You are on page 1of 5

Cite as: 573 U. S.

____ (2014)
Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF SECTION FIVE


_________________
No. 01001

_________________
JEOHN FAVORS, PETITIONER v. SECTION FIVE WORD
OF THE DAY COMMISSION
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SECTION FIVE COURT OF
APPEALS
[November 7, 2014]

JUSTICE EPSTEIN delivered the opinion of the Court.


Law is reason free from passion. No matter how
sympathetic Petitioner in this case may be, we decide not for
any given petitioner, but for all of Section Five. A textual
interpretation of the word call out would deny relief in this
case Prof. Lazarus noted Petitioner's use of the word and
repeated it. The intent of the called out provision of the
statute was to avoid disruption of the class while providing an
incentive for students to be clever in their use of the word of
the day. Without this, the game could quickly become
detrimental to the learning environment and be shut down.
*

Therefore, we hold that Petitioner should be denied one


point, and that recognition of word use by a professor
qualifies as being called out.
It is so ordered.

Cite as: 573 U. S. ____ (2014)


RICHARDS, J., concurring in judgment

SUPREME COURT OF SECTION FIVE


_________________
No. 01001

_________________
JEOHN FAVORS, PETITIONER v. SECTION FIVE WORD
OF THE DAY COMMISSION
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SECTION FIVE COURT OF
APPEALS
[November 7, 2014]

JUSTICE RICHARDS concurring in the judgment.


The intent of the called-out provision is clear the word
game challenges students to use the word when responding to
a professors question, without alerting the professor of the
students ulterior motive. The ingenuity required to insert the
word into an answer without detection is what provides levity
during the otherwise confusing and troubling process of
learning the law. J. Malhi, dissenting. Without a rigid
application of this provision, the game would quickly devolve
into a monkey-like dump of shenanigans.
I also believe that Justice Malhis concerns regarding the
chilling effect of our ruling today are misplaced. Certainly, a
fear of being called out has not restricted the utilization of the
word of the day in other contexts. See dump, brouhaha.
Section Five is no longer hobbled by a chicken-esque fear,
bubbling beneath the surface, of the power wielded by
professors.

FAVORS v. SECTION FIVE WORD OF THE DAY COMMISSION


RICHARDS, J., concurring in judgment

Although Petitioners use of the word kapow was


admirable in its subtlety and masterful in its execution, an
examination of the games overarching purpose requires me to
conclude that Petitioner should not be awarded a point. I
concur.

Cite as: 573 U. S. ____ (2014)


MALHI, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF SECTION FIVE


_________________
No. 01001

_________________
JEOHN FAVORS, PETITIONER v. SECTION FIVE WORD
OF THE DAY COMMISSION
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SECTION FIVE COURT OF
APPEALS
[November 7, 2014]

JUSTICE MALHI, dissenting.


The majority here has erred in interpreting the term
called out. The intent of the called out provision of the
statute is not, as the majority suggests, to prevent disruption in
the learning environment of the classroom. Using this
rationale, any usage of the word of the day should be deemed
inappropriate, as the snickering and chitchat that results from
even a "non-called out employment of the word of the day
threatens the sanctity of the learning environment. Rather, the
intent of the provision is to avoid awarding students points
when their usage of the word of the day is so grossly
nonsensical in the context as to allow the professor to clearly
discern that the student has employed the word as part of such
a game.
In the current context, Petitioner used the word of the day
kapow and the term was repeated a number of times by
Prof. Lazarus. However, Prof. Lazarus repetition of the word

FAVORS v. SECTION FIVE WORD OF THE DAY COMMISSION


MALHI, J., dissenting

was not an explicit recognition of the term being used as part


of a game, but rather an embracement of the novelty of the
word as employed by Petitioner.
Holding otherwise would produce a chilling effect on
participation in the word of the day game, as even good faith
participants would shy away from using creative words due to
fear of a strict interpretation of called out rendering them
pointless. The role of the courts is to promote acts which have
social benefit, including the insertion of levity during the
otherwise confusing and troubling process of learning the law;
the majoritys holding here acts counter to this principle.
In light of the intent behind the provision and the policy
consequences of holding otherwise, I would award Petitioner
one point.