LITTLE ROCK — The state Supreme Court ruled 4-3 Thursday that a law making it a crime for high school teachers to have sexual relationships with adult students unconstitutionally infringes on educators’ fundamental right to privacy.
Under Arkansas law, a teacher, principal, athletic coach or counselor at a public school who has sexual contact with a student of that school who is younger than 21 is guilty of sexual assault in the second degree.
But that law - which doesn’t cover students at colleges and universities - “criminalizes sexual conduct between adults” and is not the least restrictive way to protect students, Chief Justice Jim Hannah wrote in the court’s majority opinion.Three other justices, Donald Corbin, Courtney Hudson Goodson and Paul Danielson, joined in the decision to overturn the law.
The court said all private “noncommercial” sex between consenting adults is constitutionally protected.
“Regardless of how we feel about Paschal’s conduct, which could correctly be referred to as reprehensible, we cannot abandon our duty to uphold the rule of law when a case presents distasteful facts,” Hannah wrote, referring to David Waldon Paschal.
Paschal was convicted of sexual assault in Washington County Circuit Court because of a consensual sexual relationship he had with an 18-year-old student at Elkins High School in 2010. He was 36 at the time.
Paschal, a history teacher, was arrested after the student’s mother contacted school officials and informed them of the relationship, which began when the student was a senior and continued for months, according to court documents.
Paschal was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for each of three sexual-assault convictions, which will now be reversed and dismissed. He also was convicted of witness bribery, but the Supreme Court agreed with Paschal that the jury should have been allowed to hear additional evidence on that charge.
“We respect the Court’s decision, although we disagree with it,” said Aaron Sadler, a spokesman for the state attorney general. The state is still evaluating its options and may ask for another hearing.
The definition of second degree sexual assault was expanded in 2003 to include sexual contact public-school teachers have with any student at their schools who is under 21. The act also mandated that teachers convicted of this crime would be dismissed and permanently barred from working at any school in the state.
Last year the law was expanded again to also bar coaches, counselors, and principals from having sexual relationships with students under age 21.
The state argued in its brief with the court that the law was not unconstitutional.
“There is no fundamental right for a high school teacher to have sex with an 18-year old high school student in his school,” assistant Attorney General Karen Virginia Wallace wrote.
But that’s not the issue, Hannah replied.
“The issue is whether the statute, as applied in this case, infringes on Paschal’s fundamental right to engage in private, consensual, noncommercial acts of sexual intimacy with an adult. We hold that it does,” Hannah wrote in the court’s majority opinion.
The state also argued that a relationship between a student and a teacher is “inherently unequal in power and knowledge,” and would disrupt the education of students.
Three justices dissented from this portion of the opinion, arguing that the law is constitutional and vital for the protection of students and the integrity of schools.
Justice Robert Brown wrote that the majority’s opinion “skews and minimizes the role of a teacher and views a sexual affair between a high school student and teacher as merely one between consenting adults.”
“Any teacher knows that he or she occupies a position of trust or authority in the school,” Brown wrote. “For the majority to say that such authority vanishes when a student turns eighteen ignores the realities of the student teacher relationship.”
Justice Karen Baker wrote in her dissent that the right to privacy does not sanction relationships between teachers and students who are legally obligated to be in school, and that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting students from the complications that could accompany a relationship with a teacher.
Baker labeled the majority’s reasoning “absurd.”
Justice Jim Gunter joined both dissents.
Seth Blomeley, a spokesman for the state Department of Education, said the department needs to review the ruling further before determining what effect it could have on schools. While the department does not specifically track the number of cases in which a teacher has had a sexual relationship with an adult student, he said there had probably only been a few such incidents in recent years.
Even without a criminal statute in place, teachers who have relationships with students could run afoul of ethical rules. The first standard for educators under the code developed by the Arkansas Professional Licensure Standards Board for teachers states that an educator must maintain a “professional” relationship with each student.
“This standard goes to the core of a professional educator’s expected conduct and relationship with all students and transcends criminal behavior or other actions which violate law,” the board said in a 2008 presentation. The board is authorized to recommend penalties ranging from fines to revocation of a teacher’s license for violating the standards.
Several other states have determined that relationships between adult students and teachers can be legally barred.
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that, regardless of whether there is a fundamental right of sexual privacy, student-teacher relationships are “inherently coercive” and therefore not covered by it.
A Washington state law similar to the Arkansas statute withstood challenge in 2010.
The Texas Court of Appeals upheld a 2003 law that makes it a felony for a teacher to have a sexual relationship with a student even after the student has reached the age of consent.
This week a California lawmaker introduced a bill that would make it a felony for a teacher to have a sexual relationship with a student of any age.
Sen. Percy Malone, a Democrat from Arkadelphia, sponsored the 2011 bill adding coaches, principals and counselors to the law. He said he respected the rights of individuals, but would work with the Legislative Task Force on Abused and Neglected Children to see if a more narrowly designed law could be written to protect students from being coerced.
“If that will fix it, then I will suggest that there be legislation next time that will do that very thing - that will make it clear that we’re talking about those cases where there’s people who have influence over a student,” he said.
At the Supreme Court the case is CR 11-673, David Waldon Paschal v. State.
Front Section, Pages 1 on 03/30/2012