unbecoming. The dissent relies upon Schad v. Mt. 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. District Court Opinion at 23. Healthy cases of Board of Educ. 161.790(1), which proscribes conduct unbecoming a teacher, is unconstitutionally vague as applied to her conduct. v. Fraser, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. However, Fowler did not preview the movie before having it shown to her morning class because the store did not have a tape compatible with her own VCR and because she did not have time to make other arrangements to preview the movie. A group of students requested that Fowler allow the movie to be shown while she was completing the grade cards. Lincoln County School Board at 576. "And our decision in Fowler v. Bd. This segment of the film was shown in the morning session. Accordingly, we conclude that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Fowler's conduct. 1977) ("immorality" standard not vague as applied to teacher discharged for making sexual advances toward his students). The superintendent . A group of students requested that Fowler allow the movie to be shown while she was completing the grade cards. See Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 409-12, 94 S.Ct. Joint Appendix at 198, 200, 204, 207, 212, 223, 249-50, 255. Breen v. Kahl, 419 F.2d 1034 (1969); Crews v. Cloncs, 432 F.2d 1259 (1970). Bryan, John C. Fogle, argued, Mt. 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. Tenured teacher, Jacqueline Fowler showed this movie to her freshman through junior high school students (ages 14-17) on 5-31-84 based on a recommendation of one of her 15-year-old students that previously viewed the movie. Joint Appendix at 242-46. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. School officials testified that they objected to the movie because it promoted values which were described as immoral, antieducation, antifamily, antijudiciary, and antipolice. School Dist., 439 U.S. 410, 99 S.Ct. 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.". In addition to the sexual aspects of the movie, there is a great deal of violence. . 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. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. School board must not censor books. On the afternoon of May 31, 1984, Principal Jack Portwood asked Fowler to give him the video tape, and she did so. 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 fundamental principles of due process are violated only when "a statute . In Minarcini, this court held that this "right to know" was violated by the removal of library books solely on the basis of the social and political tastes of the school board. 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. 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. 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." October 16, 1986. Charles Bailey, age fifteen, who had seen the movie on prior occasions, indicated that the movie had "one bad place in it." Connect with the definitive source for global and local news. In Spence, the undisputed facts established that the appellant hung a United States flag with a peace symbol affixed to it because he "wanted people to know that [he] thought America stood for peace." Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 393 U.S. at 505-08, 89 S.Ct. 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. Id., at 1194. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 21, 1987. 106 S.Ct. She believed the movie portrayed the dangers of alienation between people and of repressive educational systems. Plaintiff cross-appeals on the ground that K.R.S. We have viewed the film in conjunction with Fowler's testimony concerning the portions of the film which were edited during the two showings, and we conclude that the district court's findings in this regard are clearly erroneous. I agree with both of these findings. San Francisco Unified School District and County Office of Education Board Policy 6161.11 Supplementary Instructional Materials . . 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. 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. Mt. 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. The accommodation of these sometimes conflicting fundamental values has caused great tension, particularly when the conflict arises within the classroom. Because some parts of the film are animated, they are susceptible to varying interpretations. applying Arnett and Wishart in upholding dismissal standard of "conduct unbecoming a teacher", Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County. ), cert. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment of the district court and dismiss plaintiff's action. The plurality opinion of Pico used the Mt. "[I]t is not feasible or necessary for the Government to spell out in detail all that conduct which will result in retaliation. 1552, 51 L.Ed.2d 775 (1977); diLeo v. Greenfield, 541 F.2d 949 (2d Cir. 1976) (finding no constitutional violation in the Board's exercise of curriculum and textbook control, while, at the same time, determining that the Board had wrongly removed books from the library). Many courts have recognized that a teacher's First Amendment rights encompass the notion of "academic freedom" to exercise professional judgment in selecting topics and materials for use in the course of the educational process. And in Barnette, the court recognized that a flag salute is a form of communicative conduct which implicates the First Amendment. denied, 430 U.S. 931, 97 S.Ct. Summary of this case from Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County. On July 10, 1984, plaintiff Fowler appeared with counsel at the administrative hearing. The message is that unloving, overly rigid and authoritarian parents, teachers, judges and officials create disturbed individuals and societies. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 102 S.Ct. Plaintiff cross-appeals on the ground that K.R.S. Moreover, there was a direct connection between this misconduct and Fowler's work as a teacher. As herein above indicated, I concur in the result reached in Judge Milburn's opinion. What one judge sees as "gross and bizarre," another may find, as did District Judge Scott Reed below, mild and not very "sexually suggestive.". 