Donna Cockrel v. Shelby County School District

OPINION

Plaintiff Donna Cockrel (“Cockrel”) appeals the district court’s decision granting the Shelby County Public School District (“School District” or “District”), Superintendent Leon Mooneyhan, and Principal Bruce Slate’s (collectively referred to as “defendants”) motion for summary judgment with respect to Cockrel’s First Amendment retaliation claim, which she brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We REVERSE and REMAND the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Donna Cockrel, a tenured fifth-grade teacher at Simpsonville Elementary School in the Shelby County, Kentucky School District was terminated on July 15, 1997 by the District’s superintendent, Dr. Leon Mooneyhan. The School District’s proffered grounds for Cockrel’s termination were insubordination, conduct unbecoming a teacher, inefficiency, incompetency, and neglect of duty. As the basis for these charges, the School District detailed seventeen specific instances of misconduct engaged in by Cockrel, including: fading to teach and disparaging the school’s “Just Think” curriculum; calling Principal Harry Slate names in front of staff members and students; and failing to cooperate with the Title I program and the Title I aides in her class, as well as with other faculty members and staff of Simpsonville Elementary School.

While the School District alleged numerous reasons for its decision to terminate Cockrel, she claims that the District fired her due to her decision to invite Woody *1042Harrelson, the television and film actor most famous for his role as “Woody” on the network television show “Cheers,” and others to her classroom to give presentations on the environmental benefits of industrial hemp. Hemp, an illegal substance in Kentucky, Ky.Rev.Stat. §§ 218A.1422, 218A.010(14), is a plant from which both marijuana and a valuable fiber can be harvested. There are two varieties of the hemp plant. One is the marijuana plant itself, with approximately four to seven percent of its weight comprised of tetrahy-drocannabinol (“THC”), the active chemical in the marijuana drug; the other is industrial hemp, a plant which grows in stalks and from which fibers can be taken to make various goods such as paper and clothes. John Mintz, Splendor in the Grass?, Washington Post, Jan. 5, 1997, at HI. Unlike marijuana, the industrial hemp plant is only comprised of between 0.1 and 0.4 percent THC, an insufficient amount to have any narcotic effect. Id. Nevertheless, Kentucky law prohibits possession of both varieties of the hemp plant, including “its seeds or resin or any compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of these substances.” Ky.Rev. Stat. §§ 218A.1422, 218A.010(14).

Cockrel claims that on at least three occasions during her seven-year tenure at Simpsonville Elementary she organized outside speakers to come to her class to speak about industrial hemp. Cockrel further claims that both Principal Slate and Superintendent Mooneyhan knew that she organized industrial hemp presentations. While Principal Slate alleges that he never knew industrial hemp was being discussed in Cockrel’s class, he does admit that Cockrel’s lesson plans, on at least one occasion, specifically mentioned that hemp was to be discussed.

On or about April 9, 1996, following Cockrel’s decision to end the 1995-96 school year with a project entitled “Saving the Trees,” in which the use of industrial hemp fibers as a possible alternative to wood pulp was to be discussed, Cockrel was contacted by a representative of the Cable News Network (“CNN”) and asked if she would permit CNN’s cameras to film her class presentation for use in a larger program on tree conservation. Cockrel claims that she then immediately informed Slate of CNN’s potential visit to their school, though Slate does not recall this conversation.

In early May 1996, Joe Hickey, president of the Kentucky Hemp Growers Association, informed Cockrel that Woody Harrelson might visit Kentucky with CNN, and that Harrelson might also visit her classroom. Cockrel claims that she was given no specific information as to when Harrelson might visit her classroom, and that it was not until the morning of May 30, 1996, the last day of the school year, that she was notified that Harrelson would be visiting Simpsonville Elementary School that day. Cockrel informed Principal Slate of the impending visit, and he agreed to allow it, though Slate claims that he was only told that the presentation to be given was about agriculture.

