The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Butt Me No Butts: Teacher's Firing for Reading "I Need a New Butt!" Children's Book to Class Overturned
A short excerpt from Tuesday's long decision by Mississippi Court of Appeals Judge Anthony Lawrence in Price v. Hinds County School Dist.:
Toby Price, a licensed educator and assistant principal, read to the Gary Road Elementary School second-grade class on "Read Across America Day." Since the educator who was scheduled to read to the class did not appear on a Zoom session, Price—at the last minute—stepped in to read and selected a book entitled "I Need a New Butt!" from his personal collection. The picture book was intended to be humorous and depicted a child searching for a "new butt." As such, the book contained references to and illustrations of "butts," "butt cracks," and "farts." {The child imagines a litany of possibilities for his "new butt," such as "a butt that's armor-plated[,]" "a bumper butt made of chrome[,]" "[a] rocket butt[,]" an "arty-farty butt[,]" and "[a] robo-butt[.]" The book concludes with the child finding his father bending over to repair a sink only to discover his father's butt also had a crack in it.}
Following the reading, a student began repeating the word "butt" incessantly. Price was placed on administrative leave that day and fired two days later.
The court concluded that the firing decision "was arbitrary, capricious, and lacked substantial evidence," and was thus invalid under state law:
The Board's decision was detailed in its reasoning as follows: (1) the book at issue "contained pictures of child and adult nudity and inappropriate activities"; (2) Price previously "acknowledged the problematic nature" of such books; (3) the book caused a "negative, immediate impact"; (4) Price violated the Mississippi Code of Ethics; and (5) Price was not a credible witness….
This Court notes that "[t]he superintendent of a school district may dismiss a licensed school employee for good cause." However, "in a hearing concerning a dismissal, the burden is on the superintendent to show that a principal or teacher has been dismissed for good cause." …
"[T]he terms 'arbitrary' and 'capricious' imply a lack of understanding of or a disregard for the surrounding facts and settled controlling principles." "An act is arbitrary when it is not done according to reason or judgment, but depending on the will alone." On the other hand, an action is "capricious" if it is "done without reason, in a whimsical manner, implying either a lack of understanding of or a disregard for the surrounding facts and settled controlling principles."
With those definitions in mind, this Court finds the School Board's decision arbitrary and capricious. The school's library contained a number of books depicting "nudity" and "inappropriate activities." Several of those books were entered into evidence at the hearing and reviewed by this Court. The books included numerous mentions of the word "butt," naked children running through the street, a child disobeying numerous school rules, a person dancing naked in the rain, a person standing in only a raincoat which exposes his butt, and what appeared to be "[s]omething's head where their bottom should be." There is simply no stark contrast between this book's content and the content of the others. The evidence before this Court does not support a finding that the book "I Need a New Butt!" was more severe in nature than the other books contained in the library.
Further, the school had allowed similar books—even one with the same author and illustrator as the subject book—to be read to elementary students in the past. The record reflects that Price not only read a similar book to students in the past, but that reading was streamed live, recorded, and posted on Gary Road Elementary's Facebook page. At the time of the hearing, the post was still on Gary Road Elementary's social media pages. In sum, the school allowed the reading of a similar book to occur without issue and allowed the content to remain available on its social media page. The books in the school's library discussed "butts" and contained pictures of butts, but the school district complained in particular about "I Need a New Butt!"
Price's termination was based on a book similar in nature to other books contained in the library, which leads this Court to believe the decision was indeed reached "in a whimsical manner." In sum, the decision of the School Board demonstrates "a lack of understanding of or a disregard for the surrounding facts and settled controlling principles." Therefore, we conclude that the decision to uphold Price's termination lacked substantial evidence and was reached in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
The court therefore didn't reach Price's arguments that the decision violated the Due Process Clause or the First Amendment.
Joel Frank Dillard represents Price.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
“But, but, but…” says the school district.
Seems like school districts/boards should be able to make their own decisions on this, like any other employer. Seems silly for judge to be involved in "overturning" a teacher getting fired, especially for subjective judgment calls like this or decisions about the content of teaching.
the school can likely promulgate rules banning books containing the word "butt" from the school.
but until they do so, they cant fire someone for reading a childs book just because it contains the word butt
Why does someone like you, that clearly isn't a lawyer and likely barely understands the world they live in, coming on a blog written by law professors and commenting? Surely you must have better things to do, like watch Fox news.
Thank you for standing up for lawyers! They are especially well-known for their understanding of the real world and should be respected as such!
A local community, through their elected school board, should be able to decide what goes on in their school and which teachers are going to teach their kids and what they are going to teach them.
Let me guess - You are a childless degenerate who for some reason has a strong desire to exert your opinions about what happens with other people's kids?
People often criticize me because I am not an attorney — well in this case I turn around and say that attorneys are not teachers. Attorneys do not have degrees in pedagogy, attorneys are trained how to argue in court, not to manage a classroom, and attorneys are trained to recognize what is legally relevant, not developmentally appropriate.
I say this as not only a teacher, but a professor of teaching — I could’ve predicted that they would have a boy saying “butt” all rest of the day, and I’m surprised it was only one!
Now, much as I argue that non-lawyers affected by the law have every right to have opinions about it, I also argue that parents affected by education have an equal right to have opinions about it.
Quite frankly, I wish more parents — and non-parents — did. This is not a popular opinion in my profession, but I wish the public knew more about what is going on in both K-12 and higher education because it would clean up a lot of the things that badly need to be cleaned up.
All I am saying is that it is arbitrary and capricious to presume that any book is inherently appropriate to be read to a second grade classroom. I would include the works of Emmanuel Kant in this regard, not because they’re sexually suggestive but because they would be incomprehensible to second graders.
The term is “developmentally appropriate.”
I disagree with M L's take. I'm generally against censorship. And I don't like much of any rules that are arbitrary and capricious. I have heightened concerns about both of those in public institutions.
Your STFU to M L, based on him/her not being a lawyer, captures that censorious spirit and that arbitrary and capricious one too.
You look like an elitist snot who lacks self awareness.
The school board is not the 'employer'
The government is. The government has deemed the school board can terminate when the school board has good cause etc.
School boards are highly political, can't have them making arbitrary decisions.... sell off all school assets cancel school for the rest of the semester because we feel like it. So, there are plenty limitations to their 'power'.
Basically, some kids went home and told a lot of fart jokes or butt jokes and some Karens - I mean parents complained. And when enough of them complained they fired the principle and tried to ruin his life....
Geez, a lot of people need to get over it. We're building a country of pansies.
Next they will fire the principle because too many kids didn't get A's on their report card. And if you think parents don't complain about a B on report card...
I wonder if the judge would object to the old classic "Baby Got Back" playing in the background at yee old courthouse?
Oh shit, that's a classic now?!!
"L.A. face with the Oakland booty."
But it wasn't arbitrary or capricious - it was an example of malicious compliance with policies Progressives hate.
We saw this with the US military when Hegseth ordered the 'dewoking' - they went and made a big show of having to stop 'black history month' even though that wasn't required.
"Following the reading, a student began repeating the word "butt" incessantly." Jeeze, get that poor kid some help.
"Butt" doesn't even register as a a potential issue for me. It's become the de facto popular way to tastefully refer to...a butt.
I'm suspicious of people who have difficulty laughing at fart jokes. That indicates, to me, a serious my-shit-don't-stink problem. And, well, it probably does. (I know mine does. :-))