The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
A Loss for Academic Freedom in the Fourth Circuit
Is "intramural" professorial speech protected by the First Amendment?
A panel of the Fourth Circuit handed down a 2-1 decision today in Porter v. Board of Trustees of North Carolina State University. The opinion can be found here.
Porter is a tenured statistics professor in the college of education. He was unhappy with the direction of the higher ed program, with which he was affiliated. In particular, he thought the college and the program had gone woke and was promoting social justice over good scholarship. He expressed those views internally in departmental email and departmental meetings. As a consequence, he was removed from the higher ed program on the grounds that he was insufficiently collegial.
The majority held that professorial speech in department meetings and the like is speech pursuant to their job duties under Garcetti v. Ceballos and does not fall under a narrow exception for research and teaching. As a consequence, such speech is entirely unprotected by the First Amendment and does not even reach the balancing test under Pickering v. Board of Education.
Such examples of intramural speech would be protected under traditional academic freedom principles, but they have not received a great deal of attention by courts under First Amendment analysis. I have been writing about applications of Pickering to professorial speech of late -- in the context of teaching and scholarship here and in the context of extramural speech here. This case does not have direct implications for either of those contexts, but it is not a great precedent for robust judicial protection of dissident faculty members at state universities.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Too bad, but I’d say the state can regulate its own speech, which would include the on-the-clock speech of its own employees, unless of course there’s a legitimate tenure contract deviating from this principle, or a whistleblower law empowering state employees to disclose misconduct to the public.
Yup. How much freedom public university employees have is a public policy choice, not a first amendment issue.
North Carolina voters and politicians should fire the employees who did this, and replace them with employees who make better choices.
What did you think about Prog. Volokh and the N-word?
How finely tuned your sense of who gets rights is!
I haven’t read his faculty contract, but it may cover reading from the texts of court opinions in the classroom. Of course that would be a matter of contracts, not the First Amendment.
Tell me, Sarcastro, how finely tuned is it? Neat how you don't have to wait for an answer to opine! As you would say, "Fucking telepathy!"
Or as you would also say, "Imagined hypocrisy is the best hypocrisy."
One needs no imagination to perceive the hypocrisy at the Volokh Conspiracy.
You certainly lack any imagination, AIDS... or brains, integrity, worth, etc.
You never answered the question, I notice.
Wrong as usual, Sarcastro. Gaslighting again, I see.
Gaslight0, you would thus prohibit an Econ Professor from saying that Chinese labor was exploited in building railroads.
Naw dude, I’m on the side of academic freedom, for Prof. Volokh and this guy.
You are regularly on the other side. Mostly out of spite and janky anecdotes.
Really????
Did you know that Leland Stanford also built a secret underwater railroad to China? It's been there for over a hundred years but the government has kept it secret....
Well there is currently pending legislation in NC that eliminates tenure (prospectively) and reorganized the Board of Governors and Trustees to make them far more accountable to the legislature (read republicans). Given this decision, I think there is both reason to think it will and it should pass. If a mildly right-wing professor gets demoted/fired (it's not entirely clear from the opinion) for this, academic freedom has no meaning at NCSU and the lofty rhetoric about tenure protecting academic inquiry is a joke. Hopefully Pasque and her ilk will reap what they sowed.
Exactly.
According to the lawsuit, this was OFF the clock speech.
Something he said on his personal blog (probably from home).
Something that the ASHE said about him -- at an off campus conference.
And he is a public employee.
Seems counter-productive, since the natural reaction is to make his complaints more publicly next time, plus the Streisand effect of this particular incident.
Any examples of those "departmental email and departmental meetings" that were considered not polite enough?
Specifically, that his detractors said weren't polite enough?
'cause without that, it sure seems like you're expecting readers to just trust that he was actually judged for his politics and not for the stated reason.
How so? The court is required to accept the plaintiff's version of the facts. The court found that it is perfectly OK for the University to do what the plaintiff says they did, whether they did it or not.
"you’re expecting readers to just trust"
He provided a link to the court's opinion. It has facts. You can read them.
That's one of the problems with this opinion: it was decided on a Rule 12 motion without allowing the plaintiff to do any discovery.
It strikes me as implausible that the communications here (which admittedly were pompous and sarcastic) deviated materially from some norm of collegiality. The majority ruled in conclusory fashion that there was such a norm and then accepted the university's explanation that it acted due to the speaker's rudeness and not the content.
