The post was authored by David Urban.
Controversies over free speech, disruptive protests, sharp debates among faculty, withdrawal of invitations to controversial speakers, and interference with rights of expression happen just as much at private as at public colleges and universities. The difference, however, is that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution binds only public actors. At a public college or university, students and employees can assert First Amendment claims against the institution if it tries to discipline or censor them for speech activities. Students and employees at a private institution, however, do not have that option, because the institution is not bound by the First Amendment.
This post addresses three ways in which, even without any First Amendment protections, those at private colleges and universities do have expression rights that are safeguarded by law. Private educators have to take these rights into consideration when making personnel, disciplinary, and other decisions that involve student and employee expression.
Faculty Academic Freedom Policies
First, faculty members often have academic freedom rights and other speech rights they can enforce against their employer as a matter of contract law. Many private colleges and universities have academic freedom policies that state in broad terms that members of the faculty have the right to engage in scholarship, teaching, and expression that can clash with the views of the institution. If the institution disciplines a faculty member for such activities, the faculty member can bring a claim for breach of agreement if the policy is found to be contractual in nature and the discipline allegedly violates the policy provision.
The case McAdams v. Marquette University, decided last month by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, involves this type of contractual claim of academic freedom rights. Professor McAdams, a tenured professor of philosophy, wrote on his personal blog criticizing a philosophy instructor at the university because she had not permitted a discussion in her classroom questioning gay rights. McAdams’s post described that the instructor had written on the board among other issues “gay rights” and said “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.” A student approached the instructor after class and said gay rights should be open to discussion. The post described that the instructor responded, “you don’t have a right in this class to make homophobic comments,” and then invited the student to drop the class. McAdams contended this was a stifling of free expression, and posted links to the instructor’s personal webpage, leading to harsh emails to the instructor from third parties.
The university placed McAdams on leave and then suspended him. McAdams asserted a breach of contract claim against the university, arguing that it had violated its own academic freedom policies. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Professor McAdams should prevail on his claim and required that he be reinstated with back pay.
Student Statutory Speech Rights
In California, a 1992 statute known as the Leonard Law gives students at private colleges and universities free speech rights they can assert against their own institution. The statute was intended to transplant constitutional free speech rights students have off campus so that they apply in some way on campus. It provides:
No private postsecondary educational institution shall make or enforce a rule subjecting a student to disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of conduct that is speech or other communication that, when engaged in outside the campus or facility of a private postsecondary institution, is protected from governmental restriction by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Section 2 of Article I of the California Constitution. (Cal. Educ. Code § 94367(a).)
There is some uncertainty how exactly the statute operates. The consensus is that students obtain some speech rights at a private college and university akin to those that students have at public colleges and universities, although by its terms, the Leonard Law protections are weaker than those provided by the First Amendment. For example, students cannot obtain damages for an institution’s violation of the Leonard Law. Instead, declaratory and injunctive relief and attorney’s fees are available. Also, to violate the law, an institution must “make or enforce a rule subjecting a student to disciplinary sanctions” and the rule must apply “solely” on the basis of protected expression. (Cal. Educ. Code, § 94367(a).)
There is scant authority interpreting how the Leonard Law should work to confer student speech rights. In one case, Crosby v. South Orange County Community College District, the California Court of Appeal held that the statute (in particular, the component that applies to community colleges) did not turn the campus library into a public forum, and determined that the statute did not transplant every speech right a student might have outside campus in any context, for example in the home, onto the college campus.
Also, the courts have not determined whether the Leonard Law requires private institutions to open up speech areas on campus the same way public colleges and universities are expected to open up areas, although many private colleges and universities have reserved areas for free expression of students. (Also as a matter of contract law, policies at private institutions often confer speech rights on students that they can enforce under contract principles.)
Federal Protection for Employee Concerted Activity
Finally, employees of private institutions have substantial rights under labor relations laws, even if those employees have no union representing them. The federal National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) affords employees the right to engage in concerted activity for their mutual aid or protection, and this can include rights to picket and protest regarding wages, hours, and working conditions, rights to post about these matters on social media, and the right to criticize the institution and management. The National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency responsible for enforcing the NLRA, has recently determined that graduate student assistants qualify as employees for protection under the act. (The case is being reviewed by the federal courts and a decision will likely issue in the coming year.)
No doubt, vigorous protest and debate will continue in higher education in 2018 and 2019, and likely result in further developments in this area. We will report on important developments as they occur.