the court concluded, therefore, that acanfora could be removed from the classroom, and his protected interests thus transgressed, only if there were an overriding state interest justifying that action. the only evidence which had been proffered by respondents going to that issue was the testimony of their experts, and accordingly the court recounted all of the expert testimony in great detail. the court concluded that respondents had not sustained their burden of proving an overriding state interest. while it would be "premature to state definitively that acanfora's presence in the classroom would have no deleterious effect," the risk, albeit "not illusory," "does not seem as great or as likely as defendants have assumed". the court concluded that "the 'board of education's policy of not knowingly employing any homosexuals is objectionable"; that "mere knowledge that a teacher is homosexual is not sufficient to justify transfer or dismissal"; that a teacher need not hide his homosexuality in order to retain his teaching position; that the transfer was "arbitrary" and "without legal justification as matters then stood"; and that the transfer was a "transgression" by montgomery county public schools.