Academic Freedom and Employee Speech

Demers v. Austin, 746 F.3d 402 (9th Cir. Wash. Jan. 29, 2014)

In this important decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reinforced the First Amendment protections for academic speech by faculty members.  Adopting an approach advanced in AAUP’s amicus brief, the court emphasized the seminal importance of academic speech. Accordingly, the court concluded that the Garcetti analysis did not apply to "speech related to scholarship or teaching,” and therefore the First Amendment could protect this speech even when undertaken "pursuant to the official duties" of a teacher and professor.

Capeheart v. Terrell, 695 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2012)

Professor Capeheart sued Northeastern Illinois University after the provost disregarded a faculty vote electing Capeheart chair of the Justice Studies Department.

Adams v. University of North Carolina–Wilmington, 640 F.3d 550 (4th Cir. 2011)

Tenured Professor Michael Adams sued the University of North Carolina-Wilmington after he was denied a promotion, alleging this denial was retaliation for his political speech and his speech criticizing the school.  The AAUP, the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education filed an amicus brief in the Fourth Circuit supporting Professor Adams.

Ward Churchill v. University of Colorado at Boulder, 293 P.3d16 (61. App. 2010) aff'd 285 P.3d 986 (Col. 2012)

In a jury trial in the Colorado District Court in Denver, a jury found that Churchill’s protected speech – his controversial writings about September 11 – was a substantial or motivating factor for the Board of Regents’ decision to discharge him from his tenured position. The district judge overturned the jury’s verdict and ruled in favor of the Regents as a matter of law.  On February 18, 2010, the AAUP joined the ACLU and the National Coalition Against Censorship in filing an amicus brief in support of the appeal by Professor Ward Churchill to the Colorado State Court of Appeals. 

Hong v. Grant, 403 Fed.Appx. 236 (9th Cir. 2010)

Juan Hong, a tenured professor at University of California-Irvine, criticized a number of decisions about hiring, promotions, and staffing at the school of engineering and was later denied a merit raise.  The Ninth Circuit Court affirmed a federal district court decision that rejected a faculty member’s First Amendment retaliation claim against his administration by applying Garcetti in a university context

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)

The United States Supreme Court ruled that a public employee does not receive First Amendment protection when speech is made pursuant to his or her official duties.  The AAUP and the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression submitted a brief that opposed the official duties standard, but also made a separate claim cautioning the troubling implications for academic speech at public institutions. Fortunately, the Court refrained from applying their analysis to academic speech, noting that “there is some argument that expression related to academic scholarship or classroom instruction implicates additional constitutional interests that are not fully accounted for by this Court’s customary employee-speech jurisprudence.”

McEnroy v. St. Meinrad Sch. of Theol., 713 N.E.2d 334 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)

This case involved the dismissal of a tenured faculty member from the Saint Meinrad School of Theology who signed an open letter to the Pope, asking that continued discussion be permitted concerning the question of ordaining women to the priesthood.