Opinion ID: 772253
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Apology

Text: 51 The district court could not be more incorrect when it found that [t]he entire eight page Yes, Virginia memorandum does not state that the student had filed a sexual harassment complaint against Bonnell, or even use the term sexual harassment. It is totally directed toward a discussion of the English language. (J.A. at 146.) One need look no further than the second paragraph of the Apology to find the term sexual harassment used, and the Apology opens in the first paragraph with a salutation to Young lady, - obviously in reference to the complaining student - as well as with a reference to the apology that she sought from Plaintiff for his allegedly harassing conduct. (J.A. at 103.) Specifically, theApology states as follows: Young lady, before identifying the clause in the title, and as a preface to the apology that you desire, let me review the two articles of impeachment which you have preferred against me. First, there is the one count of buttfucking; second, there are the three counts of blow-job. The first charge all by itself, I must confess, would inspire squeals of protest even from the most asinine, the most cheeky. The second charge, on the face of it, is more than your average mouthful. I marvel at your courage in bringing notice of these alleged outrages to the proper authority, and I am amazed by the modest remedy you require. In short order, I was summoned before the college's highest tribunal where the grand inquisitor himself, with the support of sundry assistants, subjected me to rigorous cross-examination. I was not informed beforehand as to the specifics of this interrogation, apparently because the examiners were after the truth of the matter and probably felt that the element of surprise would tend more profitably to that end. Professors are rather like politicians: give them ample time to consider any question, they are apt to expatiate ad nauseam. I did know, because of your formal complaint, what the fundamental charge might be: sexual harassment. But, as that might be anything from gang rape by a branch of the Hell's Angels to an indiscreet plucking at one's own wedgie, I couldn't imagine what witches' spew might be brewing. 52 (J.A. at 103 (emphasis added).) Indeed, contrary to the district court's finding, the Apology is explicitly directed toward the complaining student, as the salutation indicates and as the entire exposition reiterates. Throughout the entire eight-pageApology, Plaintiff continually refers to the complaining student as Virginia, and does so with mockery, disdain, and insults as to her immaturity in bringing the sexual harassment Complaint against Plaintiff. For example, Plaintiff states as follows on the fourth page of the Apology: It is true - this is your half of a truth - that I talked about previous hassles with the college administration over some students lining up (an obvious exaggeration for comic effect) at some dean's office to complain about the bad man with the potty mouth. And, yes, a semester or more after the fact, I probably dismissed such folks (especially the cowards, the ones who never broach their disaffection in class or at any time to my face) with a gibe, a jeer, a hiss of derision. I tend to get a tad defensive when people don't just disagree with me, my values, my behavior, but who would also campaign for and delight in my utter destruction. Disagreement is fine; I welcome it and always remember to reward it. The clash of ideas and values is usually both exciting and illuminating. But I have never dressed down, attacked, insulted, or ridiculed any actual student in any actual class. And you know that; you know there can be no corroboration for your arrant lie. (Shame on you, Virginia - so very young and yet so devious). 53 (J.A. at 106.) Also replete throughout the Apology is the phrase, I am sorry, Virginia, that you find your own language, the English language, so painful, again directed at the complaining student in reference to the fact that she filed a sexual harassment complaint against Plaintiff for his use of profanity which she found so offensive that it allegedly created a hostile learning environment. (J.A. at 104, 105, 107.) It is not until that last paragraph of the Apology that Plaintiff identifies the First Amendment, or as Plaintiff coins it, the sanity clause. (J.A. at 107.) Accordingly, the district court's finding that the Apology is totally directed toward a discussion of the English language is clearly erroneous where a review of the Apology on its face does not support this finding. 54 Based upon its previous finding that the Apology never once mentions the term sexual harassment and is totally directed toward a discussion of the English language - the district court went on to find that [t]his indicates that Bonnell's motive in writing the Yes, Virginia memorandum was not to retaliate for a sexual harassment complaint, but instead to discuss First Amendment concerns in the context of classroom language. (J.A. at 147.) However, at the time of the preliminary injunction hearing, the district court ruled that Plaintiff's motivation in writing the Apology was irrelevant and he refused to allow Plaintiff to be questioned regarding his motivation. 9 Then, despite the court's finding to the contrary, in discerning Plaintiff's motive, the district court also found it important that at the time Plaintiff wrote the Apology, the Complaint had been decided in his favor. Apparently, the district court was of the opinion that because the outcome of the student's claim against Plaintiff had been decided in his favor, Plaintiff could not have been motivated by retaliation in writing the Apology. However, Plaintiff expressly states in the Apology that he was on the defensive because of the Complaint lodged against him, and Plaintiff expressly testified that at the time he wrote the Apology, he did not know the outcome of the sexual harassment Complaint. (J.A. at 107, 697.) Furthermore, Plaintiff could have sought to retaliate against the student and the College regardless of the actual outcome of the matter. 