Harrelson arrived at the school later that morning with an “entourage, including representatives of the Kentucky Hemp Museum and Kentucky Hemp Growers Cooperative Association, several hemp growers from foreign countries, CNN, and various Kentucky news media representatives.” Appellant’s Br. at 4-5. As stated in Cockrel’s complaint, Harrel-son spoke with the children about his opposition to marijuana use, yet he distinguished marijuana from industrial hemp and advocated the use of industrial hemp as an alternative to increased logging efforts. As part of the presentation, products made from hemp were shown to the children, as were hemp seeds, a banned *1043substance in the state of Kentucky. Har-relson’s visit received both local and national media attention. One student who did not have parental permission to be videotaped or photographed by the news media was included by the press in a class photograph with Harrelson.

Following Harrelson’s visit and the media attention it garnered, parents and teachers wrote numerous letters to members of the Shelby County School District voicing their concern and dismay regarding the industrial hemp presentation. Several of the letters noted the mixed message the school was sending on drug use as Harrelson’s presentation occurred on the same day that many Simpsonville Elementary School students were graduating from the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (“D.A.R.E.”) program offered in the school.

Based on the complaints expressed in the letters, Superintendent Mooneyhan decided to initiate an investigation into Cock-rel’s conduct. Following the investigation, Mooneyhan advised the Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board (“EPSB”) that Cockrel had allowed hemp seeds, an illegal substance, to be passed around to students in her class during Harrelson’s class visit. The Standards Board, after investigating the matter, ultimately dismissed Mooneyhan’s complaint without prejudice, stating that there was an “insufficient basis to warrant [a] certificate revocation action.”1 Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) at 288 (EPSB Letter to Cockrel).

In the months following Harrelson’s visit, Simpsonville Elementary School adopted a new visitors policy for “controversial” topics that required advance approval by school administration and written consent by students’ parents. This policy was put to use when, during the next school year, Cockrel informed Slate that Harrelson would be making a second visit to her classroom to discuss industrial hemp. Cockrel met all of the requirements of the new visitors policy, including providing the requisite advance notice to Principal Slate and obtaining permission from the parents of her students for their children to attend the presentation.2 Slate did not attempt to discourage Cockrel from having another class presentation on industrial hemp, nor did he tell her that Harrelson should not be invited back to the school. According to Cockrel, however, Superintendent Mooneyhan did tell her earlier in the school year that it would not be in her best interests if Harrelson made any more visits to her class. While Har-relson was unable to attend on the day of his scheduled visit, a small group of parents, unaware that Harrelson was not coming, went to the school and “loudly voiced their objections” to Slate about his permitting Harrelson to visit the school a second time. J.A. at 182 (Slate Dep.).

Harrelson rescheduled the visit for the following week, January 29, 1997, and Cockrel again fully complied with the school’s visitors policy. Principal Slate again approved Harrelson’s visit. This time Harrelson did make an appearance. *1044Harrelson was met by a group of parents outside the school who were protesting his visit. Due to school scheduling problems, Harrelson was only able to speak to the students for a few minutes before the students had to leave for lunch. Harrelson’s visit again garnered national media attention from CNN. Principal Slate, who had been asked by CNN for an interview regarding Cockrel’s presentations on industrial hemp, chose to issue a written statement instead. In his statement, Slate said the following:

The media has reported that Ms. Cock-rel has experienced problems with Shelby County school officials, including me, regarding her teaching about industrial hemp. I admit that we have had problems, however, not all our concerns are about Ms. Cockrel’s teaching about hemp. I have also received complaints about her conduct in other areas. The Shelby County school officials and I do not disapprove of Ms. Cockrel teaching about hemp, per se, which we admit has educational value as to its historical and current uses and its potential as an alternative crop. Rather, we have been concerned about the methods Ms. Cock-rel has used to present issues regarding hemp to her students.

J.A. at 265 (Statement for CNN) (emphasis in original). Slate’s statement then went on to criticize Cockrel’s permitting hemp seeds to be passed around to the students at the first presentation, as well as her failure to inform him promptly of Harrelson’s first visit, which occurred on the same day as the D.A.R.E. graduation.

