Hetrick v. Martin

Citation480 F.2d 705
Decision Date15 June 1973
Docket NumberNo. 72-2168.,72-2168.
PartiesPhyllis B. HETRICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert R. MARTIN, President of Eastern Kentucky University, and the Board of Regents of Eastern Kentucky University, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

Robert Allen Sedler, Lexington, Ky., for plaintiff-appellant.

Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen. of Kentucky, Frankfort, Ky., George T. Ross, Richmond, Ky., John W. Palmore, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, Ky., John W. Palmore, Richmond, Ky., for defendants-appellees; John W. Palmore, George T. Ross, Richmond, Ky., on brief.

Before PECK, McCREE and KENT,* Circuit Judges.

McCREE, Circuit Judge.

This appeal requires us to decide whether the First Amendment prevents a state university from discharging a teacher whose pedagogical style and philosophy do not conform to the pattern prescribed by the school administration. The district court, sitting without a jury, held that the Constitution did not bar officials of Eastern Kentucky University from refusing to renew plaintiff's teaching contract on the ground of impermissible deviation from the teaching standards thought appropriate by her superiors. We affirm.

Plaintiff Phyllis Hetrick was employed as a nontenured assistant English professor at Eastern Kentucky for the 1969-70 school year, and during her first semester was assigned to teach two sections of freshman composition, one sophomore literature course, and an upper level modern drama course. Her troubles with the school administration apparently began when unnamed students as well as the parents of one student complained about certain of her in-class activities. Specifically, at one point, in an attempt to illustrate the "irony" and "connotative qualities" of the English language, she told her freshman students "I am an unwed mother." At the time, she was a divorced mother of two, but she did not reveal that fact to her class. Also, she apparently on occasion discussed the war in Vietnam and the military draft with one of her freshman classes. The district court found that even though the school administration was concerned about the appropriateness of these occurrences, "it does not appear that any of the faculty members felt that Dr. Hetrick had on those particular occasions exceeded the bounds of her teaching prerogative." The student complaints during October and November 1969 allegedly centered on their inability to comprehend what she was attempting to teach them or what was expected of them, although no students were produced at trial to testify that he or she had complained about or was dissatisfied with plaintiff's teaching methods.

Other conflicts between Dr. Hetrick and her superiors developed. She did not obtain her PhD until late in her second semester, although she agreed that she would do so by the close of the first semester. She covered only 11 plays in her modern drama course, from a textbook that had been ordered by her predecessor, and the head of the English Department, Dr. Thurman, testified that plaintiff had been told that she was expected to cover between 20 and 25 plays and that he thought the work load she assigned was too light.

In February 1970, Dr. Thurman convened a "secret evaluating committee" of four other faculty members of the English Department to meet with him. The committee, according to Dr. Thurman, was to evaluate all the nontenured teachers. Dr. Thurman recommended to the committee that plaintiff not be rehired for the following year because: her freshman class assignments were inconclusive; she was inclined to discuss extraneous matter in class; she lacked "a sense of camaraderie" and did not seem to adjust to the other members of the English Department; and she had not fulfilled her PhD requirements as promised. The committee voted to terminate Dr. Hetrick.

The district court found that these reasons asserted by Dr. Thurman were "supported by fact." However,

the court finds from the tenor of the evidence, that the nonrenewal of Dr. Hetrick\'s contract was not based so much on those specific reasons, as it was on the feeling of Dr. Thurmond sic and the other faculty members of the English Department that Dr. Hetrick\'s teaching philosophy and the manner in which she implemented it were not adaptable to the achievement of the academic goals of the University.

The evidence to which the court referred consisted in part of plaintiff's testimony and that of her students, and the testimony of the defendants concerning what was expected of teachers at Eastern Kentucky. The school administration considered the students as generally unsophisticated and as having "somewhat restrictive backgrounds," and for this reason apparently expected the teachers to teach on a basic level, to stress fundamentals and to follow conventional teaching patterns—in a word, to "go by the book." Plaintiff's evidence, on the other hand, tended to show that her teaching emphasized student responsibility and freedom to organize class time and out-of-class assignments in terms of student interest, all in an effort, she claims, to teach them how to think rather than merely to accept and to parrot what they had heard.

