opinion: IOTA XI CHAPTER OF SIGMA CHI FRATERNITY; John Howlin; John Singsank, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY; Kenneth E. Bumgarner, Defendants-Appellants.
  No. 91-2684.
  United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
  Argued May 4, 1992.
  Decided May 10, 1993.
  Paul Joseph Forch, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, VA, argued (Mary Sue Terry, Atty. Gen., H. Lane Kneedler, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., R. Claire Guthrie, Deputy Atty. Gen., Martha M. Parrish, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief), for defendants-appellants.
  Victor Michael Glasberg, Victor M. Glas-berg & Associates, Alexandria, VA argued, Jeanne Goldberg, Victor M. Glasberg & Associates, Alexandria, VA, Michael P. McDonald, Center for Individual Rights, Washington, DC, Stephen B. Pershing, ACLU of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for plaintiffs-appel-lees.
  Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.
  OPINION
  SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge:
  George Mason University appeals from a summary judgment granted by the district court to the IOTA XI Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity in its action for declaratory judgment and an injunction seeking to nullify sanctions imposed on it by the University because it conducted an “ugly woman contest” with racist and sexist overtones. We affirm.
  I
  Sigma Chi has for two years held an annual “Derby Days” event, planned and conducted both as entertainment and as a source of funds for donations to charity. The “ugly woman contest,” held on April 4, 1991, was one of the “Derby Days” events. The Fraternity staged the contest in the cafeteria of the student union. As part of the contest, eighteen Fraternity members were assigned to one of six sorority teams cooperating in the events. The involved Fraternity members appeared in the contest dressed as caricatures of different types of women, including one member dressed as an offensive caricature of a black woman. He was painted black and wore stringy, black hair decorated with curlers, and his outfit was stuffed with pillows to exaggerate a woman’s breasts and buttocks. He spoke in slang to parody African-Americans.
  There is no direct evidence in the record concerning the subjective intent of the Fraternity members who conducted the contest. The Fraternity, which later apologized to the University officials for the presentation, conceded during the litigation that the contest was sophomoric and offensive.
  Following the contest, a number of students protested to the University that the skit had been objectionably sexist and racist. Two hundred forty-seven students, many of them members of the foreign or minority student body, executed a petition, which stated: “[W]e are condemning the racist and sexist implications of this event in which male members dressed as women. One man in particular wore a black face, portraying a negative stereotype of black women.”
  On April 10, 1991, the Dean for Student Services, Kenneth Bumgarner, discussed the situation with representatives of the objecting students. That same day, Dean Bumgar-ner met with student representatives of Sigma Chi, including the planners of and participants in the “ugly woman contest.” He then held a meeting with members of the student government and other student leaders. In this meeting, it was agreed that Sigma Chi’s behavior had created a hostile learning environment for women and blacks, incompatible with the University’s mission.
  The Dean met again with Fraternity representatives on April 18, and the following day advised its officers of the sanctions imposed. They included suspension from all activities for the rest of the 1991 spring semester and a two-year prohibition on all social activities except pre-approved pledging events and pre-approved philanthropic events with an educational purpose directly related to gender discrimination and cultural diversity. The University’s sanctions also required Sigma Chi to plan and implement an educational program addressing cultural differences, diversity, and the concerns of women. A few weeks later, the University made minor modifications to the sanctions, allowing Sigma Chi to engage in selected social activities with the University’s advance approval.
  On June 5, 1991, Sigma Chi brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the University and Dean Bumgarner. It requested declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to nullify the sanctions as violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Sigma Chi moved for summary judgment on its First Amendment claims on June 28, 1991, filing with its motions numerous affidavits explaining the nature of the “ugly woman contest.” Also submitted were large glossy photographs of the participants as they appeared in the skits, including photographs of the Fraternity member depicting the offensive caricature of the black woman.
  In addition to the affidavit of Dean Bum-garner explaining his meetings with student leaders, the University submitted the affidavits of other officials, including that of University President George W. Johnson and Vice-President Earl G. Ingram. President Johnson, by his affidavit, presented the “mission statement” of the University:
  (3) George Mason University is committed to promoting a culturally and racially diverse student body.... Education here is not limited to the classroom.
  (4) We are committed to teaching the values of equal opportunity and equal treatment, respect for diversity, and individual dignity.