55 The district court then based its conclusion of law that Plaintiff's Apology was protected under the First Amendment as a matter of public concern on its finding that Plaintiff's motive in writing the Apology was to discuss the First Amendment in the context of classroom language. However, as previously indicated, an employee's motivation in speaking is not dispositive as to whether the speech was protected, thereby making the district court's basis for its conclusion of law erroneous. See Chappel, 131 F.3d at 574 (finding that the argument that an individual's personal motives for speaking may dispositively determine whether that individual's speech addresses a matter of public concern [to be] plainly illogical and contrary to the broader purposes of the First Amendment). And, also as indicated, the district court refused to allow Plaintiff to be questioned as to his motive in writing and distributing the Apology on the basis that Plaintiff's motive was not relevant. 56 Despite these erroneous factual findings and the erroneous legal premise upon which the court based its conclusion of law, we believe that the district court properly concluded that Plaintiff's speech was protected under the First Amendment because the Apology - although expressed as a satirical diatribe fraught with references to Plaintiff's personal disagreement with the student's characterization and reaction to his classroom language - addressed a matter of public concern. 57 Regarding the content of the Apology, it is true that Plaintiff apparently crafted the title in response to the remedy sought by the complaining student; that he addresses the Apology to the complaining student, albeit under the pseudo-name Virginia in order to create a sarcastic spoof on the editorial, Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus; and that he criticizes both the student and the sexual harassment Complaint that she filed against him, as well as the College's disciplinary measures taken in response to the Complaint, all in relation to the First Amendment - which Plaintiff describes as the Sanity Clause. While the content of the Apology appears to be a personal attack on the various parties involved, the content also addresses the College's sexual harassment policy as it relates to classroom language. For example, It says, after all, in the cover letter to the college's Revised sexual harassment policy (July 30, 1997) that Regular use of profane, vulgar, or obscene speech in the classroom which is not germane to course content (and thus educational purpose) as measured by professional standards will lead to the imposition of discipline. But you see, Virginia, this sort of legalese is variantly known in the grown-up, adventitiously sane, world as bullshit. Profanity, vulgarity (I'm especially fond of this one, since it ensnares virtually everyone in its aristo- analcratic web; look it up, and you'll see what I mean. You will think: sump'n' ain't right here, and you'll be right, and wrong, altogether.), and obscenity (this one's a doozy, too. Inciting lustful feelings; lewd, is the second definition. The other applications are reminiscent of vulgar. The only persons in my classes who are stirred, in any antisocial sense, by my diction are either the very unfortunately wired, on the one hand, or the very young, Virginia, on the other.) - all these are in the eye of the beholder. That's why even so august a body as the U.S. Supreme Court has continually tied itself into comical knots trying to sort out the sordid, parse the putrid, and teet the totter. That which is germane to course content is best left to the professional (more on academic freedom later), while imposition of discipline is reserved for the amusement of inquisitors. 58 (J.A. at 103-04.) 59 A review of the Apology also indicates that Plaintiff was speaking as a concerned citizen about the importance of the right to free speech under the First Amendment, and the need to protect that right in society. For example, Plaintiff wrote as follows: So, then to conclude this my apologia. I am sorry, almost ineffably sorry, that you find our language, the English language, so painful. You will never have the power, of course, to restrict it, or to kill part of it, as you wish. Nor am I possessed of the tongue of men and of angels, so as to protect it from you or all the tribe of its detractors. It will continue to wend its way and may even find complete vindication, one day, from its shaky jurisprudential custodians. I will probably not see that day, as it lies somewhere beyond the frenetic millennial epoch. But you may. Hopefully, by then, you will have learned to appreciate it. Maybe, then, you will understand that life without the fullness of your language's energy would be like that life Khalil Gibran says languishes without love: life where you may still laugh, but not all of your laughter; where you may still cry, but not all of your tears. Oh! - the sanity clause! Virginia, I almost forgot! Here it is: Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . . This has driven the thought police, the language censors, and all deputy inquisitors beyond despair, into madness. If I had access to your Christmas stocking, I would stuff it there. When, at length, you grow up, you will cherish it above every other gift, save love itself. Cheers. 60 (J.A. at 107.) 61 As noted at the outset of our analysis, the debate of constitutionally protected speech in the classroom setting -- particularly as it relates to sexual harassment and a college's obligations under Title IX -- is a heated one where the most learned of academic institutions struggle to find a common ground. Therefore, speech which sets forth the type of remarks that served as the catalyst to a sexual harassment complaint lodged against a college professor, and the professor's reaction thereto, is speech which can fairly be considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community. Connick, 461 U.S. at 146 & 147-48. Said differently, the subject of profane classroom language which precipitates a sexual harassment complaint lodged against the instructor for his use of this language in relation to the First Amendment, as well as the sanctity of the First Amendment in preserving an individual's right to speak, involves a matter of public import. See Wilson, 973 F.2d at 1269. Stated more broadly, there is a public interest concern involved in the issue of the extent of a professor's independence and unfettered freedom to speak in an academic setting. 