Beilan v. Board of Public Education, School District of Philadelphia

Decision Date30 June 1958
Docket NumberNo. 63,63
Citation2 L.Ed.2d 1414,357 U.S. 399,78 S.Ct. 1317
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. John Rogers Carroll, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.

Mr. C. Brewster Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.

Mr. Justice BURTON delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question before us is whether the Board of Public Education for the School District of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States when the Board, purporting to act under the Pennsylvania Public School Code, discharged a public school teacher on the ground of 'incompetency,' evidenced by the teacher's refusal of his Superintendent's request to confirm or refute information as to the teacher's loyalty and his activities in certain allegedly subversive organizations. For the reasons hereafter stated, we hold that it did not.

On June 25, 1952, Herman A. Beilan, the petitioner, who had been a teacher for about 22 years in the Philadelphia Public School System, presented himself at his Superintendent's office in response to the latter's request. The Superintendent said he had information which reflected adversely on petitioner's loyalty and he wanted to determine its truth or falsity. In response to petitioner's suggestion that the Superintendent do the questioning, the latter said he would ask one question and petitioner could then determine whether he would answer it and others of that type. The Superintendent, accordingly, asked petitioner whether or not he had been the Press Director of the Professional Section of the Communist Political Association in 1944.1 Petitioner asked permission to consult counsel before answering and the Superintendent granted his request.

On October 14, 1952, in response to a similar request, petitioner again presented himself at the Superintendent's office. Petitioner stated that he had consulted counsel and that he declined to answer the question as to his activities in 1944. He announced he would also decline to answer any other 'questions similar to it,' 'questions of this type,' or 'questions about political and religious beliefs * * *.' The Superintendent warned petitioner that this 'was a very serious and a very important matter and that failure to answer the questions might lead to his dismissal.' The Superintendent made it clear that he was investigating 'a real question of fitness for (petitioner) to be a teacher or to continue in the teaching work.' These interviews were given no publicity and were attended only by petitioner, his Superintendent and the Assistant Solicitor of the Board.

On November 25, 1953, the Board instituted dismissal proceedings against petitioner under § 1127 of the Pennsylvania Public School Code of 1949.2 The only specifi- cation which we need consider3 charged that petitioner's refusal to answer his Superintendent's questions constituted 'incompetency' under § 1122 of that Code.4 The Board conducted a formal hearing on the charge. Petitioner was present with counsel but did not testify.

Counsel for each side agreed that petitioner's loyalty was not in issue, and that evidence as to his disloyalty would be irrelevant.5 On January 7, 1954, the Board found that the charge of incompetency had been sustained and, by a vote of fourteen to one, discharged petitioner from his employment as a teacher.

On an administrative appeal, the Superintendent of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania sustained the local Board. However, on petitioner's appeal to the County Court of Common Pleas, that court set aside petitioner's discharge and held that the Board should have followed the procedure specified by the Pennsylvania Loyalty Act, rather than the Public School Code. Finally, on the Board's appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, with two justices dissenting, reversed the Court of Common Pleas and reinstated petitioner's discharge. 386 Pa. 82, 98, 110, 125 A.2d 327, 334, 340. We granted certiorari. 353 U.S. 964, 77 S.Ct. 1047, 1 L.Ed.2d 913.

In addition to the Public School Code, Pennsylvania has a comprehensive Loyalty Act which provides for the discharge of public employees on grounds of disloyalty or subversive conduct. Purdon's Pa.Stat.Ann., 1941 (Cum.Ann.Pocket Pt., 1957), Tit. 65, §§ 211—225. Petitioner stresses the fact that the question asked of him by his Superintendent related to his loyalty. He contends that he was discharged for suspected disloyalty and that his discharge is invalid because of failure to follow the Loyalty Act procedure. However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Board was not limited to proceeding under the Loyalty Act, even though the questions asked of petitioner related to his loyalty. We are bound by the interpretation thus given to the Pennsylvania statutes by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Barsky v. Board of Regents, 347 U.S. 442, 448, 74 S.Ct. 650, 653, 98 L.Ed. 829; Chicago, M., St. P. & P.R. Co. v. Risty, 276 U.S. 567, 570, 48 S.Ct. 396, 397, 72 L.Ed. 703. The only question before us is whether the Federal Constitution prohibits petitioner's discharge for statutory 'incompetency' based on his refusal to answer the Superintendent's questions.6

By engaging in teaching in the public schools, petitioner did not give up his right to freedom of belief, speech or association. He did, however, undertake obligations of frankness, candor and cooperation in answering inquiries made of him by his employing Board examining into his fitness to serve it as a public school teacher.

'A teacher works in a sensitive area in a schoolroom. There he shapes the attitude of young minds towards the society in which they live. In this, the state has a vital concern. It must preserve the integrity of the schools. That the school authorities have the right and the duty to screen the officials, teachers, and employees as to their fitness to maintain the integrity of the schools as a part of ordered society, cannot be doubted.' Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485, 493, 72 S.Ct. 380, 385, 96 L.Ed. 517.

As this Court stated in Garner v. Board of Public Works, 341 U.S. 716, 720, 71 S.Ct. 909, 912, 95 L.Ed. 1317, 'We think that a municipal employer is not disabled because it is an agency of the State from inquiring of its employees as to matters that may prove relevant to their fitness and suitability for the public service.'