After her termination by the University, plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief against the president and regents of Eastern Kentucky University. She asserted that her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated by her termination without a hearing or written statement of reasons, on an arbitrary basis, for making in-class statements about the war and the draft, and because of her beliefs and ideas. The intervening decisions of the Supreme Court in Board of Regents of State College v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972), and Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972), narrowed the issue in this case to whether plaintiff had been terminated for conduct on her part protected by the First Amendment. See Perry v. Sindermann, supra, 408 U.S. at 596-598, 92 S.Ct. 2694.

The district court concluded that the decision not to renew plaintiff's contract was the result of defendants' "concern for her teaching methods and ability," and was not prompted by her exercise of First Amendment rights. In discussing the scope of the protection afforded teachers by the First Amendment, the court stated:

The First Amendment guarantee of academic freedom provides a teacher with the right to encourage a vigorous exchange of ideas within the confines of the subject matter being taught, but it does not require a University or school to tolerate any manner of teaching method the teacher may choose to employ. A University has a right to require some conformity with whatever teaching methods are acceptable to it. In this case it simply appears that Dr. Hetrick\'s teaching techniques were not acceptable to the University. The court is not in a position to weigh the merits of Dr. Hetrick\'s educational philosophy—it may be that her methods of teaching were and are more desirable than those embraced by the other members of the English Department—but the fact that the University decided that they were not and chose not to renew her contract, does not mean that her constitutional rights to academic freedom and freedom of speech were impinged.

In a memorandum opinion filed with the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court elaborated on its findings in this regard:

It is Dr. Hetrick\'s position that the non-renewal of her contract resulted from certain statements she made in her classes relating to the Vietnam War and the military draft. Were this contention adequately corroborated it may be that relief would be proper, however, the evidence produced at the hearing leads only to the conclusion that the University\'s determination not to rehire was based solely upon concern for her pedagogical attitudes. Although the court is inclined to believe that the classroom inadequacies that Dr. Hetrick was alleged to have displayed—inconclusive assignments, extraneous classroom discussions, and insufficient coverage of suggested materials—were largely superficial and thus easily correctable, it is not the duty of the court to evaluate the wisdom of the University\'s decision not to renew the contract. It simply seems that Dr. Hetrick\'s teaching methods were too progressive, or perhap less orthodox than the other
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • Alberti v. Univ. of Puerto Rico
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • October 13, 2011
    ...(7th Cir.1972) (a university teacher does not have a First Amendment right to disregard established curriculum content); Hetrick v. Martin, 480 F.2d 705 (6th Cir.1973); Johnson–Kurek v. Abu–Absi, 423 F.3d at 594. “ First Amendment does not prevent a university from terminating untenured tea......
  • Cooper v. Ross
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
    • June 25, 1979
    ...v. Board of Education, 502 F.2d 973 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 965, 95 S.Ct. 1953, 44 L.Ed.2d 451 (1975); Hetrick v. Martin, 480 F.2d 705 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1075, 94 S.Ct. 592, 38 L.Ed.2d 482 (1973); Clark v. Holmes, 474 F.2d 928 (7th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 4......
  • Stastny v. Board of Trustees of Central Washington University
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • June 17, 1982
    ...process and to provide for the orderly functioning of the university. See Roseman v. Indiana Univ. of Penn., supra; Hetrick v. Martin, 480 F.2d 705 (6th Cir. 1973); Simard v. Board of Educ., 473 F.2d 988 (2d Cir. 1973); Clark v. Holmes, supra at 931-32; Knarr v. Sch. Board of Trustees, 317 ......
  • Zykan v. Warsaw Community School Corp.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • August 22, 1980
    ...a concomitant power on the part of local authorities to choose the teachers (id.), regulate their pedagogical methods (Hetrick v. Martin, 480 F.2d 705, 709 (6th Cir. 1973), certiorari denied, 414 U.S. 1075, 94 S.Ct. 592, 38 L.Ed.2d 482), and establish basic standards for what they will teac......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT