A Close-Up, Modern Look at First Amendment Academic Freedom Rights of Public College Students and Faculty

IF 3 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW
V. Amar, Alan E. Brownstein
{"title":"A Close-Up, Modern Look at First Amendment Academic Freedom Rights of Public College Students and Faculty","authors":"V. Amar, Alan E. Brownstein","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3008937","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Like many other terms bandied about these days, “academic freedom” is something that means different things to different people, and for that reason is often misunderstood. In this Article, we focus on what, if any, special freedoms of expression are enjoyed under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by students and faculty members at any of the nation’s hundreds of public universities. Analyzing key Supreme Court precedent over the last generation, and the way these cases play out in prominent recent disputes — many of which have been litigated extensively in the lower courts — we conclude that while the First Amendment affords significant protections for expression insofar as public higher educational institutions can be likened to municipalities for some purposes, university administrators have a fair degree of control over speech that can be said to be connected directly to the research, classroom teaching, and extracurricular activities that make up the heart of modern university experience. Particularly as to faculty, First Amendment freedoms may be less than many people assume; in some respects (because of the nature of their public jobs), public university faculty may enjoy less expressive latitude than non-academic employees. \nThere are, of course, sources of support for free speech beyond the First Amendment — such as institutional tradition and policy, state law, contract law, federal due process, and public subsidy. To the extent that advocates want more — rather than less — expressive freedom for students and faculty at universities because of the special role such institutions fill in society, those non-First-Amendment sources may prove more helpful than First Amendment doctrine.","PeriodicalId":47393,"journal":{"name":"Minnesota Law Review","volume":"101 1","pages":"1943-1985"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minnesota Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3008937","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Like many other terms bandied about these days, “academic freedom” is something that means different things to different people, and for that reason is often misunderstood. In this Article, we focus on what, if any, special freedoms of expression are enjoyed under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by students and faculty members at any of the nation’s hundreds of public universities. Analyzing key Supreme Court precedent over the last generation, and the way these cases play out in prominent recent disputes — many of which have been litigated extensively in the lower courts — we conclude that while the First Amendment affords significant protections for expression insofar as public higher educational institutions can be likened to municipalities for some purposes, university administrators have a fair degree of control over speech that can be said to be connected directly to the research, classroom teaching, and extracurricular activities that make up the heart of modern university experience. Particularly as to faculty, First Amendment freedoms may be less than many people assume; in some respects (because of the nature of their public jobs), public university faculty may enjoy less expressive latitude than non-academic employees. There are, of course, sources of support for free speech beyond the First Amendment — such as institutional tradition and policy, state law, contract law, federal due process, and public subsidy. To the extent that advocates want more — rather than less — expressive freedom for students and faculty at universities because of the special role such institutions fill in society, those non-First-Amendment sources may prove more helpful than First Amendment doctrine.
《第一修正案》对公立大学学生和教师学术自由权利的近景审视
就像现在流传的许多其他术语一样,“学术自由”对不同的人来说意味着不同的东西,因此经常被误解。在这篇文章中,我们重点关注美国数百所公立大学中的任何一所大学的学生和教职员工根据美国宪法第一修正案享有哪些特殊的言论自由(如果有的话)。通过分析上一代最高法院的关键先例,以及这些案件在最近突出的纠纷中的表现方式——其中许多纠纷已经在下级法院进行了广泛的诉讼——我们得出结论,尽管《第一修正案》为言论提供了重要的保护,因为公立高等教育机构在某些方面可以被比作市政当局,大学管理者对言论有相当程度的控制,可以说,言论与研究、课堂教学和课外活动直接相关,而这些活动构成了现代大学体验的核心。特别是在教师方面,《第一修正案》的自由度可能比许多人想象的要低;在某些方面(因为他们的公共工作性质),公立大学的教职员工可能比非学术员工享有更少的表达自由。当然,除了第一修正案之外,还有其他支持言论自由的来源,如制度传统和政策、州法律、合同法、联邦正当程序和公共补贴。由于大学在社会中扮演的特殊角色,倡导者们希望大学的学生和教职员工有更多而不是更少的表达自由,这些非第一修正案的来源可能比第一修正案学说更有帮助。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: In January 1917, Professor Henry J. Fletcher launched the Minnesota Law Review with lofty aspirations: “A well-conducted law review . . . ought to do something to develop the spirit of statesmanship as distinguished from a dry professionalism. It ought at the same time contribute a little something to the systematic growth of the whole law.” For the next forty years, in conjunction with the Minnesota State Bar Association, the faculty of the University of Minnesota Law School directed the work of student editors of the Law Review. Despite their initial oversight and vision, however, the faculty gradually handed the editorial mantle over to law students.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信