1987) 105 Geller v. Markham, 635 F.2d 1027 (1980) 106 Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410 (1979) 108 Knight v. Board of Regents of University of State of New York, 1980); Cary v. Board of Education, 598 F.2d 535, 539-42 (10th Cir. Id., at 839. These cases do not lend themselves to the reverse purpose of defining what kind of communication can not be expressive. The case is Fowler vs. Lincoln County Board of Education, 87-657. ), aff'd en banc, 425 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. The court said that teachers are role models with responsibility for inculcating fundamental values, and that those values disfavor expression that is highly offensive to others. The Mt. James, 461 F.2d at 571-72 (quoting Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. The record is replete with testimony indicating that school officials objected to the sexual content, vulgarity, and violence contained in the movie. Under the circumstances of that case, the court concluded that plaintiff's discharge was not constitutionally offensive. We find this argument to be without merit. Joint Appendix at 137. Joint Appendix at 82-83. But a panel of the 6th U.S. 2880, 2897, 37 L.Ed.2d 796 (1973)). Joint Appendix at 127. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 102 S.Ct. (same); id. 1953, 1957, 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972). Spence, 418 U.S. at 410, 94 S.Ct. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. Plaintiff cross-appeals from the holding that K.R.S. 2727, 2729-31, 41 L.Ed.2d 842 (1974) (per curiam) (display of flag with peace symbol attached was expressive conduct entitled to protection under First Amendment); Tinker, 393 U.S. at 505, 89 S.Ct. 693, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979); Mt. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. We emphasize that our decision in this case is limited to the peculiar facts before us. She believed the movie portrayed the dangers of alienation between people and of repressive educational systems. The charges were based on her decision to rent a videotape of the Pink Floyd movie from a store in Danville, Ky., and allow her students, ranging in age from 14 to 17, to see it on the last day of class in 1984 while she was completing their report cards. at 2730. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION. Another shows police brutality. Fowler was unfamiliar with the movie and asked the students whether it was appropriate for viewing at school. I would also question the notion that an explanation from the teacher was necessary before the class was likely to understand the themes and viewpoints contained in this film. 2. In the present case, it is undisputed that plaintiff's employment was terminated because she had the "R" rated movie shown to her students and because she said she would do it again. Cf. Joint Appendix at 114, 186-87. She was discharged in July, 1984 for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher. 397 (M.D.Ala. The more important question is not the motive of the speaker so much as the purpose of the interference. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. OF LINCOLN COUNTY, KY. Email | Print | Comments ( 0) Nos. Id., at 583. Where a plaintiff can show that her constitutionally-protected conduct was a "substantial" or "motivating" factor in the discharge decision, the employer must prove "by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision as to . He did so by attempting to cover the 25" screen with an 8 1/2" by 11" letter-sized file folder. 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. One scene involves a bloody battlefield. FOWLER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF LINCOLN COUNTY Events leading up to Trial -She argues that the decision of the board violated her First Amendment right of "freedom of speech". 1117 (1931) (display of red flag is expressive conduct). at 1648 (quoting Meehan v. Macy, 392 F.2d 822, 835 (D.C. Cir. United States District Courts. On July 10, 1984, plaintiff Fowler appeared with counsel at the administrative hearing. 487, 78 L.Ed.2d 683 (1983). Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506, 89 S.Ct. Charles Bailey, age fifteen, who had seen the movie on prior occasions, indicated that the movie had "one bad place in it.". It is also undisputed that she left the room on several occasions while the film was being shown. healthy city school district board of education v. doyle, Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County and more. Only three justices agreed that students possess a constitutionally protected entitlement to access to particular books in the school's library. denied, 409 U.S. 1042, 93 S.Ct. 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. McCollum, a 13-year employee of the Laurel County Board of Education was engaged as a homebound teacher on a continuing service contract. Thus, this case is distinguishable from those in which the Supreme Court has afforded First Amendment protection in cases involving expressive conduct. On the afternoon of May 31, 1984, Principal Jack Portwood asked Fowler to give him the video tape, and she did so. 1986); Zykan v. Warsaw Community School Corp., 631 F.2d 1300 (7th Cir. It is undisputed that Fowler was discharged for the showing of the movie, Pink Floyd The Wall. Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County Download PDF Check Treatment Summary holding that prohibition for "conduct unbecoming a teacher" could not be challenged on vagueness or overbreadth grounds by teacher who was terminated for conduct clearly falling within scope of prohibition Summary of this case from Pucci v. Michigan Supreme Court Because some parts of the film are animated, they are susceptible to varying interpretations. Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 196, 73 S.Ct. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case.

Graham Correctional Center Commissary List, Cubberley Community Center Classes, Things To Do In Tallahassee For Birthdays, Articles F