  (5) Our mission also includes achieving the goals set forth in our affirmative action plan, a plan incorporating affirmative steps designed to attract and retain minorities to this campus.
  (7) George Mason University is a state institution of higher education and a recipient of federal funds.
  Vice President Earl G. Ingram’s affidavit represented:
  (6) The University’s affirmative action plan is a part of an overall state plan designed, in part, to desegregate the predominately “white” and “black” public institutions of higher education in Virginia.... The behavior of the members of Sigma Chi that led to this lawsuit was completely antithetical to the University’s mission, as expressed through its affirmative action statement and other pertinent University policies, to create a non-threatening, culturally diverse learning environment for students of all races and backgrounds, and of both sexes.
  (7) While the University has progressed in attracting and retaining minority students, it cannot expect to maintain the position it has achieved, and make further progress on affirmative action and minority issues that it wishes to make, if behavior like that of Sigma Chi is perpetuated on this campus.
  The district court granted summary judgment to Sigma Chi on its First Amendment claim, 773 F.Supp. 792 (E.D.Va.1991).
  II
  The University urges that the district court’s grant of summary judgment was premature. It stresses that there remain factual issues which the district court should have weighed in its conclusion. According to the University, the Fraternity’s intent in staging the contest is crucial to the issue of whether its conduct was expressive. The University also stresses that if given time it could demonstrate more completely the harm the contest caused to its educational mission. It is, of course, beyond cavil that summary judgment should not be granted while a viable issue of material fact remains. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Summary judgment principles require the court to find that the evidence is such that a jury could not reasonably find for the party opposing summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2512, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of a suit under the applicable law preclude entry of summary judgment.
  In our view, for the reasons that follow, the district court was correct in concluding that there was no outstanding issue of material fact.
  Ill
  We initially face the task of deciding whether Sigma Chi’s “ugly woman contest” is sufficiently expressive to entitle it to First Amendment protection. From the mature advantage of looking back, it is obvious that the performance, apart from its charitable fund-raising features, was an exercise of teenage campus excess. With a longer and sobering perspective brought on by both peer and official disapproval, even the governing members of the Fraternity recognized as much. The answer to the question of whether the First Amendment protects the Fraternity’s crude attempt at entertainment, however, is all the more difficult because of its obvious sophomoric nature.
  A
  First Amendment principles governing live entertainment are relatively clear: short of obscenity, it is generally protected. See, e.g., Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., - U.S. -, -, 111 S.Ct. 2456, 2460, 115 L.Ed.2d 504 (1991) (nude dancing); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 557-58, 95 S.Ct. 1239, 1245-47, 43 L.Ed.2d 448 (1975) (musical “Hair”); Berger v. Battaglia, 779 F.2d 992, 999 (4th Cir.1985) (blackface performance), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1159, 106 S.Ct. 2278, 90 L.Ed.2d 720 (1986). As the Supreme Court announced in Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 101 S.Ct. 2176, 68 L.Ed.2d 671 (1981), “[ejntertainment, as well as political and ideological speech, is protected; motion pictures, programs broadcast by radio and television, and live entertainment ... fall within the First Amendment guarantee.” Id. at 65, 101 S.Ct. at 2180. Expression devoid of “ideas” but with entertainment value may also be protected because “[t]he line between the informing and the entertaining is too elusive.” Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 510, 68 S.Ct. 665, 667, 92 L.Ed. 840 (1948).
  Thus, we must determine if the skit performed by Sigma Chi comes within the constitutionally protected rubric of entertainment. Unquestionably, some forms of entertainment are so inherently expressive as to fall within the First Amendment’s ambit regardless of their quality. For example, in Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989), the Supreme Court flatly ruled that “[mjusic, as a form of expression and communication, is protected under the First Amendment.” Id. at 790, 109 S.Ct. at 2753. Justice Kennedy explained:
  Music is one of the oldest forms of human expression. From Plato’s discourse in the Republic to the totalitarian state in our own times, rulers have known its capacity to appeal to the intellect and to the emotions, and have censored musical compositions to serve the needs of the state. The Constitution prohibits any like attempts in our own legal order.
  Id. (citations omitted).
