Court Opinion

ID: 9460939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:02:57.728082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:50.075276
License: Public Domain

SETH, Circuit Judge,
with whom LEWIS, Chief Judge and BARRETT, Circuit Judge, join (dissenting):
I must respectfully dissent from the opinion and the position taken by the majority. Certain statements made in the majority opinion must be examined to demonstrate how the conclusions therein are reached to reverse the trial *1107court, and the evidence upon which they are based. Some of these statements must be quoted; for example, the majority says:
“In the last analysis, it was the plaintiffs-appellants ’ refusal to conform to President Carter’s patterns and molds, all of which were personal subjective on his part, which was the cause of their being fired.”
The record clearly leads to such a conclusion as to the cause, although the majority points to no specific incidents or criticism, no specific exercise of free speech, just the characterization of the attitudes of the two groups, the tone and tenor of the opposition, and the quotation above. This, again, is really all the record shows, but this is not helpful to a solution of the problem before us on constitutional grounds.
The majority continues:
“Surely the right to be free from this kind of personality control is a constitutionally protected right under the First Amendment since it is a species of expression. One had to become a person who was in his image and likeness if he or she wished to serve as a member of the faculty at OCLA.”
Thus freedom from “personality control,” this last analysis of the cause, is described as a constitutional right. This is where I must depart from the majority because this is a confusion of First Amendment rights with the classical reasons advanced for teacher tenure. The majority is substituting tenure reasons for a constitutional right. This is innovative and would perhaps serve a worthwhile purpose. It could serve as a protection against terminations based on “inability to conform to the image of the president” of the school, for being a “threat to the power of the president,” and for “being in disagreement with a president who does not tolerate disagreement,” or for “not conforming to the president’s patterns and molds.” This type of protection from “personality control” has a great deal to recommend it, and it would appear that the various state tenure laws have something like this in view. Thus perhaps we should subscribe to such a concept, but I am unable to fit it into the protections afforded by the First Amendment to the Constitution and thus must dissent.
The majority position' is centered upon the testimony of the president of the school. The majority expressly points to that part of his testimony upon which its opinion is based. This statement in a separate paragraph is clear, and sums up the position. The opinion states:
“The most significant testimony bearing on the issue before us as to whether these plaintiffs were fired for ' exercise of First Amendment rights is the testimony of President Carter himself. He admitted that he had not tried to bridge the gap between himself and the dissenting faculty members. His position was that since the dissidents had not shown him ‘any signs of warmth,’ he was justified in not wanting to talk with them or to discuss possible solutions to the problem.”
This is followed by references by the college president to the divisiveness of the plaintiffs.
The “most significant testimony” in the whole record bearing on the First Amendment issue thus is the admission of President Carter that he had not tried to bridge the gap between himself and the dissenting faculty members. The need to “bridge the gap” was thus either the basic First Amendment issue, or a failure to try to do so was a violation of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. In any event, the evidence on such a failure is described as the most significant testimony bearing on the First Amendment issue. This testimony, in fact, is the most significant on the issue; the record so demonstrates, and the other evidence is less important. However, this evaluation should be instead considered as a commentary on the absence, or misdirection, of the proof on constitutional issues rather than any*1108thing else. Thus I must dissent from the position taken by the majority that this testimony can lead to any constitutional conclusion. It can, of course, lead to nonconstitutional issue conclusions. And again no one can really take exception to a criticism for a failure to negotiate, if this is what is referred to. If the president did not bridge the gap, perhaps this was a serious failure as president, but this appears to be more an evaluation of a matter of school administration, or diplomacy, or common sense. In any event it is really something we do not have to decide. It is very difficult to find in it a constitutional issue or any issue which we should decide. I am unable to do so.
As above indicated, the majority points to no specific incident of criticism (not considering the press conference, which the majority has apparently excluded as a factor in the case), and the record contains none. One incident is referred to by the majority, but of this the opinion says: “Carter’s knowledge of this was based upon the hearsay statement of an unnamed student.” Thus none are left. Also the complaint alleges no facts relative to First Amendment rights except the press conference. It is difficult, with such a foundation in the proof and pleadings, to understand how the majority can overturn the findings of the trial court, or to understand how the plaintiffs met their burden.
The majority says that the issue before us is whether the record supports the findings of the trial court. The trial court found:
“The Court finds and concludes as a factual matter from all the evidence and circumstances presented in this case, that the college president did not recommend a failure. Did not recommend the non-renewal of the contracts of the fourteen Plaintiffs as a reprisal for their exercising their first amendment rights of free speech, either by reason of the press conference or anything uttered prior thereto.”
Also the court found:
“. . . But the point that I would make is that it is the Board of Regents that made the decision and I am unable to agree with counsel for the Plaintiffs that this Board of Regents or the five members thereof or the whole board, for that matter, were unaware of these things present.”
