Freedom of Expression and Association / 1993
93.135 Defining the limits of academic freedom [1993 Jeffries case], 124
93.138 A renewed "speech code" debate, 130
93.142 "Penn's cold feet," 135
93.143 Training students for civility, 136
93.149 The next "freedom of expression" debate on campus [pornography], 142
93.150 Protecting religious freedom on campus, 146
93.151 How to encourage offensive expression [Howard Stern], 148
93.153 More newspaper thefts, 149
Return to Top Return to Topical Index
Freedom of Expression and Association / 1994
94.1 California colleges can be liable for sexual harassment, 164
94.2 Title VII requires "reasonable accommodation" or religion, 169
94.5 The harassment policy is invalid, but the coach stays fired, 176
94.13 Coming to your campus soon: Mr. Khalid Abdul Muhammad, [the views of Cornel West andMolefi Asante; John Stuart Mill on hearing the arguments of adversaries], 186
94.17 Punishing bias-motivated offenses, 196
94.19 A new "speech code" proposed for Penn, 198
94.22 Personal liability for violating First Amendment rights, [School of The Art Institute of Chicagocase; protecting artistic expression; rejection of the "heckler's veto], 199
94.33 Prohibited conduct or protected speech? [federal ethnic intimidation statute upheld; conductconveying a threat], 214
94.38 E-mail, institutional liability, and freedom of expression, 220
94.40 The "First Amendment vigilante" strikes again [mandated "discussion" of First Amendment rightsby administrators at the University of Minnesota], 224
94.44 Khalid Abdul Muhamed banned in Canada [[Freedom of expression in the United States andCanada compared], 233
94.43 Defining the scope of academic freedom [liability for violating First Amendment rights], 231
94.45 "Artistic criticism as defamation" use reversed, 233
94.48 Feminist theory and the Supreme Court [Justice Ginsburg, hate speech, and freedom ofexpression], 239
94.56 Self-censorship on campus, 251
94.59 PC on the left of us . . . and PC on the right [required wearing of social commentary], 257
94.67 Professor reinstated in sexual harassment case [Silva v. University of New Hampshire; WilliamKaplin on academic freedom and "hostile environment" sexual harassment; sexual innuendo andprofessional competency; Nadine Strossen on feminism and the First Amendment], 271
94.68 E-mail and sexual harassment, B274
94.69 Silva v. University of New Hampshire [case excerpt; AAUP statement on academic freedom;Silva case compared with isolated incident of bad judgment], 275
94.80 Ban on sexually oriented magazines unconstitutional [Excerpt: Captain Steven W. Johnson v.County of Los Angeles Fire Department; Title VII does not call for punishment of bad thoughts;danger of group stereotypes], 293
94.81 A reflection about civility [Rush Limbaugh and Will Rogers compared; how students can learncivility; Erich Fromm on the culture of narcissism], 295
94.85 Supreme Court vacates Jeffries ruling, 300
94.88 Graduation prayers [courts split on whether prayers at graduation violate First Amendment establishment clause; 53% of teenagers report religion important in their lives; Harvey Cox onanother "great awakening"; many see school prayer as one of the few sources of valuesavailable to students; danger of "institutionalized" religion], 304
94.92 Silva case settled, 311
Return to Top Return to Topical Index
Freedom of Expression and Association / 1995
95.7 Cynicism about "sensitivity" [controversial speech by President Lawrence at Rutgers; using the"N" word at George Mason; federal investigation of law professor's grading policy], 323.
95.13 Stanford speech code unconstitutional [interpretation of the "fighting words" doctrine; hurtfeelings are not enough; "selected" insults may not be prohibited; distinguishing speech fromconduct; alternatives to censorship, including penalty enhancement; application of FirstAmendment standards to private institutions; expansive academic freedom argument rejected;admission of "undesired members" will not limit Stanford's freedom of expression], 332.
95.14 "Fantasies" on the Internet [University of Michigan sophomore arrested for sending threat onInternet; distinguishing threats from fantasies; Internet "addiction"; Saul Bellow on "the distractedpublic"; Alexander Solzhenitsyn on silent reflection], 336.
95.20 Jeffries case reversed, 349.
95.24 Anonymous expression may be protected by the First Amendment [possible limitations oncampus; application to electronic mail], 356.
95.26 No punishment for "offensive personality" [defining ethical standards with reasonable precision;hostile environment sexual harassment requires a pattern of misconduct], 359.
95.28 University graduation prayers upheld [judicial warning against resorting to litigation whencompromise is possible], 362.
95.33 Written jibes aren't sexual harassment [Title VII not a remedy for every tasteless joke;alternatives to censorship or punishment suggested], 367.
95.35 Computer network can be sued for libel [Prodigy treated as "publisher"; with control comes therisk of liability; campus alternatives to e-mail and bulletin board censorship; CommunicationsDecency Act modified], 369.