In the months following Harrelson’s initial visit, and shortly after his second visit in January 1997, Slate sat in on Cockrel’s class for purposes of conducting evaluations. That school year, Cockrel was the only tenured teacher at Simpsonville Elementary to be reviewed after two years, whereas tenured teachers in the School District are typically reviewed only once every three years. Slate stated in his deposition that the reason for Cockrel’s early review was his perception that things had been “going downhill” between the two of them for the previous two years. J.A. at 159 (Slate Dep.). Slate further explained that Cockrel was neither communicating nor cooperating with him and the rest of the staff and faculty of Simpsonville Elementary, nor was she adequately following the school’s curriculum and policies.

Citing examples of this downward trend in Cockrel’s attitude and performance, Slate testified that Cockrel did not want Deputy Yeager, the police officer in charge of the D.A.R.E. program at Simpsonville who had spoken out against the Harrelson visits, in her classroom instructing her students. She asked Slate to find someone else to teach the D.A.R.E. program. Slate further stated that two teachers had approached him to let him know that Cockrel was calling him names outside his presence. In addition, a parent notified Slate that her child had heard Cockrel call Slate a name in class. Slate also noted that there were many times when Cockrel simply refused to speak with him or failed to attend meetings.

In the 1996-97 school year, during and after the news that Harrelson would be visiting her class once again, five students, at their parents’ request, were transferred out of Cockrel’s class. Each time Slate attempted to inform Cockrel of a student’s transfer, Cockrel would refuse to talk with him, sometimes walking right past him when he tried to speak with her, or turning her back to him, or refusing to meet with him in his office when he so requested.

On February 20, 1997, in the wake of Cockrel’s decision to continue discussing the benefits of industrial hemp with outside speakers, the Simpsonville Parent *1045Teachers Association (“PTA”) adopted a “position statement,” which stated, in part:

In our opinion, Mrs. Cockrel’s behavior over the past few months has been inappropriate for a teacher and role model for our children. We feel she violated the professional code of ethics for KY. [sic] school personnel. In our opinion, she can no longer be an effective educator in our system and our children’s education would be better served by another teacher.

J.A. at 291 (PTA Position Statement). A little more than a month later, Principal Slate issued a “summative evaluation” of Cockrel’s performance, stating that Cock-rel did not meet the requisite level of performance in five of the forty-three categories of evaluation. Deficient performance was noted in the following areas: communication with parents regarding student performance and teacher expectations; documentation of lesson plans; showing “consistent sensitivity to individual academic, physical, social, and cultural differences and responding] to all students in a caring manner”; ability to build positive relationships within the school and between the school and community; and acting in accordance with laws and with school regulations and procedures. J.A. at 292-97 (Performance Evaluation, Mar. 26, 1997). Attached to the evaluation were several letters from parents complaining about Cockrel’s discussion of hemp in class, as well as documentation of other alleged misconduct. Based on this evaluation, Slate recommended to Superintendent Mooneyhan that Cockrel be terminated. Cockrel was terminated by Moo-neyhan on July 15, 1997.

The termination letter informing Cock-rel of her discharge detailed numerous instances of misconduct, all of which allegedly served as the basis for her discharge. Several of these charges detailed misconduct that occurred well before Harrelson made his initial visit to Simpsonville Elementary. There is no evidence in the record, however, that Cockrel had been reprimanded for such activity prior to Harrelson’s visits to her classroom.

As is her right under Kentucky law, Cockrel initially decided to appeal the Superintendent’s decision to terminate her. Shortly thereafter, however, she withdrew her appeal.

Pursuant to Ky.Rev.Stat. § 161.120, Superintendent Mooneyhan forwarded on to the EPSB the proffered reasons for terminating Cockrel in case the Board wished to revoke Cockrel’s teaching certificate. Following review by the EPSB, Cockrel entered into a written agreement whereby her teaching certificate was surrendered for two years (June 1997 to June 1999) and suspended for two years (July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2001). The agreement stated, in part:

While Cockrel denies any wrongdoing and further denies that her conduct is in any way a violation of KRS 161.120 and/or the Professional Code of Ethics for Kentucky School Personnel, she agrees that the evidence, when presented at formal hearing, is such to result in a finding on all charges that her conduct is in violation of KRS 161.120, and the Professional Code of Ethics for Kentucky School Personnel. Therefore, Cockrel believes that it is in her best interest at this time to enter into this Agreed Order.