The question asked of petitioner by his Superintendent was relevant to the issue of petitioner's fitness and suitability to serve as a teacher. Petitioner is not in a position to challenge his dismissal merely because of the remoteness in time of the 1944 activities. It was apparent from the circumstances of the two interviews that the Superintendent had other questions to ask. Petitioner's refusal to answer was not based on the remoteness of his 1944 activities. He made it clear that he would not answer any question of the same type as the one asked. Petitioner blocked from the beginning any inquiry into his Communist activities, however relevant to his present loyalty. The Board based its dismissal upon petitioner's refusal to answer any inquiry about his relevant activities—not upon those activities themselves. It took care to charge petitioner with incompetency, and not with disloyalty. It found him insubordinate and lacking in frankness and candor—it made no finding as to his loyalty.

We find no requirement in the Federal Constitution that a teacher's classroom conduct be the sole basis for determining his fitness. Fitness for teaching depends on a broad range of factors. The Pennsylvania tenure provision7 specifies several disqualifying grounds, including immorality, intemperance, cruelty, mental derangement and persistent and willful violation of the school laws, as well as 'incompetency.' However, the Pennsylvania statute, unlike those of many other States, contains no catch-all phrase, such as 'conduct unbecoming a teacher,'8 to cover disqualifying conduct not included within the more specific provisions. Consequently, the Pennsylvania courts have given 'incompetency' a broad interpretation. This was made clear in Horosko v. Mt. Pleasant School District, 335 Pa. 369, 371, 374 375, 6 A.2d 866, 868, 869—870:

'If the fact be that she 'now commands neither the respect nor the good will of the community' and if the record shows that effect to be the result of her conduct within the clause quoted, it will be conclusive evidence of incompetency. It has always been the recognized duty of the teacher to conduct himself in such way as to command the respect and good will of the community, though one result of the choice of a teacher's vocation may be to deprive him of the same freedom of action enjoyed by persons in other vocations. Educators have always regarded the example set by the teacher as of great importance * * *.

'The term 'incompetency' has a 'common and approved usage'. The context does not limit the meaning of the word to lack of substantive knowledge of the subjects to be taught. Common and approved usage give a much wider meaning. For example, in 31 C.J., with reference to a number of supporting decisions, it is defined: 'A relative term without technical meaning. It may be employed as meaning disqualification; inability; incapacity; lack of ability, legal qualifications, or fitness to discharge the required duty.' In Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd edition, page 945, and in 1 Bouv.Law Dict., Rawle's Third Revision, p. 1528, it is defined as 'Lack of ability or fitness to discharge the required duty.' Cases construing the word to the same effect are found in 4 Words and Phrases, First Series, page 3510, and 2 Words and Phrases, Second Series, page 1013.* Webster's New International Dictionary defines it as 'want of physical, intellectual, or moral ability; insufficiency; inadequacy;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
147 cases
  • Drake v. Covington County Board of Education
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • 23 Enero 1974
    ...101 Cal.Rep. 86. Obviously, there is a strong public interest in elimination of unfit schoolteachers. Beilan v. Board of Education, 357 U.S. 399, 406-408, 78 S.Ct. 1317, 2 L.Ed.2d 1414; Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485, 493, 72 S.Ct. 380, 96 L.Ed. 517. The problems associated with ......
  • Morrison v. State Board of Education
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 20 Noviembre 1969
    ...of the public interest in the elim ination of unfit elementary and secondary school teachers. (See Beilan v. Board of Education (1958) 357 U.S. 399, 406--408, 78 S.Ct. 1317, 2 L.Ed.2d 1414; Adler v. Board of Education (1952) 342 U.S. 485, 493, 72 S.Ct. 380, 96 L.Ed. 517; Board of Education ......
  • Vogel v. Los Angeles County
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 21 Diciembre 1967
    ...(96 L.Ed., at 526, 27 A.L.R.2d 472). 'And again in 1958 the problem was before us in Beilan v. Board of Education, School District of Philadelphia (357 U.S. 399, 78 S.Ct. 1317, 2 L.Ed.2d 1414), supra. There our late Brother Burton wrote for the Court: "By engaging in teaching in the public ......
  • Bongo Prods., LLC v. Lawrence
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • 9 Julio 2021
    ... ... Funk, District Attorney General for the 20th Judicial District, ... They are attorney public officials empowered to represent the State of ... forth by the Court in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette , that, "[i]f there is ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Supreme Court Behavior and Civil Rights
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly No. 13-2, June 1960
    • 1 Junio 1960
    ...v. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958); Lerner v. Casey, 357 U.S. 468 (1958); Beilanv. Board of Education of the City of Philadelphia, 357 U.S. 399 (1958); Abramowitz v. Brucker, 355 U.S. 578 (1958); Wilson v. Leow’s, 355 U.S. 597 (1958); First Unitarian Church v. Los Angeles, 357 U.S. 545 (1958......
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 72 No. 1, September 2021
    • 22 Septiembre 2021
    ...the loss of society and companionship as secured by the ... Fourteenth Amendment[]"). (209.) NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 399, 460-61 (210.) Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 542 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting). (211.) See supra notes 194-205 and accompanying text. (212.) Obergef......
  • The Communist Menace, the Supreme Court, and Academic Freedom
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly No. 14-3, September 1961
    • 1 Septiembre 1961
    ...publicity upon male- 20 American Civil Liberties Union, 36th Annual Report, p. 25.21 344 U.S. 183 (1952).22 Beilan v. Board of Education, 357 U.S. 399, 415 De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 357 (1937). 24 Hallock Hoffman, Loyalty by Oath (Wallingford, Pennsylvania: Pendle Hill, 1957), pp. 1......

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