95.41 Sexual harassment and freedom of expression [sexual harassment and the tort of intentionalinfliction of emotional distress; little First Amendment protection to false or needlesslyprovocative statements about private individuals], 378.
95.43 College religious journal entitled to indirect subsidy [University of Virginia student publicationcannot be denied access to indirect, student fee generated subsidy, based solely on thepublication's religious perspective; mandatory student fees susceptible to First Amendmentchallenge], 380.
95.48 The harassment policy is invalid, but the coach stays fired [overbroad and vague discriminatoryharassment policy; invalid "fighting words" prohibition; use of racial epithet by coach not a matterof public concern, and not protected by academic freedom; holding in Silva case called intoquestion], 385.
95.49 The freedom to limit free speech [striking down Stanford's speech code said to be an intrusion onStanford's freedom of expression; related decision by U.S. Supreme Court in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston:parade organizers may exclude marchers with different message], 387.
95.50 Limiting student religious expression [setting reasonable limits on student expression in theclassroom; rejecting a paper based on religious content alone may violate freedom ofexpression; faculty member may not be ordered to award a grade, although final authority overgrades rests with the institution], 388.
95.58 Campus security and religious freedom: school knife ban violated Religious FreedomRestoration Act. Solzhenitsyn on legalistic life and the need for voluntary self-restraint, 405.
95.63 Freedom of expression in cyberspace [Washington Post critical of Virginia Tech decision topunish student for using a university computer server to send an offensive message off-campus; university computer servers compared to telephone systems; risk of liability forassuming editorial responsibility], 416.
95.67 Sexual harassment and e-mail [expulsion for e-mail sexual harassment at Caltech; communitycensure (not formal punishment) for offensive e-mail at Cornell; hormones and electrons don'tmix], 423.
95.69 OFFAL strikes Cornell [anarchist group "mailblasts" Cornell with a "satirical" letter written underthe name of Cornell's judicial administrator; application of the Electronic Communication PrivacyAct of 1986; possible tort law implications], 427.
95.70 Defining a "racially hostile" environment [U.S. Dept. of Education Office of Civil Rights ruled thatthere was insufficient evidence to conclude that the University of Illinois Indian mascot created aracially hostile environment for Native Americans], 429.
95.72 A consensus on religion in the schools [joint statement by national religious and civil libertiesorganizations on issues such as student prayer, teaching about religion, distribution of religiousliterature, and religious harassment; anti-intellectualism of religious right and academic left;William James on the need for moderation in expressing religious views; Ernest Boyer onteaching about religion], 432.
Return to Top Return to Topical Index
Freedom of Expression and Association / 1996
96.5 Indecent communications on interactive computer services [adoption of the CommunicationsDecency Act; the indecency standard and the broadcast medium (1978 Pacifica case); JusticesBrennan and Marshall on "the dominant culture's inevitable efforts to force those groups who donot share its mores to conform to its way of thinking, acting, and speaking"], 443.
96.6 Crossing the Constitutional line on student-initiated prayers [school officials may not select orapprove prayers or benedictions; the result of Constantine's fatal "entanglement" betweengovernment and religion; William A. Kaplin: the Constitution is supportive of religion in theprivate realm, 446.
96.9 Mass democracy on the Internet [University of Maryland student posts Internet messageaccusing local woman of child abuse; Washington Post editorial in support of freedom ofexpression in cyberspace], 453.
96.12 Defamation and civility [distinguishing mere hyperbole from defamation; liability for providingincomplete information; improving the quality of discourse on campus will require returning toPlato's notion of dialectic; Montaigne "On the Art of Conversation"], 457.
96.17 The future of affirmative action [Arthur Levine on reluctance of students to discuss race], 468.
96.20 Freedom of expression and threats of violence [petulant and rude conduct distinguished fromthreat of violence; true threat requires serious expression of threat to harm; comparable ruling inUnited States v. Jake Baker regarding "fantasies on the Internet," 477.
96.27 The end of computer decency? [Communications Decency Act declared unconstitutional by threejudge federal panel in Philadelphia; one judge observed that "[a]s the most participatory form ofmass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmentintrusion. . ."; certain forms of expression remain unlawful, including obscenity, threats ofviolence; harassment based on sex, race, disability, or other protected status; electroniccommunication has become an important means of expression for gay men and lesbians;surveys show Americans increasingly concerned about civility; ostracism often a better optionthan formal punishments], 497.
96.30 Defining the scope of sexual harassment [action or inaction of officials must be based on sex;distinguishing personal animosity from sexual harassment; Title IX may not apply to peerharassment], 506.
96.38 How are "religious" beliefs defined [public funding for a sculpture representing a figure of Aztecmythology was not an unlawful establishment of religion; religious ideas or expression can betaught or displayed for secular historical, artistic, or symbolic purposes], 530.
