Free Speech:
Time
Place
Manner
Academic Freedom
Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957): Upheld a
professor’s free speech right to not have to answer an
inquiry by the state on a lecture the professor had
given.
Shelton v. Tucker (1960): Court struck down a state
law that required teachers to reveal their
organizational affiliations. Court stated that, “Such
unwarranted inhibition uopoj the free spirit of
teachers…has an unmistakable tendency to chill that
free play of the spirit which all teachers ought
especially to cultivate and practice….”
Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967): Court stated,
“Our nation is deeply committed to safeguarding
academic freedom, which is of tracscendent value to
all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned.
That freedom is therefore a speical concern of the
First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that
cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom…. The
classroom is peculiarly the “marketplace of ideas.”
Pickering v. Board of Education (1968): Court
upheld a teachers right to criticize school officials in
a newspaper editorial.
1) Was there a close working relationship between
the teacher and those he criticized?
2) Is the substance of the letter a matter of legitimate
public concern?
3) Did the letter have a detrimental impact on the
administration of the educational system?
4) Was the teacher’s performance of his daily duties
impeded?
5) Was the teacher writing in his professional
compacity or as a private citizen?
6) Was the speech knowingly false or recklessly
made?
In Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School
District (1979): Court upheld private speech with
administration under Pickering Test.
Piarowski v. Illinois Community College (1985):
Court upheld academic freedom by stating that
“academic freedom…is used to denote both the
freedom of the academy to pursue its ends with
interference from the government…and the freedom
of the individual teacher…to pursue his ends without
interferece from the academy.”
Clark v. Holmes (1972): NIU case in which the court
refused to apply Pickering test and relied on the fact
that the dispute was on teaching method and not
content.
Martin v. Parrish (1986): Professor’s use of vulgar
and profane language in an economics classroom did
not constitute protected speech.
Essentially the college and university has the
authority to set the content or structure of the
classroom.
Urofsky v Gilmore (2001): Case about a state law
prohibiting state employees from accessing sexually
explicit materials on their computers unless given
permission. Court held that state has the authority to
regulate speech of “employees” a the extent they are
acting in their job. This demonstrates a chilled
environment in the courts for academic freedom. The
state essentially can regulate “employee” speech.
And academic freedom lies with the academy
(institution) and not the individual professors.
Hardy v. Jefferson Community College (2001): A
professor taught a communications class that
discussed lanuage that marginalized minoirites. A
black student was offended and complained. Hardy’s
contract was not renewed. Case did not hinge on the
status of the “employee”, but on whether the speech
was of “public concern” ala Pickering. Court upheld
Hardy’s right of speech.
There is a mixed environment in the Circuit Courts as
to the status of Academic Freedom and Free Speech.