62 The context and form of Plaintiff's circulation of the Apology was public in nature such that Plaintiff distributed theApology to the College's more than two hundred faculty members as well as to two local television stations and a local newspaper, thereby bringing to light the subject of allegedly profane classroom language which led to the filing of a sexual harassment complaint. Although it is true that finding speech to be a matter of public concern does not turn on communication of the speech to the public, see Johnson v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 215 F.3d 561, 585 (6th Cir. 2000), and that a finding of public concern is . . . strengthened by the fact that the plaintiff did not solicit the attention of the media, but simply responded to questions regarding the existing controversy, see Matulin v. Vill. of Lodi, 862 F.2d 609, 613 (6th Cir. 1988), we believe that Plaintiff's circulation of the Apology was in the context of bringing the issue to the fore as a matter of public interest. 63 The district court found - by virtue of its own devices and not based upon Plaintiff's testimony - that Plaintiff's motivation, or the context in which he circulated the Apology, was to discuss the bounds of the First Amendment, which thereby rendered Plaintiff's speech a matter of public import. We have two concerns regarding the district court's assessment. First, as noted, a speaker's underlying motivation in expressing himself as he did, although relevant, is not dispositive of the issue of whether the act of expression addresses a matter of public concern. See Chappel, 131 F.3d at 574. Second, we do not believe that the record supports a finding that Plaintiff's motivation in circulating the Apology was necessarily only one of public interest. 64 Based upon the nature of the Apology, one could conclude that Plaintiff was motivated by personal animus against the complaining student as well as against the College for its reaction to her Complaint, and that he circulated the Apology as a retaliatory gesture against these parties. Indeed, in the Apology Plaintiff states that until the formal Complaint had been lodged against him, he had ignored similar complaints made by students. In other words, until the formal complaint was filed and the College acted upon it, Plaintiff did not react to similar complaints made by students, suggesting that Plaintiff's reaction in this case was simply in response to his discontent with the College's discipline. However, even assuming that Plaintiff was motivated by personal animus in circulating the Apology, the fact remains that in doing so, he addressed a matter occurring at the college which was of public concern. 65 In Perry v. McGinnis, this Court recently rejected the argument that because the plaintiff brought his race discrimination complaint in the context of an internal grievance with his employer, the complaint did not address a matter of public concern. See 209 F.3d at 608. The Perry Court noted that in Chappel we clarified that [t]he fundamental distinction recognized in Connick is the distinction between matters of public concern and matters only of personal interest, not civic-minded motives and self-serving motives. Id. (citing Chappel, 131 F.3d at 575) (citing Azzaro v. County of Allegheny, 110 F.3d 968, 979 n.5 (3d Cir. 1997) (en banc)). Accordingly, the Perry Court went on to conclude that whether Perry's racial discrimination complaint was borne out of civic-minded motives or of an individual employment concern is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the subject of Perry's complaint was racial discrimination - a matter inherently of public concern, according to the Supreme Court. 209 F.3d at 608-09 (citing Connick, 461 U.S. at 148 n.8). And so it goes that in the case at hand, although Plaintiff may have circulated the Apology in the context of a self-serving motive, it nonetheless remains that the subject of the Apology - classroom language by a college professor which led to the filing of a sexual harassment complaint by one of his students for which he was disciplined, all in relation to the First Amendment - inherently touches upon a matter of public concern. 66 We are further persuaded in this regard by the Fourth Circuit's opinion in Seemuller v. Fairfax County Sch. Bd., 878 F.2d 1578 (4th Cir. 1989). There, a high school physical education teacher alleged that his First Amendment rights were violated when he did not receive his wage step increase because he wrote a satirical letter to the school newspaper commenting on allegations of sex discrimination against female students by teachers in the physical education department.See id. at 1579. Specifically, the teacher was responding to a letter in the school newspaper which complained about a few male chauvinistic P.E. teachers. Id. Before the teacher's satirical response was published in the school newspaper, both the paper's faculty advisor as well as the school's principal read the letter and did not object to it. Id. In addition to being published in the school paper and distributed to the students at the high school, the letter was mailed to approximately 3,600 families in the school's community. Id. at 1580. 67 After distribution, the principal informed the teacher that he had received complaints from the community, faculty members, and others. See id. The principal also stated that the teacher may receive a needs improvement rating in Professional Responsibility on his evaluation, and suggested that the teacher meet with the human relations committee and write a letter of apology to the newspaper. Id. The teacher complied on both measures. Id. However, in his performance evaluation, the teacher received the needs improvement rating, despite his letter of apology, and did not receive his wage step increase. Id. at 1580-81. The teacher filed suit alleging violation of his First Amendment rights. Id. The district court held for the school on the basis that the speech did not involve a matter of public concern, but the Fourth Circuit reversed.Id. at 1582. The Fourth Circuit found that the teacher's letter involved a matter of public concern because it addressed the issue of sex discrimination in the physical education department, or the treatment of females in school programs. Id. at 1583. Accordingly, it follows that Plaintiff's Apology, which addressed an allegation of sexual harassment, and therefore the treatment of females at the College, similarly addressed a matter of public concern. Moreover, in the case at hand, theApology went one step further and addressed issues of public concern such as the sanctity of the First Amendment. 68