96.40 Three cases on freedom of expression [public employee speech rights; "incitement to imminentlawless action"; restrictions on "harmful" adult materials; original Lovell case decision withdrawnby the Ninth Circuit], 535.
96.44 Religion in the campus marketplace of ideas [debate between Stanley Fish and John Neuhaus;Einstein on "cosmic religious experience;" Stephen Hawking on the "remarkable numericalrelations" seen throughout the universe, and "the search for logical self-consistency" in physics;J. Bronowski on the relationship between the arts, the sciences, and creativity. Religion, like art,isn't inherently hostile to discourse or experimentation--it simply can't be fully explained by thoseprocesses], 542.
96.45 Freedom of expression and religious liberty [ban on expression of all religious views in theworkplace likely to be unconstitutional. Example of a case where a court upheld an employer'sdecision to restrict employee free speech rights is Burnham v. Ianni (court determined thatUniversity of Minnesota at Duluth Chancellor lawfully removed photographs of two professorsfrom a campus exhibit)], 544.
96.48 Responding to "cults" on campus, [defining a "cult"; the role of deception in cult activities; theattraction of cults; how some cults become established religions; Mormons thrive at Harvard],552.
96.49 Freedom of expression and the arts, [government funding does not invariably justify governmentcontrol of the content of speech; "decency and respect" requirement in the National Endowmentfor the Arts' governing statute struck down by the Ninth Circuit in Karen Finley, et. al. v. NationalEndowment for the Arts; student "academic freedom" suggested in Rosenberger v. Rector andVisitors of the University of Virginia], 554.
Return to Top Return to Topical Index
Freedom of Expression and Association / 1997
97.4 Defining freedom of expression in cyberspace [Oklahoma federal court in Loving v. Boren heldthat the University of Oklahoma did not violate the First Amendment rights of a professor when itadopted a revised policy limiting full Internet access to adults who affirm they will use theuniversity's computer server only for "academic and research purposes; U.S. Court of Appealsfor the 6th Circuit held in U.S. v. Abraham Alkhabaz (a/k/a/ Jake Baker) that a (then) Universityof Michigan student did not violate a federal statute prohibiting interstate or foreign transmissionof a threat to kidnap or injure another person when he posted a sadistic Usenet newsgroup storycontaining the name of an identifiable victim. Practice implication discussion of First Amendment"forum" analysis; colleges should be able to adopt and enforce a prohibition against "intentionallyor recklessly causing reasonable apprehension of [physical] harm."], 569.
97.6 Seventh Circuit upholds graduation prayer, 573.
97.8 The Supreme Court abortion ruling and campus dissent [Supreme Court upheld a lower courtorder creating fixed "buffer zones" around abortion clinics, but struck down order banningdemonstrating within fifteen feet of any person seeking access to or leaving clinics. The Court'sopinion can guide the creation and implementation of campus policies concerning freedom ofexpression, demonstrations, harassment, and disruptive or disorderly conduct], 577.
97.10 Confederate flags and viewpoint discrimination [alternatives to censorship; freedom ofexpression at private institutions of higher education], 580.
97.16 Defining the scope of religious freedom, [employees or students serving on campus governancecommittees may be dismissed from committee assignments for making statements contradictingthe mission of the committee, even if those statements are based on sincerely held religiousbeliefs], 595.
97.17 Responding to pornography and incivility on campus [increasing coarseness in American society,reflected in greater availability of violent, hard-core pornography, and incivility in personal andpublic life], 598.
97.22 The "Dark Alliance" series: implications for campus journalists [San Jose Mercury NewsExecutive Editor reported that the Mercury News investigative series "Dark Alliance" (implicatingthe CIA in the start of America's crack epidemic) fell short of acceptable journalistic standards;discussion of broader lessons for journalists, including those on campus], 613.
97.23 Gay rights and American exceptionalism [American "conservatism" has a revolutionary quality toit: Twelve states now give homosexuals legal protection against discrimination. Gay LesbianBisexual Alliance v. Pryor: The First Amendment does not "permit a State to forbid or proscribeadvocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed toinciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"], 615.
97.29 The First Amendment in cyberspace: implications for higher education, Part I [excerpts Reno v.American Civil Liberties Union; practice implication commentary from William Kaplin], 628.
97.30 The First Amendment in cyberspace: implications for higher education, Part II [practiceimplication commentary on Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union from Ohio State UniversityAssociate Legal Counsel Steven J. McDonald; ""Ten Principles of Civility in Cyberspace"], 631.
97.41 Accommodating religion in the workplace [America in the midst of a religious revival; new federalguidelines for religious expression in the federal workplace: some proselytizing may be allowed;"hostile environment" theory may be used by the religious right; Alan Wolfe: "I crave religiousstudents"], 651.
97.48 "Taunting defiance," and the limits of the First Amendment [In Vivian Rice, et. al. v. The PaladinEnterprises Incorporated, the Fourth Circuit held that Palidan Press could be sued over a 1993triple murder committed by a man who used the publication Hit Man as a guide. The courtdistinguished between advocacy of lawless action, and conduct designed to aid and abet thecommission of a crime, with the intent the crime be committed.], 670.
