Evening star., 1916-01-05
SCHOOL RULE 45
UPSET BY COURT
Dismissal of Woman Teacher
Because of Marriage Held
Unreasonable.
AUTHORIZES MANDAMUS
TO COMPEL RESTORATION
Justice Gould Sustains Contention
of Mrs. Hellmann Against District
Board of Education.

Rule Is of the board of educatioh'
which operates automatically to vacate
the position in the public schools ol
female teacher who marries. was held
unreasonable today in an OPINION oE
Justice Gould of the District Supreme
Court The court directed the lssu-
snce of a mandamus against the board
TO compel the reinstatement OF MI
Gladys Aiine Strong Helmann TO
teachership in the schools TO refer
10 the rule as unreasonable is TO gen
tlv characterize it, the justice says
The court finds that the letter which
Mrs Hellmann wrote to the board afte-
her marriage, and which was con-
strued by the school authorities to Dc
a resignation. cannot be made to bear
that construction. "On the contrary.
SAYS Justice Gould. lit is an argument,
and an exceedingly able and convinc-
ing argument. demonstrating the un-
reasonableness of the rule
Discusses Boards Powers.
The board of education. Justice
Gould holds. cannot prescribe by its
bylaws mode of dismissal incon-
sistent with mode indicated by a
statute.any more than ii could, since
the passage of the law specifically pre-
scribing what pay shall be given the
substitute teachers. pass bylaw pre-
scribing a different method of dealing
with that subject. Whatever would be
its power in the absence of the express
provisions in the statute. when the
statute speaks on a subject the boards
power to pass bylaws on the same sub
ject is necessarily curtailed.
Miss Strong was graduated at the
Normal School in June. 1910, and during
the following year was appointed a
teacher. which position she held until
June. 1914. July 10. 1914. she was
married. and, knowing of rule 40. she
wrote the board requesting that its
provisions be not enforced in her case
and presenting arguments against the
validity of the rule. The letter was
referred to the committee on elemen-
tary schools and to the superintendent.
The superintendent seems never to
have reported upon it, but the commit
tee reported that il regretted II was
unable to comply with the wish or
Mrs Hellmann in view of rule 40 The
board thereupon referred the communi-
cation to the committee on rules which
reported that her communication
should be denied. and that hat. rule r, 20
should not be amended, whlch report
was approved by the board
Qualifications Not Questioned.
IN his opinion Justice Gould points
out that no o. .stion is made by the
hoard of educa ion that Mrs Helmann
still possesses all the academic ana
pedagogic qr :lifications to teach. 1t
is also admi ted, he states. that the
board of education in general has the
power to make reasonable rules relat-
ing TO the schools From the opinion
OF the Court of Appeals in the Dean
case this power, Justice Gould holds,
is limited to such rules and regula-
tionS as are reasonable.
The court says:
Testing the reasona bleness of the
rule in question by it's consistency
with the general policy of the board
with regard to the employment Of mar
ried women as teachers. 1t is apparent
from the answer of respondent that its
policy has been. and is. to employ and
retain married women as well as un-
married women as teachers.
Quotation From Answer.
"In it's answer the board says:
Married and unmarried men and
women are now, and have been for
many years, employed teachers in
the public school system of the Dis
trict of Columbia; that there is nothing
in the rules regulations adopted by
the board Of education which precludes
a married woman or married man from
taking the examination. at any time. to
determine his or her fitness to teach
In the public schools, and they have
been upon the same footing. in that
respect. as unmarried men and women
This statement in the answer pre-
clUdes the necessity of any discussion
of the relative efficiency of married
and unmarried women. The board has
determined that married women are as
eligible to teach the unmarried In
other words. marriage, or the state of
being married. on the part of wom-
an. has been determined by the board
TO be no bar. If Mrs. Hellmann had
married before she was appointed a
teacher. under the admitted policy Of
the board. her marriage would not
have disqualified her to teach. But
under rule 45. having married after
having been appointed a teacher, she
becomes thereby disqualified.
The answer of the board also con-
tans this statement: That respond
ents know Of no regulation which
would prevent the reiator from taking
such examination, and, II found quail
fed. from being reappointed upon the
STAFF of teachers Taking this in con-
nection with the other admission in
the answer. that the relator possessed
aud still possesses all of the pedag gogic
qualifca tons, the board apparently
says TO the relator: You were quail
fed: you married and thus forfeited
your position under rule As; you are
still qualified and may be reinstated
upon taking an examination
"Or the situation may fairly he stated
as follows July IL the relator. then Miss
Strong. was teacher possessing all of
the academic and pedagogic qualifications
10 teach: July IS. 1914. she married
under rule 81 her place teacher
thereby became vacant: July 10 she
could be reappointed upon taking an ex-
animation, which must necessarily have
teen a mere formality. as the answer OF
the board admits her academic and peda-
gogic qualifications both before and
after her marriage.
Points Out Unreasonable Phases.
In other words. IL this rule is valid, the
mere act of going through marriage
ceremony deprives female teacher OF
her position, although equally qualified
before and after the act. and although
married women are. by the policy of the
board, subject to no disqualification by
reason of their coverture. rule which
when applied. leads to such result is
gently characterized when called un-
reasonable"
The contention of relator that rule IS
Is invalid because IL conflicts with the or
Kanic law wherein the mode of removal of