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.