97.49 Limiting liability for computer service providers [In Zeran v. America Online the Fourth Circuitruled that a portion of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) that was not struck down by theSupreme Court protects interactive computer service providers from liability for defamatorycommunications by third party users], 673.
Return to Top Return to Topical Index
Freedom of Expression and Association / 1998
98.9 The decline of academic freedom [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held in Boring v.Buncombe County Board of Education that a teacher's selection and production of a play as partof the school's curriculum was not protected speech under the First Amendment], 707.
98.10 Isolated incidents or hostile environment? [Taylor v. Metzger: New Jersey Supreme Courtdecision holding that a demeaning racial epithet directed to a subordinate by a high-rankingpublic official can create a hostile work environment; Skouby v. The Prudential InsuranceCompany of America: 7th Circuit decision holding that crude pictures and occasional offensivelanguage directed to a female employee by fellow employees did not constitute sexualharassment; public mood of forgiveness for "sexual misconduct" reflected in views of GloriaSteinem on the sexual harassment charges against President Clinton], 710.
98.18 Internet service providers shielded by federal law, again [federal district court decision inBlumenthal v. America Online holds that the Communications Decency Act protects Internetservice providers against publisher or distributor liability in defamation cases; right of Virginiastate employees to access sexually explicit material affirmed in Urofsky v. Allen],725.
98.22 Sexual harassment requires discrimination based on sex [Title IX "hostile environment" casedismissed in Bosley v. Kearney: offensive behavior distinguished from discrimination based onsex; list of cases on whether Title IX holds schools accountable for student peer harassment],733.
98.33 Defining the ethical obligations of college journalists ["Ten ethical principles for collegejournalists"], 756.
98.34 Freedom of expression and mandatory activity fees [7th Circuit decision in Southworth, et. al. v.Michael Grebe, et. al., holding that objecting students at the University of Wisconsin could not beforced "to fund private organizations which engage in political and ideological activities"], 758.
98.35 Who determines what should be taught? [Third Circuit ruling in Edwards v. California Universityof Pennsylvania calls into question the very concept of "academic freedom," at least in the sensethat professors have any legally protected right to determine will be taught in the classroom.Related holdings in DiBona v. Matthews and Bishop v. Aronov], 761.
98.36 Weighing "emotional intelligence" in tenure and promotion decisions, Part I [Maryland Court of SpecialAppeals held in University of Baltimore v. Peri Iz held that collegiality may be considered whenfaculty members are considered for promotion and tenure, even if a specific reference tocollegiality is not made in pertinent contracts or policies], 764.
98.37 Weighing "emotional intelligence" in tenure and promotion decisions, Part II [Estelle Fishbeininterview; recent Harvard Magazine article on emotional intelligence; Boyer Commission:expanding faculty role as mentors; Terry Roach on "Does Beethoven Get Tenure?"], 768.
98.40 Fraternities and the "right of association" ["sense of Congress" statement on Protectionof Student Speech and Association rights; review of court opinions defining scope of the"right of intimate association"], 776.
Return to Top Return to Topical Index
Freedom of Expression and Association / 1999
99.5 The unpredictable fortunes of academic freedom [in Urofsky v. Gilmore the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a Virginia law restricting state employees from using state computers to access sexually explicit material; in Hoover v. Morales the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the rights of faculty members at public institutions to serve as expert witnesses in litigation against the state. Analysis by Diana Krejsa], 818.
99.11 Carefully designed mandatory activity fees upheld [9th Circuit Rounds v. Oregon State decision], 834.
99.25 Religiosity, religious diversity and "cults," part I [growth of religious interest among the young; U.S. military and religious diversity; policy issues associated with responding to "cults"; "free exercise" clause of the Constitution; statutory protection of religious freedom; freedom of association and expression], 868.
99.26 Religiosity, religious diversity and "cults," part II [examples of "cults" that have moved into the religious mainstream; defining and responding to fraud and deception; Justice Jackson's dissent in U.S. v. Ballard (1944); the role of education in combating destructive groups], 871.
99.34 Racial harassment and freedom of expression [In Aguilar v. Avis Rental Car Systems, the California Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not prohibit courts from enjoining the continued use of racial epithets in the workplace, if there has been a judicial determination "that the use of such epithets will contribute to the continuation of a hostile or abusive work environment and therefore will constitute employment discrimination"], 890.
99.41 The limits of censorship-and freedom of expression [in Kincaid v. Gibson, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that administrators at Kentucky State University (KSU) could ban the distribution of KSU's 1992-1994 yearbook, on the grounds the yearbook was of inferior quality, and was not fulfilling its stated mission; the divided three-judge panel in Kincaid relied on the Supreme Court Hazelwood decision (administrators may censor high school newspaper)-which probably doesn't fit the college setting; alternatives to censorship are preferred], 907.