J.A. at 68-69 (EPSB Agreed Order).

On June 4, 1998, Cockrel filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Cockrel brought a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which she alleged that she was terminated in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment right of free speech when discussing the potential environmental benefits of industrial hemp. Cockrel also included a state law breach of contract claim. *1046Following limited discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment on Cockrel’s § 1983 claim and asked that the district court abstain from deciding her state law claim of breach of contract.

The district court agreed to abstain from deciding Cockrel’s state law breach of contract claim. As for Cockrel’s First Amendment retaliation claim, the district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In doing so, the district court held that Cockrel’s decision to bring in a speaker to discuss industrial hemp constituted conduct that was neither expressive nor intended to convey a particularized message, and thus was not considered protected speech under Supreme Court jurisprudence. The district court further held that Cockrel’s decision to discuss industrial hemp as part of the fifth-grade curriculum could be considered nothing more than private speech by a teacher who was communicating in her role as an employee, not as a citizen, and thus did not touch on matters of public concern. Ultimately, the district court concluded that because Cockrel’s conduct could not even be considered expressive speech, and because, even if it was speech, her curricular choices did not touch on matters of public concern, she did not have a First Amendment right to discuss industrial hemp in her classroom. Thus, because she had no First Amendment right to speak in this instance, the court concluded that Cockrel had no actionable First Amendment retaliation claim. Cock-rel’s appeal to this court followed.

II. ANALYSIS

We must first address two procedural arguments raised by the appellees that, if successful, would render a review of the merits of Cockrel’s First Amendment retaliation claim unnecessary.

A. Collateral Estoppel

The defendants first argue that, because Cockrel failed to appeal the Superintendent’s decision to terminate her, as was her right under Kentucky law, she is collaterally estopped from challenging her dismissal in this court. As this circuit has explained, ■ collateral estoppel, otherwise known as issue preclusion, “refers to the effect of a judgment in foreclosing relitigation of a matter that has been litigated and decided.” Barnes v. McDowell, 848 F.2d 725, 728 n. 5 (6th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1007, 109 S.Ct. 789, 102 L.Ed.2d 780 (1989). The Barnes court further explained that federal courts must give the factual findings of a state agency that is acting in a judicial capacity preclusive effect if such findings would have preclusive effect in the State’s courts. Id. at 730 (citing University of Tennessee v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 796-98, 106 S.Ct. 3220, 92 L.Ed.2d 635 (1986)). Kentucky courts give preclusive effect to factual findings in a previous proceeding “only as to matters which were necessarily involved and determined in the former action,” as opposed “to matters which were immaterial or unessential to the determination of the prior action or which were not necessary to uphold the judgment.” Barnes, 848 F.2d at 730-31 (quoting Sedley v. City of West Buechel, 461 S.W.2d 556, 558 (Ky. 1970)).

In this case, the question of whether Cockrel was terminated in retaliation for the exercise of her First Amendment rights was not resolved by any prior state proceeding. As Cockrel notes in her reply brief, “[tjhere was no hearing on any issue involved in this action. There are no state court or administrative findings on any factual matters involved here.” Appellant’s Reply Br. at 13. Even if the appeals board had decided that the reasons proffered by the defendants for Cockrel’s dis*1047charge were adequate to support the termination and that there was substantial evidence of defendants’ proffered reasons in the record, unless Cockrel raised her retaliation claim, it would not have decided, nor even considered, whether the true motivation of defendants’ actions was to retaliate against her for exercising her free speech rights. See Barnes, 848 F.2d at 731. Thus, because Cockrel’s First Amendment retaliation claim was not addressed in any prior proceedings, issue preclusion does not prevent her federal suit. Id.

