Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
lacks the integrity and judgment to resist getting revenge in an immature and vicious manner. All of these implications go to Cody’s personal, rather than professional, traits. The alleged misconduct did not even occur while Cody was on the job, as it did in Sangston; Harris accused Cody of retaliating against the station not while he was an employee, but after (and apparently because of) his termination. This situation is not like the Illinois cases that have found defamation per se when a plaintiffs work or conduct while carrying out his employment-duties has been impugned. In some cases, personal integrity is so intertwined with job skills, that an attack upon it could constitute defamation per se. Kumaran v. Brotman, 247 Ill.App.3d 216, 186 Ill.Dec. 952, 617 N.E.2d 191, 199 (1993) . We do not believe, nor does Cody argue, that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that school officials may not limit the first amendment rights of students and teachers to freedom of speech and expression
B. holding that a newspaper article accusing a schoolteacher of filing scam lawsuits was defamatory per se because part of a teachers job is to set a good example and serve as a role model for students
C. recognizing him from the newspaper picture and article of the night before
D. holding that the board of education violated a school teachers first amendment rights by dismissing him because he had criticized the board in a letter to the local newspaper
E. holding that a students right to bodily integrity under the fourteenth amendment encompasses a students right to be free from sexual assaults by his or her teachers
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.