99.45 Liability for defamation [recent cases indicate courts are generally reluctant to hold individuals and institutions liable for making good faith reports about students to persons with a lawful interest in the information-even if the information later proves to be inaccurate], 914.
99.48 Limiting public access to college campuses [in Souders v. Lucerno the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that public college campuses are not "public forums" that may be entered at will; review of the 1969 Eighth Circuit decision in Esteban v. Central Missouri State College specifying inherent powers of universities] , 922.
Return to Top / Return to Topical Index
Freedom of Expression and Association / 2000
00.5 Sexual harassment and liability for campus crime [decision in Martin v. Howard University, holding that employer may be held liable for a hostile work environment that is created by a non-employee, including those non-employees who were invited or permitted to remain on an employer's premises; Tanja H. v. Regents of the University of California on limited duty to monitor private social activities in residence halls; Souders v. Lucerno holding that state college campus is not a "public forum" like a street or park: College administrators applauded Souders, but need to remember that the more assertive they are in claiming authority to manage the campus environment, the more likely it is they will be found negligent for failing to exercise it], 941.
00.11 "Viewpoint neutral" activity fee structures upheld [In Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth the U.S. Supreme Court held that "viewpoint neutral" student activity fees did not violate the First Amendment rights of objecting students. Nonetheless, language in the case indicates that future litigants can assert that student activity fees are consistently (and unlawfully) used to support a narrow range of social and political agendas], 958.
00.12 Hazing and the constitution [In McKenzie v. State of Maryland a state appellate court rejected a variety of claims—including an alleged violation of the right of association—and upheld the constitutionality of Maryland's anti-hazing law], 961.
00.13 Fraternities and "freedom of association" [In Phi Lambda Phi Fraternity v. University of Pittsburgh a federal district court rejected "freedom of association" and "equal protection" claims by a fraternity sanctioned at the University of Pittsburgh], 964.
00.16 The danger of viewpoint discrimination [Eighth Circuit decision in Cuffley v. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan bars viewpoint discrimination in Adopt-A-Highway program; implications and advice for higher education administrators], 972.
00.21 Judicial hostility to hostile environment theory, part I [Recent cases highlighting judicial reluctance to give an expansive interpretation to "hostile environment" theory], 986.
00.22 Judicial hostility to hostile environment theory, part II [Eleventh Circuit decision in Gupta v. Board of Regents narrowly defining a "hostile environment in the college and university setting; review of George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen's proposed alternative to hostile environment theory, grounded in the right to privacy], 989.
00.23 Student-led invocations and the Establishment clause [In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe the U. S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas school district policy encouraging student-led invocations at football games; Review of the Santa Fe decision with Catholic University law professor William A. Kaplin; implications for college administrators], 992.
00.24 Universities—not professors—have "academic freedom" [Fourth Circuit decision in Urofsky v. Gilmore], 996.
00.25 Employer liability for online harassment and defamation [In Tammy S. Blakey v. Continental Airlines, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an employer who knows about a pattern of retaliatory harassment in a work-related online forum may be liable for taking effective measures to stop it], 999.
00.28 Students and professors behaving badly, online [Pennsylvania court upholds expulsion of student who used a website to convey threatening content; Indiana court barred a university professor from creating websites designed to give the appearance of belonging to university officials; limited impact of website disclaimers], 1008.
00.31 Distinguishing "hate crime" from "hate speech," [Penalty enhancement for bias-motivated crimes; abstract beliefs may not be punished; hateful expression not necessarily an unlawful threat], 1017.
00.39 Defining the "associational rights" of fraternities, part I [In Pi Lambda Phi v. University of Pittsburgh the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld disciplinary sanctions imposed by the University of Pittsburgh against a local chapter of the Pi Lambda Phi fraternity; danger of allowing local chapters to ignore the ideals stated in fraternity charters—becoming little more than drinking clubs], 1040.
00.40 Defining the "associational rights" of fraternities, part II [Analysis of the June 28, 2000 Supreme Court opinion in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale; comparison with the holding in Pi Lambda Phi v. University of Pittsburgh], 1044.
00.41 Required "minute of silence" upheld [In Brown v. Gilmore a federal district court upheld Virginia's "Daily Observance of One Minute of Silence" statute; potential value of periods of silence for spiritual and ethical development], 1046.
Return to Top / Return to Topical Index
Freedom of Expression and Association / 2001
01.3 Confederate flags and freedom of expression [January 29, 2001 Maryland federal district court opinion in Griffin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, permitted display of a Confederate flag on government property], 1063.
01.4 Mandatory fee structures must be "viewpoint neutral" [December 11, 2000 federal district court case in Wisconsin held that the University of Wisconsin-Madison mandatory fee system violated the First Amendment because it "fail[ed] to adhere to and safeguard viewpoint neutrality" Fry et. al. v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System],1066.