B. Cockrel’s Motion to Reconsider

As defendants note in their brief, Coek-rel failed to respond to their motion for summary judgment within the requisite time period.3 The district court, without benefit of any response by plaintiff, issued its memorandum and order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on January 28, 2000. On February 2, 2000, Cockrel filed a motion with the district court asking it to reconsider and set aside the issuance of its order granting summary judgment in light of the parties’ agreement to enlarge time an additional thirty days so that plaintiff could respond to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The district court denied this motion, stating that “[i]t remains clear to this Court that Plaintiffs selection of industrial hemp as part of her classroom curriculum is not a form of speech entitled to protection by the First Amendment.” J.A. at 41 (Dist.Ct.Order, Feb. 14, 2000). The court further stated that, in light of the law discussed in its memorandum granting summary judgment, “[permitting Plaintiff to file a belated response would be an exercise in futility.” J.A. at 42.4

Motions for reconsideration filed within ten days of the district court’s final judgment, as this one was, are generally treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.30[7] (3d ed.2000). While this court generally reviews the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment for an abuse of discretion, a de novo standard of review is applied when the Rule 59(e) motion seeks review of a grant of summary judgment. Smith v. Walr-Mart Stores, Inc., 167 F.3d 286, 289 (6th Cir.1999).

Indeed, because the district court was not exercising its discretion in refusing to allow Cockrel’s response, but instead was stating, as a matter of law, that any response by the plaintiff would be futile, we apply a de novo standard of review to this legal conclusion. We now turn to the merits of the case in order to evaluate the district court’s finding of futility. As "will be discussed later, not only is it clear that Cockrel’s decision to bring in *1048speakers advocating the use of industrial hemp is protected speech under the First Amendment, but her First Amendment retaliation claim is strong enough to survive the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Thus, the district court’s denial, on futility grounds, of Cockrel’s Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider its judgment was error.

C. Cockrel’s First Amendment Retaliation Claim

1. Standard of Review

This court reviews de novo a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment. Miller v. Am. Heavy Lift Shipping, 231 F.3d 242, 246 (6th Cir.2000). Summary judgment may be granted only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and one party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A dispute over a material fact cannot be “genuine” unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In reviewing the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment, we view all the facts and the inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

2. The Elements of a First Amendment Retaliation Claim

Donna Cockrel, a teacher in the Shelby County Public School District, is a public employee. For a public employee to establish a claim of First Amendment retaliation, this court has held that she must demonstrate:

(1) that [she] was engaged in a constitutionally protected activity; (2) that the defendant’s adverse action caused [her] to suffer an injury that would likely chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that activity; and (3) that the adverse action was motivated at least in part as a response to the exercise of [her] constitutional rights.

Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 737 (6th Cir.2000). To demonstrate that she was engaging in constitutionally protected speech, Cockrel must show that her speech touched on matters of public concern, and that her “interest in commenting upon matters of public concern ... outweigh[s] the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Id. (quotation omitted); see also Bailey v. Floyd County Bd. of Educ., 106 F.3d 135, 144 (6th Cir.1997) (same). If the plaintiff can establish the three elements of her First Amendment retaliation claim, the burden of persuasion then shifts to the defendants, who must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they “would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protected conduct.” Leary, 228 F.3d at 737 (quotation omitted).

a. Was This Speech?

Before deciding whether Cock-rel’s speech was constitutionally protected, this court must first address the question of whether Cockrel’s activity can be considered speech at all. The district court’s decision disposing of Coekrel’s First Amendment claims appears to be based on two separate theories that the court uses interchangeably. First, the district court stated that Cockrel’s decision to bring in a speaker who would give a presentation on industrial hemp should not be considered speech. The district court further held that a teacher’s decisions regarding the content of the curriculum she will teach to her class, even if considered speech, is still not protected by the First Amendment. We put the second holding aside for a moment and turn to the first.

*1049The district court held that, because Cockrel simply chose to bring in speakers who would talk about industrial hemp, rather than speaking on the matter herself, “[h]er free speech claim is based solely on conduct.” J.A. at 31 (Dist.Ct.Mem. Op.). Also influential in the district court’s decision was its notion that, in staging an industrial hemp presentation, Cockrel was not intending to convey a “particularized message,” nor was she advocating or speaking against hemp’s use as an environmental alternative to cutting down trees. J.A. at 35 (Dist.Ct.Mem.Op.) (quotation omitted).

