Zykan ex rel. Zykan v. Warsaw Community School Corp.
631 F.2d 1300 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Local school boards have broad discretion to make curriculum and library content decisions based on their social, political, and moral views, and such decisions do not violate students' First Amendment rights unless they impose a 'pall of orthodoxy' or constitute a rigid and exclusive indoctrination that systematically eliminates a particular kind of inquiry.
Facts:
- The Warsaw Community School Corporation board ordered the removal and destruction of the textbook 'Values Clarification'.
- The high school principal instructed an English teacher not to use several books, including 'Go Ask Alice' and 'The Bell Jar', for her 'Women in Literature' course.
- The board implemented a policy against materials that 'might be objectionable,' which resulted in a teacher being required to excise portions of the textbook 'Student Critic'.
- The board permanently removed the book 'Go Ask Alice' from the high school library.
- The board eliminated seven courses from the high school curriculum, including 'Women in Literature'.
- The board decided not to rehire Teresa Burnau, the teacher of the 'Women in Literature' course, and another teacher.
- Students Brooke and Blair Zykan alleged these actions infringed upon their right to receive information and created a 'chilling effect' on the free exchange of knowledge in the school district.
Procedural Posture:
- Brooke and Blair Zykan filed a Section 1983 action against the Warsaw Community School Corporation and its board members in the U.S. District Court.
- The Zykans filed an amended complaint alleging violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- The school board filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- The U.S. District Court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding the complaint failed to allege a constitutional violation.
- The Zykans, as appellants, appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a local school board violate the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of students by removing books from the curriculum and school library, eliminating courses, and declining to rehire teachers based on the board members' personal social, political, and moral beliefs?
Opinions:
Majority - Cummings, Circuit Judge
The school board's actions do not violate the students' constitutional rights. Local school boards have broad discretion to make educational decisions based upon their personal social, political, and moral views. While students retain First Amendment rights in school, these rights are limited at the secondary level due to the school's formative role in transmitting community values. Federal courts should not intervene in such decisions unless they 'directly and sharply implicate basic constitutional values' by imposing a 'pall of orthodoxy' or engaging in 'rigid and exclusive indoctrination.' The students' complaint fails to allege that the board's decisions stemmed from a systematic effort to exclude a particular type of thought or from an identifiable ideological preference, but rather from permissible pedagogic choices regarding matters of legitimate dispute.
Concurring - Swygert, Circuit Judge
While agreeing with the ultimate dismissal, I believe the complaint sufficiently alleges a potential violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to survive a motion to dismiss under federal notice pleading standards. The allegation that the board censored numerous books on the subject of feminism is enough to state a claim that the board's actions suppressed 'a particular kind of inquiry generally.' The difficult line between a school board's rightful prerogative and a First Amendment infringement should be drawn based on concrete facts developed at trial, not merely on the pleadings. However, I concur in the result because plaintiffs should be given leave to amend their complaint to better articulate their constitutional claims.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a high threshold for students seeking to challenge a school board's curriculum or library decisions on First Amendment grounds. It grants significant deference to the pedagogical discretion of local school boards, permitting them to act on subjective moral, social, and political grounds. By requiring plaintiffs to plead facts showing a systematic effort to impose a 'pall of orthodoxy,' the ruling makes it more difficult to bring such cases beyond the initial pleading stage. This standard shapes the legal landscape by protecting most individual book-removal decisions from constitutional challenge unless they can be linked to a broader, ideologically-driven purge of ideas.