Pomposity and sarcasm aren't exactly unheard of in academia. Once it found that one of the speaker's statements may have been protected speech, the court should have at least allowed discovery on the retaliatory motive issue with respect to that statement.
So that's one vote for "facts don't matter", one vote for "facts are in the opinion, dumbass", and one vote for "court didn't bother with facts".
Sorry Bob, but you're outvoted.
Facts don't matter. The law is what it is regardless of what the underlying facts are in this case.
4th not 2nd circuit. Worried they switched circuits on me. Also, will be fun when all the profs are required to submit their statements about how they will make NC (or WV, Va, or MD) great again and get fired when they complain for being insufficiently collegial.
If they made people write MAGA statements instead of DIE ones, I'd go back to academics.
I don't think "hanging out on a middle school playground and ogling the kids" is normally described as "going back to academics."
At least not until academics was taken over by the groomers.
No, it's hanging out on the quad and oogling the coeds...
😉
Consider two department managers at the widget factory having the same argument. There would be not the slightest question about the employer's right to terminate either or both the managers in that scenario. Pickering would not and should not ever apply.
The root problem here is not the First Amendment or fuzzy issues about "academic" freedom. The root problem is that we have unnecessarily comingled government into higher education. I vote for the immediate privatization of all state schools. Then apply the same rules that the rest of us have to suffer under.
Play stupid (asshole) games, win a stupid (asshole) prize.
This particular disaffected asshole should be perfectly positioned to get a job in Florida after the Republican hayseeds run off all of the mainstream, reasoning, non-bigoted professors.
Dear Dairy,
My heart soared today when I heard about a Big Bad Meanie who wrote violence in an email lose his job.
What a good day for peoples feelings and emotions!
Safe at Last,
Arthur The Brave
On the contrary ,the mainstream, rational American academics are too afraid to speak out because the totalitarian minority has rendered them afraid. (Think panopticon here.)
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20210701102456794
American students are too.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/all-us-students-are-afraid-speak-and-we-should-be-worried
Sorry, AIDS, but your own lunatic fringe is in the camp with the Nazis and Soviets. Their long march through the institutions has culminated in the same old totalitarian grounds they ALWAYS end up -- no matter if they style themselves as 'liberal', 'progressive', 'democratic socialist', 'libertarian socialist', etc.
Fortunately, though, there are millions of Americans with hundreds of millions of guns who are going to blow your brains out. Sic semper tyrannis, AIDS.
You REALLY need to stop pretending on this blog that you, your loved ones, and your totalitarian social re-engineering project are going to even be OK, let alone come out on top. You're doomed, AIDS.
I second that.
Plenty of un-American assholes -- who can't stand modern America, with its education, inclusiveness, diminished bigotry, science, modernity, diminished white privilege, reason, etc. . . . -- at this white, male, faux libertarian, right-wing blog.
You're quite correct, of course, John Stuart Mill wasn't an American.
CTRL-F for "If the government would make up its mind" to see the sort of inclusiveness-hating bigot Mill was. Did I mention he was white?
https://gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm
Nor was John Locke...
OH! Is all that transgendered stuff really science-driven? This, despite the fact that the scientific literature to date remains undetermined as to whether it’s merely a function of dysphoria? Your political stipulations and conceptualizations, and policing efforts to have them predominate, are actually predicated upon credible, definitive science after all, yeah?
You mean how you’ve embarked on a social re-engineering project to DESIGN a new, inclusive, America, and globe, wholly without empirically grounded and tested knowledge and skills about how to credibly do so? (Were this otherwise, you would EASILY be able to point to the peer-reviewed literature that establishes this knowledge, and the reliability of the techniques underpinning your skills.) OR is it enough to just accuse other people of being ‘ignorant’ for disbelieving things about given cultures and belief systems that you yourself don’t even believe, for it to count as as being modern, inclusive, and science-based?
You mean how your education system uses systematic grade inflation, coddles students, and creates safe spaces from ideas that students might find threatening — stuff so ludicrous that the entire European left thinks it’s laughable and infantilizing?
You mean how your unis are facing a demographic cliff and how a sizable portion of them will be shut down BECAUSE yours is an evolutionary inferior meme, and your values are losing in the global culture war?
