Mailloux v. Kiley
| Decision Date | 14 January 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 7815.,7815. |
| Citation | 436 F.2d 565 |
| Parties | Roger A. MAILLOUX, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Daniel R. KILEY et al., Defendants, Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Kevin M. Keating, Boston, Mass., Charlotte Anne Perretta, Michael J. Batal, Sr., Lawrence, Mass., and Crane, Inker & Oteri, Boston, Mass., on motion for appellants.
John H. Henn and Daniel D. Levenson, Boston, Mass., in opposition to motion for appellee.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
In this school teacher discharge case, we are requested to intervene by way of a stay pending appeal in a delicate, as well as difficult, area. The court in no way regrets its decision in Keefe v. Geanakos, 1 Cir., 1969, 418 F.2d 359, but it did not intend thereby to do away with what, to use an old-fashioned term, are considered the proprieties, or to give carte blanche in the name of academic freedom to conduct which can reasonably be deemed both offensive and unnecessary to the accomplishment of educational objectives. Cf. Close v. Lederle, 1 Cir., 1970, 424 F.2d 988, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 903, 91 S.Ct. 141, 27 L.Ed.2d 140. Here, particularly, such questions are matters of degree involving judgment on such factors as the age and sophistication of students, relevance of the educational purpose, and context and manner of presentation.
Passing the aspect of the present students being a year younger, in spite of similarities we see possible differences between an English teacher discussing the content and meaning of a serious piece of writing, and engaging in a discussion of social mores in the use of language with a chalking of a socially taboo word on the blackboard. We cannot presently pass upon the district court's assumption that every adolescent girl knows the word in question, or the complementary one that she needs to know, or to have the word used in class. We do suggest that the fact that there was no regulation proscribing the use of particular language does not alone compel a conclusion that due process was violated. Finally, we say that the court does not intend to referee every debatable dispute between school teachers and their employers simply because academic freedom may arguably be involved. We will not superimpose our judgment on the school authorities unless, in a constitutional area, we consider their decision plainly wrong.
We find ourselves in something of a dilemma. Whichever way we rule with regard to a stay of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rumler v. BOARD OF SCH. TR. FOR LEXINGTON CTY. DIST. NO. 1 SCHOOLS
...should be accorded the widest authority in maintaining discipline and good order in their institutions. As was observed in Mailloux v. Kiley (CCA 1 1971), 436 F.2d 565: The court in no way regrets its decision in Keefe v. Geanakos (CCA 1 1969), 418 F.2d 359, but it did not intend to do away......
-
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Crofters, Inc.
...Nalco Chemical Co. v. Hall, 347 F.2d 90, 92 (C.A.5 1965); United States v. Lynd, 321 F.2d 26 (C.A.5 1963); also see Mailloux v. Kiley, 436 F.2d 565 (C.A.1 1971); Securities and Exchange Commission v. Charles Plohn & Co., 433 F.2d 376 (C.A.2 1970); Hamer v. Campbell, 358 F.2d 215 (C.A.5 1966......
-
Zykan v. Warsaw Community School Corp.
...419 U.S. 1081, 95 S.Ct. 673, 42 L.Ed.2d 678. Contra, Keefe v. Geanakos, 418 F.2d 359 (1st Cir. 1969); but see Mailloux v. Kiley, 436 F.2d 565, 566 (1st Cir. 1971) and Mailloux v. Kiley, 448 F.2d 1242 (1st Cir. 1971) (seemingly limiting Geanakos to its It is difficult to conceive how a stude......
-
Kramer v. N.Y. City Bd. Of Educ., 09-CV-1167.
...in a discussion of social mores in the use of language with a chalking of a socially taboo word on the blackboard.” Mailloux v. Kiley, 436 F.2d 565, 566 (1st Cir.1971); Mailloux v. Kiley, 448 F.2d 1242, 1243 (1st Cir.1971). It was held that the ethics code provision “cannot justify a post f......
-
High School Academic Freedom: the Evolution of a Fish Out of Water
...v. Kiley, 323 F. Supp. 1387 (D. Mass. 1971). The second represented the district court's decision on the merits. See Mailloux v. Kiley, 436 F.2d 565 (1st Cir. 1971). The third involved the First Circuit's review of the final disposition. See Mailloux v. Kiley, 448 F.2d 1242 (1st Cir. 1971).......