A: “Not as much as it was in the classroom.”)), or that certain aspects of the flapper lifestyle were “not appropriate” for class discussion (id. at 207 (Q: “He talked too much about flappers. Is that what you’re saying?” A: “The comments about drinking and sex were not appropriate. I feel like it could have been addressed in a more appropriate manner.”)). Third, not giving due regard to the nature of pedagogical decisionmaking puts teachers in a bind, with the possibility that they will embroil themselves and their institutions in litigation initiated by students seeking to eliminate course materials and methods on one side, and students claiming the right to learn from them on the other. See also Seyfried v. Walton, 668 F.2d 214, 218-19 (3d Cir.1981) (Rosenn, J., concurring) (<HOLDING>). Again, one need look no further than this
holding that school officials may not limit the first amendment rights of students and teachers to freedom of speech and expression holding that the defendant school officials did not create the students danger or increase their risk of harm where female students were physically verbally and sexually molested by male students in a unisex bathroom and in a darkroom holding that school district policy requiring that students obtain the review and approval of school officials prior to distributing any written material violated free speech rights of students holding that a students right to bodily integrity under the fourteenth amendment encompasses a students right to be free from sexual assaults by his or her teachers recognizing the right of students to challenge on first amendment grounds actions of school officials which circumscribe the range of ideas to which students are exposed