And the trial court said:
“. . . . [A]nd I am not at all sure that the press conference wasn’t rigged for the purpose of thwarting non-renewal of their employment contracts so they could continue their activities.
“It just isn’t the law that you can manufacture a first amendment right. If this was so, then all an instructor would have to do during a one year contract would be to criticize the president. Then if his contract was not renewed he would say this is because of this criticism and you must renew it, because if you don’t, you violate my constitutional rights because I criticized you and because I criticized you, that has to be the reason why you don’t renew. This is ridiculous on its face, certainly it can’t be the law.
“As I have indicated, I have to make a decision as to whether the underlying principle, basic substantial reasons for non-renewal were because freedom of speech was exercised or for other reasons. And I think the other reasons are not only predominant, but I think they were the basis of non-renewal to the exclusion of any and all other reasons.”
The above findings are in accordance with the record considering the standards for appellate review. The majority opinion really does not demonstrate otherwise, but instead has set up new First Amendment requirements and has found that a failure to renew for “divisiveness” is a constitutional violation.
In our Smith v. Losee, 485 F.2d 334 (10th Cir.), the trial court made findings of fact, which were supported by *1109the record, that the nonrenewals were for impermissible reasons, and the issues were considered in that context. Smith v. Losee is not comparable to this case.
It is obvious that the staff and teachers of the school were divided into two factions, and the division was deep. The effectiveness of the school had become impaired whether as an effect or as a cause, but in any event there was disruption and the situation was serious. The Board of Regents and others had decided the problem was caused by the division, and the Board set about to solve it. The solution decided upon was the nonrenewal of plaintiffs’ contracts. This was a drastic course, but the Board apparently felt that drastic steps were necessary. This division or related problems were apparently determined to be sufficiently serious and disruptive to necessitate the suspension of the tenure by the Board of Regents.
The school was on probation as an institution accredited by the North Central Accrediting Association, and by the group accrediting its department of education. The school was also facing a decline in enrollment, and financial difficulties. The former president had left because of the problems. The North Central Association had sent a team to examine the school before the president here involved had come to the college. After he had been designated as president, the Association asked him and some of his staff to meet with them in Chicago. This was done, and according to the testimony of the president, they told him there:
“They simply said that you are deficient in about seventeen or eighteen different areas. But the main trouble, the big trouble at the college is devisiveness within the faculty.”
It is thus apparent that the school at the time here pertinent was in trouble. Seventeen deficiencies would be enough. About the only thing which had not happened was the imposition of NCAA sanctions.
With these fundamental problems to be met, the disruption and opposition by the anti-administration group must be examined under the balancing required in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811, if there are any constitutional issues raised by the proof, and this is doubtful. The balancing cannot be done in a vacuum, but in the context of these problems. The action taken by the Board of Regents must also be evaluated as the solution selected by them as an exercise of the duties imposed upon them. One group had to go; the administration decided that the anti-administration group should go. This decision does not appear to be particularly surprising, but absent constitutional prohibitions this action was within the powers of the Board.
The balancing required by Pickering, where constitutional issues are raised by the proof, is basically a matter for determination as a fact by the trial court. The trial court did so here and made findings of fact. This balancing or context requirement was imposed by the Supreme Court for just such a situation as is before us. In every case of this nature the factors, the weights on each side of the balance, are unique to that case. The force on either side is determined by the particular situation as an accumulation of all the factors.
The Court in Pickering said (391 U.S. at 568, 88 S.Ct. at 1734):
“The problem in any case is to arrive at a balance between the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.”
Also at page 569, 88 S.Ct. at page 1735:
“. . . Because of the enormous variety of fact situations in which critical statements by teachers and other public employees may be thought by their superiors, against whom the statements are directed, to *1110furnish grounds for dismissal, we do not deem it either appropriate or feasible to attempt to lay down a general standard against which all such statements may be judged. However, in the course of evaluating the conflicting claims of First Amendment protection and the need for orderly school administration in the context of this case, we shall indicate some of the general lines along which an analysis of the controlling interests should run.”
In the facts before the Court, again in Pickering, it said:
“. . . The statements are in no way directed towards any person with whom appellant would normally be in contact in the course of his daily work as a teacher. Thus no question of maintaining either discipline by immediate superiors or harmony among coworkers is presented here.”
The divisiveness referred to frequently in the record was the faculty division into two camps referred to by the accreditation examining team. The Court in the cited case had a particular statement to place in context; here we have only the general tone or attitude as described above. This makes it difficult to see anything except the impact upon the school of the division of the faculty.
This is not an instance of disruption by demonstration, riots, and fires, but of a different kind, also with serious consequences. The examining teams found this to be the most serious problem. It must be significant as evidence of the effect of the plaintiffs’ action or inaction upon the operation of the school. We don’t have to decide which group was right. The Board of Regents had the authority to take a position and to carry out its decision, and this it did within constitutional limitations.
I would affirm the judgment of the district court.