Opinion ID: 1198945
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Vagueness of the Policies

Text: A regulation whose terms are unduly vague violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Parrish v. Lamm, 758 P.2d 1356, 1367 (Colo.1988). We have previously described the void-for-vagueness test as follows: A statute offends due process of law ... if it is so vague that it does not provide fair warning of the conduct prohibited or if its standards are so ill-defined as to create a danger of arbitrary and capricious enforcement.... A statute is not void for vagueness if it fairly describes the conduct forbidden, and persons of common intelligence can readily understand its meaning and application.... The vagueness test is not an exercise in semantics to emasculate legislation; rather, it is a pragmatic test to ensure fairness. Id. at 1367-68 (citations omitted). The hallmark of a vague law is its impermissible delegation of authority under circumstances inviting arbitrary enforcement: A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory applications. Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). To be void for vagueness, generally the law or regulation must be impermissibly vague in all of its applications. See Lamm, 758 P.2d at 1367. In some circumstances, however, courts have concluded that a person need demonstrate only vagueness as applied. See Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 578, 94 S.Ct. 1242, 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974) (The language at issue is void for vagueness as applied....); Adams v. Gunnell, 729 F.2d 362, 369 (5th Cir.1984) (Instead, we must consider whether the catch-all rule is impermissibly vague as applied to the conduct of these plaintiffsthat is, whether they had fair warning that their conduct was proscribed.) In Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756, 94 S.Ct. 2547, 41 L.Ed.2d 439 (1974), the Supreme Court required that a person demonstrate that the regulation was vague as applied to him or her. As explained below, the Board's policies are vague as applied to Wilder's conduct; thus, they cannot be utilized to fire him. I would hold that the operative terms controversial learning resources and controversial issues are so vague that an ordinary person must guess as to their meaning, making the danger of arbitrary and capricious enforcement exceedingly high. Policy INB defines a controversial learning resource as subject to disagreement and defines a controversial issue as characterized by significant differences of opinion usually generated from differing underlying values, beliefs and interests. The policy gives no indication of whose yardstick measures controversial. The public schools teach children from a diversity of families and backgrounds, many of whom undoubtedly have differing underlying values, beliefs and interests. The Board's view of its policy forces the teacher to guess at what might fall within this policy. Potentially every novel taught in English class, potentially every picture, film, or book taught in a world history class, and potentially every matter raised in a course on logic and debate could be controversial in the sense of being subject to disagreement or characterized by significant differences of opinion. That is what makes them worth teaching. A teacher who is charged with selecting resources for a class has no way of knowing what matters fall within the policies. He or she must (1) give the principal a twenty day written notice of any matter that is not specifically listed as part of the curriculum, or (2) proceed without notice to the principal and take the risk that someone in the school community might think the matter controversial, or (3) simply decide to refrain from teaching anything with which some person might have a problem. The regulation is essentially standardless as it presently exists. The policies do not clearly explain the forbidden conduct because whether the conduct is forbidden turns on whether some member of the community, or the principal, and, ultimately the school board after the controversy begins, might find it subject to disagreement. [3] The evidence shows that the teachers at Columbine themselves did not know how to interpret the policies. Indeed, the hearing officer found that teachers differed in their interpretations of the meaning of controversial as the regulation uses that term. One teacher thought material had to be provocative, contain extreme language, extreme violence, or be sexual in nature, another thought an R rated movie might be controversial, and another testified she did not use controversial materials even though she showed an R rated movie and took students to plays with scenes portraying sexual themes. To compound the problem, according to the hearing officer, most teachers did not even know the policies existed: Most teachers at Columbine were not aware of Policy INB or the need to give 20 days written notice if the teacher wanted to use a controversial material. The vagueness of this policy invites arbitrary and capricious enforcement. As the Supreme Court observed in the flag contempt case, What is contemptuous to one man may be a work of art to another. See Goguen, 415 U.S. at 573, 94 S.Ct. 1242. In this case, Wilder made a reasoned judgment supported by facts, backed by experts, that 1900 was appropriate for the students in his course. The hearing officer so found: [N]either the unwritten policy nor Policy INB provides sufficient guidance in determining whether the movie was controversial. In Mr. Wilder's professional judgment the movie was not controversial and appropriate to the educational goals of the course and the student's level and ability. Furthermore, Mr. Wilder's failure to comply with the twenty day advance notice requirement of INB-R was not improper under these circumstances. Art inspires thought by rooting in the heart the image of justice versus injustice. Bertolucci's film inspires and instructs. To the extent that community standards are a benchmark of the policies' implementation, this film was not offensive to community standards. The R rating is utilized throughout America as a theater, video store, and newspaper-published guideline for whether a particular age group may view a film without an accompanying parent. The Board did not proscribe R rated movies or require their clearance per se, letting stand the movie rating guide as a community standards indicator. The principal and the Board based their termination of Wilder on a twenty minute film which the principal had assembled, not Bernardo Bertolucci's film. Were one to underscore the socially instructive highlights of Bertolucci's film, the twenty minute excerpt instead could have included scenes showing the women of the village standing up against fascist soldiers, the act of grace in sparing a friend's life despite political advantage to be gained in killing him, and the joy that rich and poor people alike take in living despite evils which exist in society. This nation was founded on disagreement and born of a diversity of ideas, peoples, and religions. Our public schools, at their best, generate interest and excitement in learning, instill democratic values, and prepare today's youth to become thinkers and problem-solvers. The classroom is peculiarly the `marketplace of ideas.' The Nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth `out of a multitude of tongues, rather than through any kind of authoritative selection.' State Bd. for Community Colleges v. Olson, 687 P.2d 429, 437 (Colo.1984) (quoting Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603, 87 S.Ct. 675, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 (1967)) (citations omitted). When we strip teachers of their professional judgment, we forfeit the educational vitality we prize. When we quell controversy for the sake of congeniality, we deprive democracy of its mentors. The students of Wilder's class learned a valuable lesson at the expense of their teacher's job: one person's expression of ideas in the interest of critical thought and learning may be another person's controversy. I would uphold the judgment of the court of appeals for Wilder's reinstatement. Given the vagueness of the Board's policies, it is not possible to determine whether his conduct was prohibited by them. The Board's obscure policies did not provide fair warning that the film 1900 was controversial and required clearance from the principal before being shown to students. The policies are vague as applied to Wilder's actions and cannot be a basis for his termination.