Perhaps you mean how you systematically, racially exploit brown illegals as neo-serfs in all your blue cities and states, and how you desperately need them (and others) PRECISELY because they don’t believe what you believe about the basics of human living, ie, breeding and meeting replacement rate?
Will the modern, more inclusive American normalize 48% consanguinity rates and child marriages from Islamic cultures? Will you normalize the Prophet (pbuh)’s marriage of a six-year-old and consummation of that marriage when she was nine?
Carry on, AIDS, till your three card monte trick of an ethico-political ideology crashes and burns, you are discredited and despised globally, and your American betters Breivik your loved ones.
I expect our strongest teaching and research institutions to continue to flourish. They provide first-rate education, for which there will be ample demand.
Some of our conservative-controlled, nonsense-teaching, fourth-tier (or worse) schools may struggle as our desolate backwaters continue to empty, religion diminishes as a factor in modern America, and mainstream America becomes less interested in flattering and subsidizing low-quality schools that suppress science, teach nonsense, enforce dogma, and produce downscale graduates.
Both circumstances sound good to me.
Your strongest institutions, which hire on identity politics lines, and not the strongest candidates, and not just in marginal cases? Those same institutions, where both the preponderance of faculty and students are too afraid to speak out -- and NOT because of a fear of the political right? You mean those institutions which systematically grade inflate -- to the point where the world's top institutions cannot trust American transcripts anymore? You mean where the students are infantilized and NOT taught to scrutinize their own views, face challenges to their own beliefs, and require 'safe' spaces?
Your expectations are predicated upon your ignorance and delusions, then.
With some reason, American conservatives predict there shall be a re-ordering of your unis' hierarchy.
I agree, but just think many of America's crème de la crème will just seek academic positions abroad instead. We already see this happening, by the by. After all, why would they stay in institutions where self-styled 'liberals' and 'progressives' render the work places anti-science (if they don't conform to the correct political ideology of the moment), anti-academic freedom, and dangerous places for anyone who isn't ready to prostrate themselves to the next totalitarian whim? (Again, look at the empirical evidence on why the preponderance of faculty are AFRAID to speak out, to speak their minds.)
You're absolutely right that there's an unavoidable conflict when the government runs a school. The government is supposed to respect free speech: no restriction on the topic, no requirement to be correct, no requirement to be civil. A teacher is supposed to teach a specific subject correctly and engage students.
Your solution is the cleanest one, but since it's not likely to get implemented any time soon, there are going to be some boundaries.
IMO some reasonably clear boundaries could be set as follows:
(1) Off the job, off campus speech: Full 1st Amendment protection, i.e. anything short of a true threat.
(2) Speech in the classroom, department meetings, university functions: Zero 1st Amendment protection*.
*Of course anti-discrimination law would still apply and could be extended to political orientation. But the argument would have to be that you fired me for being a white Republican asshole and you did not fire a black Democrat asshole for being equally asinine. 14th amendment, not 1st.
Academic freedom isn't a first amendment issue. It's a policy decision on what kind of institution you want to run. I'm fine with saying there is no academic freedom at all in an aircraft mechanic school.
The reason we co-mingled government and higher ed was that the private colleges weren't teaching what we wanted taught.
Hence the creation of the normal schools and then the A&M Morrill Act schools.
If Porter thought he could deviate from the dominant campus ideology, he's too dumb to teach. He's lucky he wasn't fired.
As 12 said, its up to the legislature to rein in the zealots. Not possible under the current governor but maybe after January, 2025.
We are regularly assured by certain posters on here that people on campuses are not afraid to express contrary opinions. That the kind of stuff described in this post simply does not happen.
Paging Dr. Gaslighto!
I wanted to thank the professors' Union for volunteering a salary reduction to help pay for the student loan forgiveness proposed by President Biden. That voluntary salary reduction, along with the voluntary contributions from each and every university which employs Unionized professors, should be enough to relieve taxpayers of any expense related to the Biden proposal.
Or am I wrong? Are the universities and professors now clamoring to be given their "academie free-free" (or whatever term is in vogue) also clamoring for additional taxpayer-funded subsidies? At what point do these pocket-pickers stop, if at all‽ Do they want to own us all, or is there truly some academic mission they wish to fulfill‽