Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Tp. High School Dist. 205, 40038
Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
Citation | 225 N.E.2d 1,36 Ill.2d 568 |
Docket Number | No. 40038,40038 |
Parties | Marvin L. PICKERING, Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 205, Appellee. |
Decision Date | 19 January 1967 |
Ligtenberg, Goebel & DeJong, Chicago (John Ligtenberg, and Andrew Leahy, Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
John Verklan and Louis R. Bertani, Joliet, for appellee.
Marvin L. Pickering, a teacher in Township High School District 205, Will County, was dismissed from his position by the Board of Education. He brought proceedings for reinstatement but after a hearing the board confirmed the dismissal. On review the circuit court affirmed the board's decision, and plaintiff Pickering has taken further appeal directly to this court, claiming a constitutional question is involved.
He was dismissed after publishing a letter in the local newspaper criticizing the school board and the district superintendent of schools. On February 25, 1961, the voters of the school district turned down a proposal for the issuance of $4,875,000 in school building bonds to erect two new schools to accommodate freshmen and sophomores only to feed existing Lockport Central High School, which was then to accommodate juniors and seniors only. Upon defeat, this program was discarded. On December 2, 1961, the voters approved the issuance of such bonds in the amount of $5,500,000 to erect two new schools, one (Lockport East) to accommodate freshmen and sophomores only, which was to operate as a feeder school to Lockport Central, and the other (Lockport West) to be a full four year high school. Existing Lockport Central was then to accommodate juniors and seniors only on the East side of the district. The two programs were distinct and materially different in approach to the same purpose of providing all children of the district with a good common school education.
The letter published by the plaintiff reads as follows:
'Dear Editor:
I enjoyed reading the back issues of your paper which you loaned to me. Perhaps others would enjoy reading them in order to see just how far the two new high schools have deviated from the original promises by the Board of Education. First, let me state that I am referring to the February thru November, 1961 issues of your paper, so that it can be checked.
salaries total $1,297,746 for one year. Now that must have been the total payroll, otherwise the teachers would be getting $10,000 a year. I teach at the high school and I know this just isn't the case. However, this shows their 'stop at nothing' attitude. To illustrate further, do you know that the superintendent told the teachers, and I quote, 'Any teacher that opposes the referendum should be prepared for the consequences'. I think this gets at the reason we have problems passing bond issues. Threats take something away; these are insults to voters in a free society. We should try to sell a program on its merits, if it has any.
'Remember those letters entitled 'District 205 Teachers Speak', I think the voters should know that those letters have been written and agreed to by only five or six teachers, not 98% Of the teachers in the high school. In fact, many teachers didn't even know who was writing them. Did you know that those letters had to have the approval of the superintendent before they could be put in the paper? That's the kind of totalitarianism teachers live in at the high school, and your children go to school in.
salaries, athletic directors' salaries, baseball pitching machines, sodded football fields, and thousands of dollars for other sports equipment.
salaries is getting the cart before the horse.
'Once again, the board must have forgotten they were going to spend $3,200,000 on the West building and $2,300,000 on the East building.
'As I see it, the bond issue is a fight between the Board of Education that is trying to push tax-supported athletics down our throats with education, and a public that has mixed emotions about both of these items because they feel they are already paying enough taxes, and simply don't know whom to trust with any more tax money.
The evidence is that the board constructed the two new schools in accordance with its original plans and specifications and that there were only a few deviations of a minor nature, that the Lockport West track is regulation; and that an auditorium and athletic filed for Lockport West were at all times included in such plans and specifications and the program, as such, presented to the public. Architect Moore testified that the buildings were constructed in accordance with the original working drawings which were taken from the preliminary drawings with modifications of only a very minor nature and that Lockport West was to have an auditorium and athletic field from the beginning. Superintendent Blatnik testified to the same effect and that the accusations in plaintiff's letter were false. Architect Moore testified that the Lockport West track was regulation.
Plaintiff testified that he did not look at the original plans and working drawings of Lockport West because he did not have access to them. He further testified that he worked for the passage of each referendum as submitted to the voters and that he reasoned that since the board of education definitely promised that there would be no swimming pools, athletic fields and auditoriums in the building program under the first referendum, and since it had not mentioned anything about them in the second referendum, at least according to his knowledge, that the board of education, by its silence in regard thereto, in effect promised that there would be no such facilities if the second referendum passed. This was his only basis for these accusations. There was no evidence of a promise by the board of education that there would be no auditorium or varsity sports facilities at Lockport West under the second referendum.
As to statements in the third paragraph of plaintiff's letter the superintendent testified that he authored the statements about teachers' salaries with board approval and his statement about the matter was correct and not false. He testified that he obtained the figures from the budget for the fiscal year 1964-1965 under the heading instructional salaries and explained what the figures represented. The purpose of the educational fund tax-rate-increase referendum was to secure additional funds for the district so that it could pay for additional salaries of new teachers due to the building of two new schools. It had nothing to do with the number of teachers previously employed by the district. He further testified that the figures about teachers' salaries were correct, and there was testimony that the statement attributed to him was not a threat but was merely meant to suggest that teachers would suffer by not being able to obtain things for their...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scott v. News-Herald
...Stations (D.Ga.1979), 5 Media L.Rep. (BNA) 1972; State v. Defley (La.1981), 395 So.2d 759. Accord Pickering v. Bd. of Edn. of Twp. H.S. Dist. 205 (1967), 36 Ill.2d 568, 225 N.E.2d 1. Assuming arguendo that appellant was not a public official, then alternatively, as a public figure, appellan......
-
Albaum v. Carey
...the suspension of a high school teacher for circulation of a letter critical of the school board); Pickering v. Board of Education, 36 Ill.2d 568, 225 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 1967), prob. juris. noted, 389 U.S. 925, 88 S.Ct. 291, 19 L.Ed.2d 276 (1967) (upholding, two judges dissenting, the dismissal......
-
Brukiewa v. Police Com'r of Baltimore City
...483, 71 A.2d 474, 483 (concurring opinion of Marbury, C. J.); Rogan v. Cook, 188 Md. 345, 352, 52 A.2d 625.4 Pickering v. Board of Education, 36 Ill.2d 568, 225 N.E.2d 1, 6. Justice Schaeffer and Chief Justice Solfisburg dissented.5 Cf. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc. v. State, 193 Md. 300, 323-......
-
Meehan v. Macy
...409 (1966) (in bank); Fort v. Civil Service Com., 61 Cal.2d 331, 38 Cal.Rptr. 625, 392 P.2d 385 (1964); Pickering v. Board of Educ., 36 Ill.2d 568, 225 N.E.2d 1, 7 (dissenting opinion), probable jurisdiction noted, 389 U.S. 925, 88 S.Ct. 291, 19 L.Ed.2d 276 (1967). 25 J.A. 81, 102-103. The ......
-
Garcetti v. Ceballos: judicially muzzling the voices of public sector employees.
...Do you really know what goes on behind those stone walls at the high school?" Id. at 578 app. a. (109.) Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 225 N.E.2d 1, 6-7 (Ill. 1967). The Illinois Supreme Court stated that Pickerings status as a teacher no more entitled him "to harm the schools by speech than by......