  Motion pictures, too, are included within the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment. The Court emphasized in Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 72 S.Ct. 777, 96 L.Ed. 1098 (1952), that “[t]he importance of motion pictures as an organ of public opinion is not lessened by the fact that they are designed to entertain as well as to inform.” Id. at 501, 72 S.Ct. at 780; see also Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 62, 96 S.Ct. 2440, 2448, 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (1976) (motion picture theaters involve communication protected by the First Amendment, but the state can regulate their secondary effects).
  Even crude street skits come within the First Amendment’s reach. In overturning the conviction of an amateur actor for wearing a military uniform in violation of a federal statute, the Supreme Court discussed the statute’s “theatrical production” exception. Schacht v. United States, 398 U.S. 58, 61-62, 90 S.Ct. 1555, 1558-59, 26 L.Ed.2d 44 (1970). Responding to the Government’s argument that the amateur skit was not a “theatrical production,” Justice Black, writing for the majority, stated:
  It may be that the performances were crude and amateurish and perhaps unappealing, but the same thing can be said about many theatrical performances. We cannot believe that when Congress wrote out a special exception for theatrical productions it intended to protect only a narrow and limited category of professionally produced plays.
  Id. Although this part of the opinion related to interpretation of the involved statute, Justice Black proceeded to declare that an actor participating in even a crude performance enjoys the constitutional right to freedom of speech. Id. at 63, 90 S.Ct. at 1559.
  Bearing on this dichotomy between low and high-grade entertainment are the Supreme Court’s holdings relating to nude dancing. See Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., - U.S. at -, -, 111 S.Ct. 2456, 2460, 115 L.Ed.2d 504 (1991); Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 65-66, 101 S.Ct. 2176, 2180-81, 68 L.Ed.2d 671 (1981); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 932-33, 95 S.Ct. 2561, 2568-69, 45 L.Ed.2d 648 (1975); California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109, 116-18, 93 S.Ct. 390, 395-97, 34 L.Ed.2d 342 (1972). Most recently, in Barnes, the Supreme Court conceded that nude dancing is expressive conduct entitled to First Amendment protection. Barnes, - U.S. at -, 111 S.Ct. at 2460. In Barnes, the Court reviewed a Seventh Circuit opinion authored by Judge Flaum, Miller v. Civil City of South Bend, 904 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir.1990) (en banc), rev’d sub nom. Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., - U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2456, 115 L.Ed.2d 504 (1991), which thoroughly analyzed the questions of whether and how nude dancing is expression entitled to First Amendment protection. The Miller opinion noted that dance is inherently expressive entertainment, as it conveys emotions and ideas. Judge Flaum refused to distinguish “high” art from “low” entertainment on the asserted basis that low entertainment “fail[s] to communicate a defined intellectual thought.” Id. at 1086. Applying the test enunciated in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 2539, 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989), he concluded that nude dancing communicated a message of eroticism and sensuality, understood by its viewers as such. Miller, 904 F.2d at 1087. Thus, notwithstanding its artistic quality, nude dancing was sufficiently expressive to entitle it to First Amendment protection. Justice White’s dissent in Barnes echoed Judge Flaum’s opinion:
  “[WJhile the entertainment afforded by a nude ballet at Lincoln Center to those who can pay the price may differ vastly in content (as viewed by judges) or in quality (as viewed by critics), it may not differ in substance from the dance viewed by the person who ... wants some ‘entertainment’ with his beer or shot of rye.”
  Barnes, - U.S. at -, 111 S.Ct. at 2475, 115 L.Ed.2d at 529 (White, J-., dissenting) (quoting Salem Inn, Inc. v. Frank, 501 F.2d 18, 21 n. 3 (2d Cir.1974), modified sub nom. Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 95 S.Ct. 2561, 45 L.Ed.2d 648 (1975)).
  In sum, although the Barnes plurality did not explore these views, it appears that the low quality of entertainment does not necessarily weigh in the First Amendment inquiry. It would seem, therefore, that the Fraternity’s skit, even as low-grade entertainment, was inherently expressive and thus entitled to First Amendment protection. See Barnes, - U.S. at -, 111 S.Ct. at 2460; Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 790, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 2753, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989); Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 65-66, 101 S.Ct. 2176, 2180-81, 68 L.Ed.2d 671 (1981); Schacht v. United States, 398 U.S. 58, 61-62, 90 S.Ct. 1555, 1558, 26 L.Ed.2d 44 (1970).
