Academic
Freedom
Garcetti v. Ceballos
General implications on academic freedom
- Promotions
- Creativity in the Classroom
- Job Security
- Protection of Scholarship
The larger implications on academic freedom.
1. Do professors deserve more protection in their speech than regular public employees?
2. What could be the potential harm in allowing professors full academic freedom?
3. How vital is the concept of academic freedom in a university setting? And what does the concept encompass?
"Texas A&M University is dedicated to the discovery, development, communication, and application of knowledge in a wide range of academic and professional fields. Its mission of providing the highest quality undergraduate and graduate programs is inseparable from its mission of developing new understandings through research and creativity. It prepares students to assume roles in leadership, responsibility, and service to society. Texas A&M assumes as its historic trust the maintenance of freedom of inquiry and an intellectual environment nurturing the human mind and spirit..."
Pickering
Connick
Test
Opinion of Court
Holding: Speech made by public employees in pursuance of their official duties and not made as private citizens is not protected by the First Amendment.
•Does not pass Connick/Pickering Test – Acting in Pursuit to Official Duties
- Does not restrict speech he could make as private citizen
- Need for efficiency within Government
•Not speaking as citizen
- Categorical difference between citizen and public servant
•Whistle Blower Protection
•Does not exclusively Apply to Academic Freedom
- Constitutional Value of Education different than Matter of public concern
Dissent of Court
•Public employees are citizens even while acting as employees
•Establishes favor for whistle blowers over speaking honestly to supervisors
•Addressing wrongdoing is of greater public concern than efficiency
•Speech pursuant to official job duties is still speech
- There are categorical differences in speech, but defining nuances in employee speech is too difficult to base an entire decision on
No First Amendment Protection
First Amendment
Protection
Stronger public interest in limitiing employees speech
Stronger public interest in not limiting employees speech
Garcetti v. Ceballos
- Background
- Opinions/Holding
- Implications for Academic Freedom
Yes
No First Amendment protection
No
Speech as a citizen on public concern?
Sweezy v. New Hampshire
- "... remain free to inquire, to study and evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die."
Keyishian v. Board of Regents
- "Freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment..."
- "The classroom is peculiarly 'the marketplace of ideas'."
1915 Declaration of Principles of Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure
Our precursor...
Pickering v. Connick
It all started here, with something small.
But how did we get here in the first place?
Current issues:
“Death to Israel!!!”
Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006)
A presentation by:
Josette Gonzales
Sam Hughes
Joshua Weatherl
Renee Gertson
Sarah Crumley
Gorum v. Sessoms (2009)
Now, what are the actual implications of Garcetti v. Ceballos on academic freedom?
Adams v. The Trustees of the University of North Carolina - Wilmington (2011)
The first time the court recognizes express reservation of academic speech -
- More clearly defines academic speech; whereas Gorum claimed he was fired for disliking the President, the court makes a distinction between his actions and his words.
"[The Fourth Circuit's] belief that Garcetti should not be applied to speech involving scholarship or teaching 'is equally--if not more--valid in the public university setting.'”
- A big win for proponents of professors' free speech rights