Regardless of the reasoning upon which it relied, the district court erred in holding Cockrel’s conduct not to be speech. First, to the extent the district court was persuaded that Cockrel’s actions did not constitute speech because Woody Harrelson, rather than Cockrel, was doing the speaking, this was error. As the Supreme Court stated in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group, 515 U.S. 557, 570, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995), to receive First Amendment protection, a speaker does not have “to generate, as an original matter, each item featured in the communication.” For example, cable operators, even though they only broadcast material written, spoken, and produced by others, are still considered to be engaged in protected speech. Id. (citing Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 636, 114 S.Ct. 2445, 129 L.Ed.2d 497 (1994)). The same First Amendment protections exist for newspapers, which in their opinion pages simply collect and present the speech of others. Hurley, 515 U.S. at 570, 115 S.Ct. 2338. We see no reason, nor have the defendants explained to this court, why a teacher’s selection of a speaker for an in-class presentation is less a form of speech than a cable operator’s decision as to which programs it chooses to present to its viewing audience.

To the extent that the district court relied on the argument that Cock-rel’s conduct was not speech because she had no advocative purpose when bringing industrial hemp enthusiasts to her class, this was also error. The Supreme Court has held that films, radio programs, and live entertainment are all protected by the First Amendment. Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 65, 101 S.Ct. 2176, 68 L.Ed.2d 671 (1981). Moreover, to have constitutional protection, those who choose to show the film or stage the play need not show that they intended to convey a particularized message in doing so, nor that they approved or disapproved of its content, for such activities are inherently expressive and entitled to constitutional protection. Id.

The district court points to Judge Mil-burn’s concurring opinion in Fowler v. Board of Education, 819 F.2d 657 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 986, 108 S.Ct. 502, 98 L.Ed.2d 501 (1987), in support of its argument that Cockrel’s conduct should not be considered speech. In Fowler, a high school teacher, at the request of her students, showed them Pink Floyd — The Wall, an “R” — rated film containing nudity and a great deal of violence, on the last day of school while she completed grade cards. Id. at 658-59. The teacher was later terminated for showing the film. The teacher then brought suit, claiming that she was terminated in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights.

Judge Milburn, writing only for himself on the issue of whether the conduct of showing the film to the class constituted protected speech, stated that, because the teacher had never seen the movie before and had no idea of its content, her decision to show the film could not be considered “expressive or communicative” in nature. Id. at 662-64. Thus, Judge Milburn concluded, the teacher’s conduct in showing *1050the film was not entitled to First Amendment protection. Id.

Judges Peck and Merritt disagreed with Judge Milburn’s analysis of whether the teacher’s showing of a film could be considered speech. Id. at 667, 669-70. Judge Peck, while concurring in the outcome of the case, stated that the expressive conduct cases used by Judge Milburn to analyze the teacher’s showing of the film were “inapposite.” Id. at 667. Judge Merritt, noting that books, movies, and music that are purely for entertainment value still receive First Amendment protection, argued that the teacher’s decision to show the film clearly was protected speech. Id. at 669-70.

While Judge Milburn’s analysis in Fowler is not binding on this court, even if it were, the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from Foivler. Unlike the teacher’s showing of a film the content of which she knew nothing about, Coekrel’s decision to bring in industrial hemp advocates did have an intent to convey a particularized message. Cockrel, who in her complaint states that “[s]he was a teacher trainer in the state sponsored Kentucky Agriculture and Environment in the Classroom project from 1993 to 1997[,]” worked at designing methods to integrate agricultural topics into her fifth-grade curriculum. J.A. at 9 (Compl.). She had, on at least three occasions before the Harrelson visit, brought in speakers who advocated the use of industrial hemp to conserve trees and other natural resources. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Cockrel, we cannot state, as the district court did, that it was not until “some point during or after the presentation [that] Plaintiff may have developed an approval or disapproval of the use of industrial hemp[.]” J.A. at 36-37 (Dist.Ct.Mem.Op.). Instead, the evidence shows that Cockrel was well aware of the arguments for industrial hemp, and that this was a message she wanted delivered to her students.

