Opinion ID: 1198945
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Hearing Officer's Findings

Text: The hearing officer determined that dismissal was not warranted, that although Wilder was tardy and absent from class and the principal had warned him to correct this conduct, he had shown improvement in his punctuality and class attendance, and that the policy regarding controversial learning resources was unduly vague. The hearing officer found that the dismissal proceedings would not have been instituted were it not for Wilder showing 1900: The School District seeks dismissal of Mr. Wilder after he showed 1900. The Hearing Officer finds that showing the 1900 was the straw that broke the camel's back and but for this action, no dismissal proceedings would have been instituted. Therefore, the Hearing Officer must determine whether Mr. Wilder's actions in showing the film was insubordination, neglect of duty or other and just cause. The hearing officer found in favor of the opinions of the experts who testified as to the educational value and appropriateness of the film: The evidence is undisputed that 1900 has literary and artistic value. The experts and Mr. Bertolucci [2] testified in great detail about the literary, political and artistic aspects, and what the movie is trying to portray. Mr. Wangswick, who teaches high school English in Fort Collins, testified he would not have a problem showing 1900 to seniors in high school. Dr. Kearns, a professor of English ... also opined that he believed the movie was appropriate for 17 to 18 year olds to watch in a course on debate since the very nature of a debate class is to look at different viewpoints. In his opinion, the film is not controversial, is appropriate for its intended purpose and met the School District's general curriculum guidelines. The hearing officer found that the movie 1900 was appropriate and relevant to the school's curriculum for Wilder's logic and debate class: The Hearing Officer finds that 1900 as a learning resource was relevant to the curriculum objectives of Mr. Wilder's course and that it was useful in contributing to the attainment of the educational objectives. The Hearing Officer also finds that the themes presented in 1900 were useful in trying to teach students to think critically and act responsibly toward others and students had the ability and maturity to understand the purpose of the movie. The hearing officer found that Wilder himself had determined the film to be useful and appropriate for his logic and debate class: He believed the movie was a great masterpiece for neo-realism.... Since Mr. Wilder liked to teach literature in historical context, he thought 1900 was a good introduction to the twentieth century and the role of the individual in society. The hearing officer further found that teachers at Columbine had different perceptions about what type of material was controversial: The teachers had different definitions for controversial material. Some testified that the material had to be provocative, contain extreme language, extreme violence or be sexual in nature. One teacher testified that if the film is rated R it might be considered controversial but one had to use her professional judgment. Ms. Samson testified she does not use controversial materials even though the movie The Browning Version which is rated R was shown to her class and some of the plays the students attended contained sexual scenes. The hearing officer determined that neither the school board's written policy, nor the school's unwritten policy gave fair warning that a film such as 1900 is a controversial learning resource: Since a teacher must only seek review of controversial material with the principal, it can only be a violation of the policy if the material is in fact controversial. The Hearing Officer agrees with the teacher that neither the unwritten policy nor Policy INB gives fair warning to Mr. Wilder that a film such as 1900 is a controversial learning resource. The Hearing Officer finds that persons of ordinary intelligence must guess at the meaning of a controversial learning resource. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer finds that because the policies are vague, Mr. Wilder cannot be disciplined for making a professional judgment that 1900 was an appropriate teaching material for his Logic and Debate class. The Board accepted the hearing officer's findings of fact but nevertheless terminated Wilder, citing erratic arrival at school; failure to appear for an administrative staffing; failure to report or reporting late to assigned duty; failure to complete paperwork on time; late arrival for his supervision duty, and missed parent/teacher conferences. The Board also cited neglect of duty in failing to advise the principal of his decision to show 1900 as a reason for termination. The Board determined that the controversial learning resources policy was not unduly vague and that any `R' rated film containing scenes of nudity, sexual conduct, drug use, and violence falls well within the scope of the policy. The court of appeals ruled that Wilder did not have prior notice of the policy and regulation concerning controversial learning resources. We granted certiorari on three issues, including whether the policy was vague. I agree with the hearing officer and the court of appeals that Wilder did not receive due process of law. II.