01.5 The disconnection between professors and judges.[In Wozniak v. Conry the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected the complaint of a tenured University of Illinois professor, who claimed he was improperly reassigned to non-teaching duties, without appropriate due process, and later retaliated against for his opposition to university grading policies],1069.
01.6 No "harassment" exception to the First Amendment. [February 14, 2001 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Saxe v. State College School District (No. 99-4081), striking down a school sexual harassment policy in Pennsylvania], 1072.
01.7 Defending freedom of expression. [Interview with Yale University historian C. Vann Woodward on campus freedom of expression], 1075.
01.8 Narrowly defined stalking law upheld. ["An instructive case on the legality of stalking laws": Stanley v. Jones, decided on February 5, 2001 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit], 1077.
01.11 Newspaper Protests [Student protests about publication of an advertisement titled "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks- and Racist Too "by conservative commentator David Horowitz; the disputed ad is not "hate speech;" relevant decisions in Terminiello v. Chicago and Joyner v. Whiting; why free speech is important to minorities], 1083.
01.13 How is a "threat" defined? [On March 28, 2001 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Sweigert v. American Coalition of Life Activists overturned a $100 Million jury verdict against anti-abortion activists who made inflammatory statements about various abortion providers. In doing so the court made a critical distinction between expression that might induce others to commit violence at some unspecified time in the future (which is generally protected by the First Amendment) and a direct threat by a speaker to inflict bodily harm on a potential victim], 1088.
01.14 Defining and responding to sexual harassment. [Two cases highlighting the reluctance of federal courts to give an expansive reading to sexual harassment law. Star v. Togo West (CA 9); Mosher v. Dollar Tree Stores (CA 7)], 1091.
01.18 Profanity has its limits. [Sixth Circuit decision in Bonnell v. Lorenzo indicates that the law "may be shifting in ways that allow greater regulation of profanity, especially where a captive audience' may be involved." The court held that "[p]laintiff may have a constitutional right to use words such as "pussy," "cunt," and "fuck," but he does not have a constitutional right to use them in a classroom setting where they are not germane to the subject matter, in contravention of the College's sexual harassment policy"], 2002.
01.26 Questions and answers on classroom disruption, 2024.
01.28 Distinguishing vulgarity from sexual harassment. [Two recent cases highlight ongoing tension between sexual harassment "hostile environment" theory and freedom of expression: Clark County School District v. Shirley A. Breeden (U.S. Supreme Court) and Russell v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, CA7 ], 2029.
01.37 Drawing a balance between liberty and safety. [Ninth Circuit's decision in LaVine v. Blaine School District; the court said it would "review . . . with deference, schools' decisions in connection with the safety of their students even when freedom of expression is involved"], 2036.
01.39 Accommodating controversial religious views in the workplace. [In Phillips v. Collings the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiff had been subject to religious discrimination in the workplace], 2041.
01.41 Civil liberties in wartime [Key civil liberties cases: Tinker v. Des Moines School District; Papish v. University of Missouri Curators; United States v. Eichman; West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette], 2045.
01.42 CDA [Communications Decency Act] immunity broadly defined. [In Schneider v. Amazon.com Inc, the Washington Court of Appeals rejected the argument that Amazon.com was liable for a reviewer's libelous posting, based on a "breach of contract" theory], 2048.
01.43 Defining True threats. [In John Doe v. Pulaski County School District the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reinstated a student who was expelled for writing a draft composition that made reference to killing a classmate], 2050.
01.48 Regulation of symbolic expression must be "content-neutral." [In Black v. Commonwealth of Virginia a divided Virginia Supreme Court followed the lead of Maryland's highest court by striking down the state's cross-burning statute; appeal pending before U.S. Supreme Court], 2059.
01.50 Responding to offensive fraternity party themes. [Interview with Victor M. Glasberg, an attorney in private practice who served as Chief Litigation Counsel for the ACLU in Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University, 773 F. Supp. 792, 795 (E.D. Va. 1991), aff'd 993 F. 2d 386 (4th Cir. 1993).], 2061.
01.51 Defining the scope of religious freedom on campus. [Decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Orin v. Barclay; anti-abortion protest on public grounds can't be restricted on the ground of religious content; possible personal liability of security officers], 2063.
Return to Top / Return to Topical Index
Freedom of Expression and Association / 2002
02.18 Limits on employee evangelizing [Two Second Circuit cases, combined in Knight v. Connecticut Department Board of Public Health, provide a concise overview of pertinent law, including limited statutory protectionagainst religious discrimination found in Title VII], 3004.
02.24 Liability for defaming a student [University administrator who disagreed with the dismissal of a criminal case, and made a public statement that theaccused student "definitely committed a sexual battery,from the information that was gathered," may be liablefor defamation; December 20, 2001 decision of Court ofAppeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District, in Mallory v.Ohio University; law and policy quiz question], 3023.