  B
  The University nevertheless contends that discovery will demonstrate that the contest does not merit characterization as a skit but only as mindless fraternity fun, devoid of any artistic expression. It argues further that entitlement to First Amendment protection exists only if the production was intended to convey a message likely to be understood by a particular audience. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 2539, 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989). From the summary judgment record, the University insists, it is impossible to discern the communicative intent necessary to imbue the Fraternity’s conduct with a free speech component.
  As indicated, we feel that the First Amendment protects the Fraternity’s skit because it is inherently expressive entertainment. Even if this were not true, however, the skit, in our view, qualifies as expressive conduct under the test articulated in Texas v. Johnson. It is true that the Johnson test for determining the expressiveness of conduct requires “ ‘[a]n intent to convey a particularized message’ ” and a great likelihood “ ‘that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.’ ” Id. (quoting Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 410-11, 94 S.Ct. 2727, 2730, 41 L.Ed.2d 842 (1974)). As Johnson and Spence point out, however, the intent to convey a message can be inferred from the conduct and the circumstances surrounding it. Thus viewed, the University’s argument is self-defeating. The affidavit from the University’s Vice-President, Earl Ingram, stated that the message conveyed by the Fraternity’s conduct — that racial and sexual themes should be treated lightly — was completely antithetical to the University’s mission of promoting diversity and providing an educational environment free from racism and sexism. Dean Bumgarner, in his affidavit, stated that the University
  does not and cannot condone this type of on-campus behavior which perpetuated derogatory racial and sexual stereotypes, tends to isolate minority students, and creates a hostile and distracting learning environment. Such behavior is incompatible with, and destructive to, the University’s mission of promoting diversity within its student body [and] sends a message to the student body and the community that we ... are not serious about hurtful and offensive behavior on campus.
  Importantly, the affidavits establish that the punishment was meted out to the Fraternity because its boorish message had interfered with the described University mission. It is manifest from these circumstances that the University officials thought the Fraternity intended to convey a message. The Fraternity members’ apology and post-conduct eontriteness suggest that they held the same view. To be sure, no evidence suggests that the Fraternity advocated segregation or inferior social status for women. What is evident is that the Fraternity’s purposefully nonsensical treatment of sexual and racial themes was intended to impart a message that the University’s concerns, in the Fraternity’s view, should be treated humorously. From the Fraternity’s conduct and the circumstances surrounding it, we have no difficulty in concluding that it intended to convey a message.
  As to the second prong of the Johnson test, there was a great likelihood that at least some of the audience viewing the skit would understand the Fraternity’s message of satire and humor. Some students paid to attend the performance and were entertained. What the Fraternity did not anticipate was the reaction to their crude humor by other students on campus and University officials who opposed the racist and sexist implications of the Fraternity’s skit.
  Even considering, therefore, the sparsity of the evidentiary record, we are persuaded that the Fraternity’s “ugly woman contest” satisfies the Johnson test for expressive conduct.
  IV
  If this were not a sufficient response to the University’s argument, the principles relating to content and viewpoint discrimination recently emphasized in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992), provide a definitive answer. Although the Court in St. Paul reviewed the constitutional effect of a city “hate speech” ordinance, and we review the constitutionality of sanctions imposed for violating University policy, St. Paul’s rationale applies here with equal force. Noting that St. Paul’s city ordinance prohibited displays of symbols that “arouse[] anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender,” but did not prohibit displays of symbols which would advance ideas of racial or religious equality, Justice Scalia stated: “The First Amendment does not permit St. Paul to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects.” Id. at -, -, 112 S.Ct. at 2541, 2547.
  As evidenced by their affidavits, University officials sanctioned Sigma Chi for the message conveyed by the “ugly woman contest” because it ran counter to the views the University sought to communicate to its students and the community. The mischief was the University’s punishment of those who scoffed at its goals of racial integration and gender neutrality, while permitting, even encouraging, conduct that would further the viewpoint expressed in the University’s goals and probably embraced by a majority of society as well. “The First Amendment generally prevents government from proscribing ... expressive conduct because of disapproval of the ideas expressed.” Id. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 2542 (citing Johnson, 491 U.S. at 406, 109 S.Ct. at 2540).
