No. 2 (1969)
Number 2. August 1, 1968
Cite as Mass. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2, Rep. A.G., Pub. Doc. No. 12 (1969)
Number 2.
August
1, 1968
HONORABLE OWEN J. KIERNAN
Commissioner of Education
182 Tremont Street
Boston, Massachusetts 021
1
Dear Dr. Kiernan:
Acting in your behalf, Deputy Commissioner Thomas J. Curtin has asked for
my
opinion
concerning
the
"constitutionality"
of Question
No.
3
in
the
Placement
Registration
Form
of
your
Department's
Bureau
of
Teacher
Certification and Placement ("the Bureau"), reading as follows:
"Are
you
now
or
have
you
ever
been
a
member
of
the
Communist Party or any other organization, the purpose of which is
or was the over throw
[sic]
of the government of the United States
by force [?]
"
I
understand
that
the
placement
services of your Department
are
distinct
from
its certification
functions. The
latter
are undertaken pursuant to G.L.
c.
71, §38G, which conditions the appointment of a teacher in a public school on
the
issuance
of
a
certificate
of
qualification
by
the
Board
of
Education.
Placement
services, on
the other hand, are provided for under G.L.
c. 69, §6,
which reads as follows:
"The
department
shall
receive
applications
for
the position of
teacher from graduates of good moral character of any high school
or teachers college
in
this commonwealth,
or of any other school
deemed by the department to be of equal grade, or of any reputable
college. Such an application shall contain the applicant's name and
address,
and,
briefly,
his
experience
and
qualifications.
The
department,
without
charge,
shall communicate
with
the
various
school committees and with the applicants themselves with a view to
securing such positions."
I
understand
that when
a
superintendent
of schools
requests
the
Board
to
furnish him with
the names of teachers
for possible employment, the Bureau
customarily
gives
the
superintendent
copies
of
the Placement Forms
of the
teachers who
are
referred.
The
teachers
and
the
superintendent
then
deal
P.D. 12
31
directly with each other. There
is no requirement, however, that the Bureau's
placement service must be used either by a superintendent or by a teacher who
desires employment in a public school. Thus, the employment of a teacher does
not
necessarily depend on
his completion of the Placement Form. Yet
if the
teacher seeks to avail himself of the placement services of the Bureau, the Form
must be filled out.
Nothing in G.L.
c. 69, §6, which confines the application to the "applicant's
name and address, and, briefly, his experience and qualifications," authorizes an
inquiry
into
a
teacher's
political opinions or affiliations. This restriction could
itself render Question No.
3
invalid
as an impermissibly broad
inquiry into a
teacher's qualifications. (See the cases cited below.)
Invalidity could also
result from the operation of G.L.
c. 71, §
39, which
reads as follows:
"No public school committee or official shall inquire concerning,
or
require or
solicit from an applicant for a position
in the public
schools any information as to, his religious belief, creed or practice,
or his political opinions or affiliations; and no appointment to such a
position
shall be
in any manner affected thereby. Violation of this
section shall be punished by a fine of not more than
fifty dollars."
Since
the
foregoing
section
would
prohibit
a
public
school
official
from
inquiring into
the
political opinions or affiliations of an applicant, the official
should not be allowed by means of the Placement Form
to obtain indirectly
from your Bureau
the kind of information
that he could not obtain directly.
Any other conclusion would raise serious doubts as to the constitutionality of
Question No.
3. See Keyishian
v. Board of Regents of University of State of
N.Y., 385 U.S. 589; United States
v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258; Schneider v. Smith,
390 U.S.
17. And
it
is fundamental that statutes should be construed to avoid
constitutional
doubts. Opinion of the
Justices, 341
Mass. 760, 785; Rohrer,
petitioner, Mass. Adv. Sh. (1967) 1445, 1448.
In
short,
then, without reaching questions of constitutionality,
I conclude
that Question No. 3
is invalid under the Massachusetts statutes set forth above.
Very truly yours,
ELLIOT L. RICHARDSON
A ttornev General