02.31 Pamphleteering and freedom of expression [U.S. Supreme Court decision in Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton: Speakers may have legitimate reasons for engaging in anonymous expression, balanced against competing social interests, like preventing fraud. Blanketrequirements (e.g. "all persons distributing pamphlets on campus must wear name tags") probably won't withstand a legal challenge. Likewise, efforts todistinguish "proselytizing" and "evangelizing" from otherforms of protected expression are untenable. Both have independent protection in the First Amendment "free exercise" clause; Commercial speech has less First Amendment protection than door-to-door political or religious pamphleteering], 3042.
02.34 Vulgar and "politically incorrect," but not sexual harassment [A teacher who repeatedly referred to a student as "Monica Lewinsky" in the classroom had not engaged in "hostile environment" sexual harassment.Hayut v. State University of New York (N. D.N.Y. 1:00- CV-00725)], 3049.
02.38 Defending civility in academic discourse [Decision in Brown v. Li, holding that the University ofCalifornia at Santa Barbara did not violate the FirstAmendment or due process rights of a graduate studentby rejecting a master's thesis with an ill-mannered"disacknowledgements" section], 3055.
02.39 Defending civility in academic discourse, Part II [Academic freedom for professors affirmed; academicdishonesty is not protected expression; educators have broad discretion to define competency], 3058.
02.41 Defining "True Threats" [In J. S. v. Bethlehem AreaSchool District the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania heldthat a student could be expelled for creating a profane and offensive web site on his home computer that was"aimed . . . at the specific audience" of his teachers and fellow students, and "caused actual and substantial disruption of the work of the school"], 3064.
02.42 Defining "True Threats" Part II [In John Doe v. Pulaski County Special School District, the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Eight Circuit (sitting en banc) held thata student was lawfully expelled for writing a letter thatconstituted a "true threat" to kill his former girlfriend], 3067.
02.43 Establishing constitutional standards for student activity fee systems [Seventh Circuit holding in Southworth v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin System that public universities must employmandatory activity fee allocation systems that protect viewpoint neutrality, including a mandate that decisionmakers not possess unbridled discretion; (law and policy quiz)], 3070.
02.45 Establishing constitutional standards for student activity fee systems, Part II ["The University ofWisconsin made heroic efforts to refine and strengthen its mandatory student activity policies as litigation proceeded. It was those efforts that allowed theUniversity to prevail. The end result is a detailed set of rules and procedures designed to protect viewpoint neutrality. Other public institutions remain legally vulnerable if they don't do the same"], 3075.
Return to Top / Return to Topical Index
Freedom of Expression and Association / 2003
03.4 The heckler's veto, Part I [Otherwise lawful speechmay not be circumscribed because it "stirs the public toanger" or "brings about a condition of unrest;" law andpolicy quiz; excerpts from Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949) and Lewis v. Wilson 253 F.3d 1077 (8thCir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 1536 (2002)], 3105.
03.5 The heckler's veto, Part II [Otherwise lawful speech may be circumscribed because it "stirs the public toanger" or "brings about a condition of unrest;" decision in In re Kay, 464 P.2d 142 (Cal. 1970)], 3107.
03.7 Off-campus expression and professional misconduct [Seventh Circuit opinion in Trejo v. Shoben: "Casual chit-chat between two persons or otherwise confined to a small group . . . is not protected" under the First Amendment], 3111.
03.8 Cases and commentary on "free speech zones" [Three Supreme Court opinions relevant to the "free speech zone" debate], 3114.
03.10 Managing dissent and disruption [Synthesis interview with former Wesleyan University dean Edgar Beckham], 3117-3118.
03.13 Implications of the Supreme Court cross burningdecision, Part I [Virginia v. Black et. al, (No. 01-1107, April 7, 2003) the U.S. Supreme Court upheld aVirginia cross burning statute "insofar as it bans crossburning with intent to intimidate." The Black decision is more complicated than media reports have indicated. Adivided court has cautiously and narrowly limited FirstAmendment protection for a "particularly virulent form of intimidation," while crafting exceptions designed to protect expression that is simply provocative or offensive], 3125.
03.14 Implications of the Supreme Court cross burning decision, Part II, 3128.
03.17 Liability risks for censoring college newspapers[Seventh Circuit decision in Hosty v. Carter holding that the authority high school administrators may have to censor school sponsored newspapers does not apply in the higher education setting], 3134.
03.21 The danger of unfettered discretion in campus speech policies [In Cougars v. University of Houston(S.D.Tex.,2003, March 13, 2003) a federal district court struck down a campus speech policy at the University of Houston that granted administrators "unfettereddiscretion" to regulate "potentially disruptive" expressive activity in a public forum designated for student speech], 3144.
03.22 Applying First Amendment "public forum" analysis on campus [Practice implication commentary on Cougars v. University of Houston; law and policy quiz on public forum analysis], 3147.
