interest in her bodily integrity, protected from certain unwarranted state deprivations. See Shilling-ford v. Holmes, 634 F.2d 263, 265 (5th Cir.1981). This protection extends to a student’s right to be free from corporal punishment in school if arbitrary, capricious, or wholly unrelated to a legitimate state purpose. Fee v. Herndon, 900 F.2d 804, 808 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 908, 111 S.Ct. 279, 112 L.Ed.2d 233 (1990) (citations omitted). The right also protects a fifteen-year-old student from a teacher who uses his authority to sordid sexual ends. See Gonzalez v. Ysleta Indep. Sch. Dist., 996 F.2d 745, 750 (5th Cir.1993) (acknowledging student’s right to be free from sexual abuse by teacher). See also Jefferson v. Ysleta Indep. Sch. Dist., 817 F.2d 303, 305 (5th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>) (citation and internal quotation marks
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 state constitutional right of individual privacy that    may be asserted to prevent unwanted infringements of bodily integrity 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 recognizing stu dents right to be free of stateoccasioned damage to the students bodily integrity recognizing that the right to be free of stateoccasioned damage to a persons bodily integrity is protected by the fourteenth amendment guarantee of due process