## Facts

- Robert J. Keefe, a tenured public high-school English teacher and department head, assigned a senior English class an article from a reputable magazine addressing contemporary issues.
- The assigned article contained a single highly vulgar, four-letter expletive.
- The students were approximately 17-year-old high-school seniors.
- The local school committee brought five dismissal charges; Charge 3 focused on the classroom assignment of the article.
- The school committee conceded that several other charges were dependent on Charge 3; a separate “insubordination” charge remained unresolved on the record presented.
- The same publication containing the challenged term was available in the school library.
- Keefe asserted the assignment was protected classroom speech and that existing policies did not give clear advance notice that assigning the article could trigger discipline.
- The school committee accepted a general concept of academic freedom but argued classroom materials could be limited by the committee as “proper” in light of conditions such as student age.

## Issues

1. Whether disciplining a public high-school teacher for assigning a serious article containing a vulgar term likely violates constitutional protections for classroom speech and academic freedom.
2. Whether existing school regulations and circumstances provided adequate prior notice that assigning the article could warrant discipline.
3. Whether Keefe satisfied the standards for a temporary injunction to stop dismissal proceedings pending resolution of his federal civil-rights claims.

## Decision

- The court reversed the denial of temporary injunctive relief and remanded.
- The court concluded Keefe made a sufficient showing of likely success on the merits as to the charge based on assigning the article.
- The court found significant the article’s educational character, the senior-student context, and the inconsistency of allowing the material in the library while treating classroom assignment as misconduct.
- The court credited Keefe’s claim of inadequate prior notice under governing rules and the risk that retroactive discipline would chill legitimate pedagogical choices.
- The court left unresolved the separate insubordination charge on the limited record, noting it could be considered later.

## Legal Principles

- Public school officials’ discretion over curriculum and materials is subject to constitutional limits and judicial review when discipline threatens protected classroom expression.
- In assessing discipline for classroom materials, context matters, including student age, the seriousness and educational value of the material, and the school’s own treatment of the same content (e.g., library availability).
- Severe discipline based on vague or general standards, without clear advance notice that specific classroom use is forbidden, raises due process-type notice concerns and can create an unconstitutional chilling effect.
- Temporary injunctive relief may be warranted when a teacher shows a likelihood of success on constitutional claims and a risk of irreparable harm from ongoing proceedings that could deter protected instruction.

## Conclusion

The court required interim protection against dismissal proceedings because the teacher plausibly showed that assigning a serious article to high-school seniors was constitutionally protected classroom speech, that existing standards did not clearly warn it was forbidden, and that proceeding with discipline risked chilling legitimate teaching.


Keefe v. Geanakos, 418 F.2d 359 (1st Cir. 1969)