03.23 Limiting "the heckler's veto" in schools [Judicialreluctance to support a "heckler's veto" was reiteratedin an April 18, 2003 federal district court decision in Boyd County High School Gay Straight Alliance v. Board of Education], 3148.
03.25 Defamation in campus disciplinary proceedings and on the Internet [May 6, 2003 North Dakota Supreme Court decision in Wagner v. Mishkin (2003 ND 69) affirming a $3,000,000 judgment againsta college student for "libel, slander, and intentionalinterference with a business relationship" in a lawsuit initiated by one of her professors], 3153.
03.29 Religious expression and "viewpoint" discrimination [In Hill v. Scottsdale Unified SchoolDistrict (May 22, 2003) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that "if the District permits the distribution of similar secular programs by othernon-profit organizations, then the District cannot refuse to distribute literature advertising an off-campus summer program because it is taught from a Christian perspective"], 3168.
03.35 Thinking about the UVA "diversity exercise"[Controversy about a proposed "diversity exercise" atthe University of Virginia; concept of student academic freedom], 3179.
03.36 "Dormant" speech codes remain dangerous [A federal court in Pennsylvania issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Shippensburg University from enforcing several portions of what was deemed a "speech code" on that campus. Bair v. Shippensburg University (M.D. Penn., September 4, 2003)], 3181.
03.37 The freedom to learn, part I [There appears to be a second component of student academic freedom what might be called a freedom to learn. The concept is drawn from the classic 1915 AAUP "Declaration of Principles," which contains the opening statement that "'academic freedom' has traditionally had two applications to the freedom of the teacher and to that of the student, Lehrfreiheit [to teach] andLernfreiheit [to learn]; distinguishing indoctrination from teaching], 3185.
03.38 The freedom to learn, part II [Pertinent Supreme Court holdings; AAUP Statement of Professional Ethics; Whitehead on The Aims of Education], 3187.
03.40 Defining "verbal assault" [In Smith v. Mount Pleasant Public Schools (E.D.Mich., Sept. 30, 2003) the court held that a state statute requiring school boards to suspend or expel students for committing "verbalassaults," and authorizing school boards to enact rules defining that term, was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad], 3191.
03.46 Rejecting the corporate style [The management style of Vartan Gregorian, president of the Carnegie Corporation of New York and former president of Brown University; Nannerl O. Keohane on not following corporate pay scales], 3205.
03.49 Offensive theme parties, part II [Practice implicationcommentary on the Iota Xi case, in the form of excerpts from a previously published interview with Victor M.Glasberg, Chief Litigation Counsel for the ACLU in the Iota Xi case], 3212.
Return to Top / Return to Topical Index
Freedom of Expression and Association / 2004
04.1 Lawful limits on freedom of expression, 3214.
04.2 Defamation and the Internet [Varian Medical Systems v. Michelangelo Delfino (California appellate court decision) confirmed that the law of defamation applied to anonymous postings on Internet message boards], 3217.
04.3 Defining the extent of "fair use"[December 31, 2003 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, reviewing the scope and limits of the "fair use" defense in copyright cases], 3220.
04.5 Incivility and profanity at athletic events,Part I [Excerpts from Cohen v. California], 3223.
04.6 Incivility and profanity at athletic events, Part II [Campus officials have latitude to develop reasonable regulations that limit disruptive conduct at sports facilities], 3226.
04.16 Offensive speech at athletic events [Memorandum by John K. Anderson, Chief of the Educational Affairs Division of the Maryland Attorney General, about the latitude the University of Maryland may have to prohibit profane language at its Comcast athletic stadium], 3245.
04.17 Balancing the rights of speakers and protesters [defining limits of the right to heckle (In re Kay, 464 P.2d 142 (Cal. 1970)); Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at Yale University], 3246.
04.19 The rights and prerogatives of the campus press [Desyllas v. Bernstine 351 F.3d 934 C.A.9 (2003); campus newspaper editor not unlawfully detained; box of confidential records was unlawfully seized], 3250.
04.28 Freedom of expression or classroom disruption? [Key case review: Salehpour v. University of Tennessee (1998). Disruptive classroom behavior not protected by student academic freedom], 3273.
04.36 Defining and protecting freedom of expression: Advice to residence life staff members, Part I Part I, 3293.
04.37 Defining and protecting freedom of expression: Advice to residence life staff members, Part II, 3296.
04.38 Cursing, disorderly conduct, and freedom of expression [Excerpts from United States v. Occhino, (8th Cir. 1980)], 3300.
04.51 Designing campus "hate crime" regulations [Botts v. State: October 25, 2004 decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia, striking down Georgia=s hate crime penalty enhancement statute. The Botts case provides insight into the common design flaws college lawyers should avoid when drafting campus "hate crime" regulations], 3330.
Return to Top / Return to Topical Index
