Lee v. York County Sch. Div., No. 06-1363 (4th Cir. May 2, 2007)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has ruled that a school district did not violate a Virginia teacher’s freedom of speech by removing materials he had posted on a classroom bulletin board out of legal concern about their religious content. The Fourth Circuit concluded the contested speech was curricular in nature and, therefore, subject to regulation by school officials based on the precedent established by that court in Boring v. Buncombe County Board of Education, 136 F.3d 364 (4th Cir. 1996). William Lee, a Spanish teacher at Tabb High School, sued the York County School Board (YCSB), alleging that school officials violated his free speech and equal protection rights when they removed the following materials from his bulletin board: a poster publicizing the National Day of Prayer; a news article entitled "The God Gap" outlining differences between President Bush and U.S. Senator John Kerry; an article about Attorney General John Ashcroft leading White Staffers in Bible study sessions; and a news article and newsletter about the missionary activities of a Virginia high school student. A federal district court dismissed the suit, finding the speech was not protected by the First Amendment.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed, agreeing with the district court that because Mr. Lee’s speech was curricular in nature it was per se not about a matter of public concern and, therefore, not constitutionally protected. The appeals court noted that in Boring it had reasoned that "disputes over curriculum constitute ordinary employment disputes and do not implicate speech on matters of public concern." In order to evaluate whether the teacher’s speech here was curricular, the court applied the definition found in the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), under which curricular speech must: (1) constitute school-sponsored expression bearing the imprimatur of the school; and (2) be supervised by faculty members and designed to impart particular knowledge to students. Mr. Lee’s materials met this definition, the court concluded. While Mr. Lee did not refer to the items during instructional time, they were constantly present for review by students in a compulsory classroom setting. The bulletin board was school-owned. The principal maintained oversight of the bulletin boards. As a result, the court reasoned, it would be reasonable for students and parents to view the materials as having been approved by the school. The court also found the items "were plainly ‘designed to impart particular knowledge’ to the students in [his] classroom," rejecting Mr. Lee’s contention that the definition of "curriculum" should be limited to speech related to traditional classroom instruction. "Imparting particular knowledge" has a broader meaning than the specific subject being taught, the court determined, including social and moral values a teacher believes students should learn about or be exposed to. The court concluded the dispute amounted to nothing more than an "ordinary employment dispute," and, as such, the materials did not "constitute speech on a matter of public concern and are not protected by the First Amendment."
Lee v. York County Sch. Div., No. 06-1363 (4th Cir. May 2, 2007)
[Full opinion]
[Editor’s Note: The district court’s opinion is summarized at the first link below. See also the summary of a recent decision by the Seventh Circuit finding that a school district did not violate an elementary teacher’s freedom of speech when it insisted she refrain from voicing her views on the Iraq war to her students.]
[NSBA School Law pages on Lee v. York County Sch. Div.]
[NSBA School Law pages on Mayer v. Monroe County Cmty. Sch. Dist.]