Thus, while we believe that Cockrel had an advocative purpose in bringing in speakers who presented her students with information on the environmental benefits of industrial hemp, even if Cockrel did not have such a purpose when organizing these presentations, her decision to present these speakers to her class still constitutes speech.

b. Is Cockrel’s Speech Constitutionally Protected?

Given our determination that Cockrel’s decision to bring industrial hemp advocates into her class is speech, the next question we must ask is whether that speech is constitutionally protected. As stated earlier, speech of a public employee is protected by the First Amendment only if it touches on matters of public concern, and only if “the employee’s interest in commenting upon matters of public concern ... outweigh[s] the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Leary, 228 F.3d at 737 (quotation omitted). If Cockrel’s speech cannot meet both of these standards, then her First Amendment retaliation claim cannot go forward.

i. Does Cockrel’s Speech Touch on a Matter of Public Concern?

In determining whether Cock-rel’s speech touched on a matter of public concern, we turn to Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983), the Supreme Court’s most instructive ease on this issue. In Connick, the Court stated that matters of public concern are those that can “be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the communi*1051ty[.]” Id. at 146, 103 S.Ct. 1684. There is no question that the issue of industrial hemp is a matter of great political and social concern to many citizens of Kentucky, and we believe that Cockrel’s presentations clearly come within the Supreme Court’s understanding of speech touching on matters of public concern.

In support of this conclusion, we first turn to the district court’s opinion, which unequivocally stated “that the issue of industrial hemp is politically charged and of great concern to certain citizens.” J.A. at 36 (Dist.Ct.Mem.Op.). Second, in the past year alone, industrial hemp advocacy in Kentucky has made news on several occasions, revealing the significant extent to which industrial hemp has become an important and publicly debated issue in the State. In October, presidential candidate Ralph Nader, in a campaign stop in Kentucky, spoke out in favor of the legalization of industrial hemp and of the benefits it would have for small family farmers. A1 Cross, Nader Blasts Foes in Visit to Louisville, The Courier Journal (Louisville, KY), Oct. 12, 2000, at Al. In December, after the Drug Enforcement Agency confiscated industrial hemp being grown on the Pine Ridge, South Dakota Indian Reservation, members of the Kentucky Hemp Growers Association, including former Kentucky governor Louie B. Nunn, traveled to South Dakota and, in a ceremony at the base of Mount Rushmore, delivered legally imported industrial hemp to the tribe as a sign of its solidarity. David Melmer, Kentucky Hemp Farmers Aid Pine Ridge, S.D., Indians After Crop Destruction, Knight-Ridder Trib. Bus. News, Dec. 11, 2000. These examples only scratch the surface of the extent to which industrial hemp has become an issue of contentious political and economic debate in Kentucky.

While discussion of industrial hemp plainly meets the broad concept of “public concern” as defined by the Supreme Court, some courts have focused on other portions of the Supreme Court’s Connick decision in concluding that a teacher’s classroom speech does not touch on matters of public concern. See Boring v. Buncombe County Bd. of Educ., 136 F.3d 364, 368-69 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert, denied, 525 U.S. 813, 119 S.Ct. 47, 142 L.Ed.2d 36 (1998); Kirkland v. Northside Indep. Sch. Dist. 890 F.2d 794, 797-99 (5th Cir.1989), cert, denied, 496 U.S. 926, 110 S.Ct. 2620, 110 L.Ed.2d 641 (1990). These cases pay particular attention to the following portion of the Connick Court’s holding:

[W]hen a public employee speaks not as a citizen upon matters of public concern, but instead as an employee upon matters only of personal interest, absent the most unusual circumstances, a federal court is not the appropriate forum in which to review the wisdom of a personnel decision taken by a public agency allegedly in reaction to the employee’s behavior.

Connick, 461 U.S. at 147, 103 S.Ct. 1684. Based upon this language, the Fourth and Fifth Circuits have determined that a teacher, in choosing what he will teach his students, is not speaking as a citizen, but rather as an employee on matters of private interest. Boring, 136 F.3d at 368-69; Kirkland, 890 F.2d at 800.

We believe that the Fourth and Fifth Circuits have extended the holding of Con-nick beyond what the Supreme Court intended. Under the courts’ analyses in Boring and