Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Education Law Blogs -> Edjurist
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Education Law
: EdjuristRecent (and troubling) State Court Decision Involving Faculty Speech
This past month, a state court in Idaho dismissed the suit of Habib Sadid, a tenured professor at Idaho State University (ISU), who claimed that he was retaliated against for criticizing the actions of university officials. Among his claims, Sadid argued that the university's actions violated his First Amendment rights. A copy of the decision can be found on the AAUP's website: http://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/8A4D0756-6D3B-481A-B981-B32696DE3D98/0/Sadiddecision.pdf
The case marks yet another decision in which a court has relied on Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), to hold that a professor had not engaged in speech protected by the First Amendment. In Garcetti, the Supreme Court held that a public employee engaging in communication pursuant to carrying out his or official duties does not engage in speech for purposes of the First Amendment. But, the Court left open the question of whether the decision applied to speech by faculty members. Still, several courts have applied Garcetti to faculty speech with no reasoned consideration of the extent, if any, that the case should apply to faculty speech. In Sadid's case, for example, the court relied for persuasive authority on a federal district case, Hong v. Grant, 519 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (C.D. Cal. 2007), where the court also reflexively applied Garcetti.
The interesting (and troubling) twist in Sadid's case involves the court's determination that he did not write newspapers articles critical of the university as a private citizen. The court held that the 'tone' of the letters was that of an employee, deeming it especially important that he identified himself as an ISU employee.
The case was another example of how several courts have used Garcetti in faculty speech cases with no consideration of the fact that the Supreme Court left the door open of whether the decision should even apply to faculty speech. Even proponents who argue that First Amendment protection for academic freedom should, at most, accrue to institutions versus individual professors have not embraced the idea of applying Garcetti to faculty speech. The case especially touched a nerve with me since I wrote a recent article on the issue of individual academic freedom under the First Amendment with a special focus on the Garcetti decision. Feel free to check it out if you're so inclined. The article is: A Confused Concern of the First Amendment: The Uncertain Status of Constitutional Protection for Individual Academic Freedom, 36 Journal of College and University Law 145.
Full post as published by Edjurist on January 13, 2010 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Parody is a Protected Form of Speech
Targets of criticism seek to shut down Internet sites that poke fun
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause
Free Speech
Canterbury agrees to pay $60,000 settlement in civil rights lawsuit.
Indianapolis
alleging the city's police are overly aggressive against the homeless in violation of the protection of free speech and unreasonable searches guaranteed in the US Constitution.
Family Law
involving divorce, child custody, spousal support, common law, adoption and same sex marriage.
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million
Personal Injury
Appeals Court Upholds Congressional Legislation
Media/Telecom
consumer rights involving print, radio, television, video, DVD, video games, and mobile telephones.

Buying Elections Is Not Free Speech, Part II
Colorado Judge rules that academic tenure benefits the public
Law: A faculty speech/1st Amendment case from the AAUP
Court review of university decisions concerning the appointment of faculty limited
EUGENE VOLOKH: Wise Latina speech: troubling. President Obama agrees. UPDATE: Latinos for
Victory at the Third Circuit for Christian DeJohn








