Davis Faculty Association

From AAUP – UC Irvine case

One of our members spotted the following issue in the AAUP news at

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/protect/legal/2005-08+amicus.htm#discrimination

On March 17, 2008, the AAUP and the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression filed a jointly-authored amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The amicus brief supported the appeal of Dr. Juan Hong, a full professor at the University of California-Irvine, in his suit against the university and its administrators.  Dr. Hong had, while participating in faculty governance, allegedly angered university administrators by opposing certain faculty hiring and promotion decisions and by his opposition to the university’s use of lecturers in place of professors.  After Dr. Hong was denied a merit salary increase, he filed suit against the university for violating his First Amendment right to free speech.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California rejected Dr. Hong’s claim, finding in favor of the university.  The judge reviewed the Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (see discussion above) and concluded that because Dr. Hong was purportedly acting “pursuant to his official duties,” which included participation in faculty governance, he could not avail himself of First Amendment protection if his employer retaliated against him based on his expression of opposition to the university’s policy.  According to the court, the University of California-Irvine “‘commissioned’ Mr. Hong’s involvement in the peer review process and his participation is therefore part of his official duties as a faculty member.  The University is free to regulate statement made in the course of that process without judicial interference.”  In so holding, the court failed to acknowledge the fact that courts treat the speech of professors in an academic context differently than the speech of employees of public agencies in other contexts, and that the Garcetti decision explicitly set aside the question of academic speech.

The amicus brief focuses on the unique status granted to academic speech, including involvement in shared governance. The brief notes that academic speech has been accorded special First Amendment protection by the Supreme Court, starting with Sweezy v. State of New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957) (Frankfurter, J. concurring) through Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967) and Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and argues that such protection must include the right of faculty to participate in shared governance. The hallmark of such cases, the brief notes, is the recognition that academic freedom merits distinctive First Amendment protection against repressive action from within or outside the campus community.  The brief also notes that the district court mistakenly characterized Dr. Hong’s participation in faculty governance as an “official duty.” Instead of a “duty”, the brief argues, participation in faculty governance is part and parcel of professors’ First Amendment-protected right of academic freedom to speak without fear of retaliation.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 29th, 2008 at 11:23 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a Reply