Valentine v. Independent School Dist. of Casey
| Citation | 183 N.W. 434,191 Iowa 1100 |
| Decision Date | 25 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | 34010 |
| Parties | BETH VALENTINE, Appellee, v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT OF CASEY et al., Appellants |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Guthrie District Court.--H. S. DUGAN, Judge.
ACTION for a writ of mandate to compel the officers of the Independent School District of Casey, Iowa, to execute and deliver to the plaintiff a diploma certifying her graduation on May 30, 1918, from the Casey high school in said district and to execute and deliver to her a certified copy of her scholastic grades during her four years of attendance in said high school. Judgment was entered, granting the writ commanding the defendants to execute and deliver to the plaintiff a diploma, as evidence of her graduation, and to issue a certificate of her high school grades. Defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
A. M Fagan and Lynch & Byers, for appellants.
C. E Berry and Carl P. Knox, for appellee.
DE GRAFF, J.
The evening of May 30, 1918, had been selected for the commencement exercises of the Casey high school, in the auditorium of the high-school building. The last chapter in the history of the class of 1918 was about to be written, and the period placed at the end of the sentence of the high-school life of the prospective graduates. Six young girls, who had finished the prescribed course of study with satisfactory grades, presented themselves for the honors of graduation, and it was the intent of the school officers by public ceremony to recognize the right of the members of the class to be graduated and have diplomas granted in due form. Had an incident not happened just a few moments before invocation was offered, no echo of the doings of this otherwise pleasant evening would have been heard in any court.
It appears that, under oral direction from the school board to the superintendent of the high school, the class was informed that caps and gowns should be worn on that auspicious occasion, and the same were furnished by the board. The caps were misfits, and were not worn. Objections were made by the class to the use of the gowns, by reason of the offensive odor emanating therefrom, due to a recent fumigation through the use of formaldehyde by the city health authorities. The members of the class at this time were in the anteroom, ready to take their places; but the edict of the superintendent, "Thou shalt not pass without wearing the gowns, " proved a sufficient barrier to three of the girls, who were not permitted to occupy seats on the platform, and to whom diplomas were not granted. This incident was the prima causa for the denial of the rights and honors of graduation to the plaintiff and two of her classmates.
Other matters of a minor character are now urged by appellants as further and additional reasons and justification why the diplomas should not be granted, but we are not inclined to place any emphasis on this phase of the record. It clearly appears that these other acts and circumstances had no causal connection with the refusal of the board to grant diplomas in the first instance; and, had it not been for the gown incident, that focused so acutely at the last moment, plaintiff's diploma would have issued. Sufficient to state that no rule or regulation of the school board was violated or claimed to be violated by the plaintiff, unless her refusal to wear the odoriferous gown constituted a breach, concerning which we will comment presently.
Plaintiff had completed the prescribed four-year high-school course, and had received very satisfactory grades in all her studies. Her deportment was rated good. She was an exceptionally strong student, and was the valedictorian of her class.
In the light of this record, disclosing that all conditions precedent to graduation had been performed by plaintiff, has a court the authority and jurisdiction by mandate to compel the school board to grant her the diploma and to issue her a certificate of scholastic grades?
In the exercise of the special and peculiar duties of school officials under warrant of law, courts are slow to interpose or interfere, and ordinarily will not do so, except in cases in which manifest injustice is done, or a clear abuse of authority is shown. The general character of the school, its discipline, and the conduct of its pupils as affecting the efficiency of the work done in the schoolroom, are matters to be taken into consideration by the school board in making rules for the government of the school. Kinzer v. Directors of Ind. Sch. Dist., 129 Iowa 441, 105 N.W. 686; Burdick v. Babcock, 31 Iowa 562.
The function of all education is disciplinary, giving to the student such training in mind and body that, when he ceases to be the school citizen, he becomes, in a proper sense, the citizen of the state. Our public school is a state institution, and is subject to the exclusive control of the constitutional authorities of the state. The right to attend a public school is capable of enforcement at law, and the government of the school is subject to such limitations and prohibitions as may be defined by legislative enactment.
The fundamental question in this case involves the right of plaintiff to compel the school board by mandate of court to issue a diploma. This action is not within the purview of Section 4343 of the Code. Plaintiff's petition and the prayer thereof are for the writ, and nothing else. It is strictly and purely an action in mandamus, to compel the performance of an alleged legal duty. If the defendant school board had no legal duty to perform in the premises, then mandamus does not lie. Furthermore, if the act of the school board giving rise to the complaint herein...
To continue reading
Request your trial