Opinion ID: 1219663
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: nexus argument

Text: Though section 22-63-116 does not explicitly require that the immorality be in relation to, or affect, the teacher's work, we believe that such a requirement can be readily implied from the language of the statute. The statutory ground of immorality, taken in conjunction with the other grounds of physical and mental disability, incompetency, neglect of duty, conviction of a felony, and insubordination, clearly implies a standard that is directly related to the teacher's fitness for service. We hold therefore that appellant's actions cannot constitute immorality within the meaning of the statute unless these actions indicate his unfitness to teach. As the California Supreme Court said in Morrison v. State Board of Education, 1 Cal.3d 214, 82 Cal.Rptr. 175, 461 P.2d 375:    Without such a reasonable interpretation the [statutory reference to immoral conduct] would be susceptible to so broad an application as possibly to subject to discipline virtually every teacher in the state. In the opinion of many people laziness, gluttony, vanity, selfishness, avarice, and cowardice constitute immoral conduct.    We do not believe that the legislature intended to potentially subject every teacher to discipline, even dismissal, for private peccadillos or personal shortcomings that might come to the attention of the board of education, but yet have little or no relation to the teacher's relationship with his students, his fellow teachers, or with the school community. This view is in accord with the vast weight of contemporary judicial decisions. Erb v. Iowa State Board of Public Instruction, 216 N.W.2d 339 (Iowa 1974); Wright v. Superintending Sch. Com., City of Portland, 331 A.2d 640 (Me.1975); In Re Grossman, 127 N.J. Super. 13, 316 A.2d 39; Jerry v. Board of Ed. of City Sch. Dist. of Syracuse, 35 N.Y.2d 534, 364 N.Y.S.2d 440, 324 N.E.2d 106; Jarvella v. Willoughby-Eastlake City Sch. Dist., 12 Ohio Misc. 288, 41 Ohio Op. 2d 423, 233 N.E.2d 143; cf. Mindel v. United States Civil Service Commission, 312 F.Supp. 485 (N.D.Cal.1970); Stevens v. Hocker, Nev., 536 P.2d 88. In determining whether the teacher's conduct indicates an unfitness to teach, the board of education may properly consider such matters as the age and maturity of the teacher's students, the likelihood that his conduct may have adversely affected students and other teachers, the degree of such adversity, the proximity or remoteness in time of the conduct, the extenuating or aggravating circumstances surrounding the conduct, the likelihood that the conduct may be repeated, the motives underlying it, and the extent to which discipline may have a chilling effect upon either the rights of the teacher involved or other teachers, see Morrison v. State Board of Education, supra ; Note, Unfitness to Teach, 61 Calif.L.Rev. 1442 (1973). We do not, of course, list these factors as exclusively definitive. Human conduct is infinitely various, and it would be folly to attempt to isolate any limited set of criteria as determinative. We emphasize that the board's power to dismiss and discipline teachers is not merely punitive in nature and is not intended to permit the exercise of personal moral judgments by board members. Rather, it exists and finds its justification in the state's legitimate interest in protecting the school community from harm, and its exercise can only be justified upon a showing that such harm has or is likely to occur. See Erb v. Iowa State Board of Public Instruction, supra . [1] In view of these considerations and of the desirability of preventing unfit teachers from adversely influencing students, we conclude that the board of education may properly dismiss those teachers whose misbehavior has had the requisite degree of adverse impact. It is true that neither the panel nor the board made a specific finding that appellant's conduct had this effect upon his ability to teach at Arvada High School. We believe, however, that necessarily implicit in the board's dismissal was the underlying premise that appellant's conduct was job-related. Indeed, it occurred on the SWS field trip to Santa Fe. In our view, the nature of his conduct, combined with his admitted willingness to repeat it given a similar set of circumstances justifies the board's order of dismissal. In Denton v. South Kitsap School Dist. No. 402, 10 Wash.App. 69, 516 P.2d 1080, it was held that a male teacher's sexual involvement with a minor female student is inherently immoral and harmful, justifying dismissal. In our view, whenever a male teacher engages in sexually provocative or exploitive conduct with his minor female students a strong presumption of unfitness arises against the teacher. Moreover, several courts have found that the use of vulgarities on the part of the teacher may have a bearing on his fitness to teach, see, e. g., Palo Verde Unified Sch. Dist. of Riverside Co. v. Hensey, 9 Cal.App.3d 967, 88 Cal.Rptr. 570; Pyle v. Washington County School Board, 238 So.2d 121 (Fla.App.1970); Mailloux v. Kiley, 323 F.Supp. 1387 (D.Mass.), aff'd 448 F.2d 1242 (1st Cir. 1971). We find no legitimate professional purpose in the sordid conduct engaged in by appellant on the Santa Fe trip. Indeed, his own testimony suggested the true explanation of his conduct: it was a situational response, an attempt to act his natural self, to gain rapport with his students. It is difficult to conceive of a single positive aspect that such behavior might have in an educational context.