  The University, however, urges us to weigh Sigma Chi’s conduct against the substantial interests inherent in educational endeavors. See Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969). The University certainly has a substantial interest in maintaining an educational environment free of discrimination and racism, and in providing gender-neutral education. Yet it seems equally apparent that it has available numerous alternatives to imposing punishment on students based on the viewpoints they express. We agree wholeheartedly that it is the University officials’ responsibility, even their obligation, to achieve the goals they have set. On the other hand, a public university has many constitutionally permissible means to protect female and minority students. We must emphasize, as have other courts, that “the manner of [its action] cannot consist of selective limitations upon speech.” St. Paul, - U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 2548; see also Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 471, 100 S.Ct. 2286, 2295, 65 L.Ed.2d 263 (invalidating a ban on residential picketing that exempted labor picketing); Schacht v. United States, 398 U.S. 58, 62-63, 90 S.Ct. 1555, 1559, 26 L.Ed.2d 44 (1970) (invalidating a law that allowed wearing military uniforms only in dramatic portrayals that did not “tend to discredit the military”). The First Amendment forbids the government from “restricting] expression because of its message [or] its ideas.” Police Dept. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 2289, 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). The University should have accomplished its goals in some fashion other than silencing speech on the basis of its viewpoint.
  The decision of the district court is affirmed.
  AFFIRMED.
  . Although Sigma Chi’s national fraternity is not involved in the litigation, the IOTA Chapter XI is hereafter referred to as "Sigma Chi” or “the Fraternity.”
  . Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress....
  42 U.S.C. § 1983.
  . 10 U.S.C. § 772© provides:
  While portraying a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, an actor in a theatrical or motion-picture production may wear the uniform of that armed force if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force.
  . At least eight justices agreed that First Amendment protection extends to nude dancing, but they differed in their approaches to defining that protection. Justice Rehnquist, writing for a plurality, relied on the four-part test announced in United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968). He concluded that the Indiana statute prohibiting public nudity was constitutional because it was unrelated to the suppression of speech, infringed only incidentally on protected expression, and furthered the important government interest of prohibiting public nudity. Justice Scalia concurred in the result, but wrote separately because he believed the statute regulated conduct, not expression. Justice Souter also wrote separately because he believed that the state's interest was to combat secondary effects, an interest unrelated to the suppression of expression. Justice White, joined by Justices Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, dissented, stating that the Indiana statute targeted the erotic message communicated by nude dancing. He would have applied a higher standard of scrutiny than the O’Brien test requires.
  Because the sanctions imposed in this case targeted the message communicated by Sigma Chi’s skit and are thus related to the suppression of speech, we do not rely on the O'Brien balancing test as the Barnes plurality did.
  . In Texas v. Johnson, discussed infra, the Supreme Court stated:
  In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, we have asked whether "[a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.”
  Johnson, 491 U.S. at 404, 109 S.Ct. at 2539 (quoting Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 410-11, 94 S.Ct. 2727, 2730, 41 L.Ed.2d 842 (1974)).
  . We think this conclusion gains support from City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 486 U.S. 750, 108 S.Ct. 2138, 100 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988), in which the Supreme Court said that one factor weighing in the equation of whether conduct is expressive is "whether the activity in question is commonly associated with expression.” Id. at 769, 108 S.Ct. at 2150. A live, albeit crude, skit performed for an audience is an activity commonly associated with expression.
  . Nor can we accept the University's contention that the sanctions were imposed as a result of the Fraternity’s "pure conduct,” unrelated to its communicative aspects or viewpoint. See Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U.S. 697, 702-05, 106 S.Ct. 3172, 3175-77, 92 L.Ed.2d 568 (1986); Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 & n. 5, 104 S.Ct. 3065, 3069 & n. 5, 82 L.Ed.2d 221 (1984); United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 1678, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968); Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 89, 69 S.Ct. 448, 454, 93 L.Ed. 513 (1949). The University’s affidavits clearly point to the contrary conclusion.
  . In St. Paul, the Court rejected the Minnesota Supreme Court’s pronouncement that St. Paul's "hate speech” ordinance was narrowly tailored to serve St. Paul's compelling interest in "ensuring] the basic human rights of members of groups that ha[d] historically been subjected to discrimination.” St. Paul, - U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 2549. Although the Court acknowledged that this interest was compelling, it concluded that the content discrimination contained in the ordinance was not “reasonably necessary to achieve St. Paul’s compelling interests.” Id.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Your task is to identify the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is an appellant.
choices: not Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachussets Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New New New North North Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode South South Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Wisconsin Wyoming Virgin Puerto District Guam not Panama