A pending Supreme Court case -- Garcetti v. Ceballos -- could threaten the First Amendment rights of public university professors, according to the American Association of University Professors and the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of the First Amendment.
The plaintiff, Richard Ceballos of the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, filed a lawsuit against his employer after he was demoted and relocated. Ceballos was investigating a sheriff, who allegedly obtained search warrants under false pretenses, without the permission of his employers.
It is not the employment status of Ceballos that concerns the AAUP and the Center, but rather the First Amendment corollary that could extend to all public employees, including public university professors. According to a brief filed by the two organizations, this extension could be an unintended consequence of ruling against Ceballos' claim to protection under the First Amendment.
When the Ninth District Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Ceballos' claim, Justice Diarmuid O'Scannlain noted that ruling against Ceballos could create a "per se rule" that would exempt public officials from First Amendment rights. The brief said the AAUP and the Center were concerned that by accepting the appeal of the DA's office, the Supreme Court could rule so broadly as to affect state university professors.
Director of the Center and Law School Prof. Robert O'Neil said employees generally have enjoyed strong First Amendment rights, but O'Scannlain's broad interpretation of the situation has raised an alarm with advocacy groups.
O'Neil said a broad decision could create a "perverse contrast" in which state university professors could be punished for controversial statements made while acting as experts in their field, while laymen making the same statements would be protected.
Law School Prof. Lillian DeVier said the situation was not nearly as grave. DeVier said the case's main focus is the right of an employer to control the actions of its employees.
"The government is an employer just like any other and needs to be able to keep control, or discipline its employees," DeVier said.
She said the case highlights the fact that the primary cause of Ceballos's demotion was his unauthorized investigations.
DeVier said a professor taking a controversial stance within his or her field probably would not be punished.
"To teach math in an Environmental Science class is not protected by the First Amendment," DeVier said.
University officials said they are not terribly concerned about the ramifications of this decision.
"This university, like most major public and private research universities, does respect faculty speech rights and they don't need to be told by courts to do so," O'Neil said. "The concern that we raise in the brief is not that a university of this stature would be likely to use such a power to the detriment of their faculty
Read More
In a changed Honor system, the Honor Committee struggles to generate engagement
By Bertie Azqueta | 17 hours agoThe Honor Committee’s public meetings have been substantially shorter this semester. This semester the Committee’s meetings have had an average length of 34 minutes compared to 50 minutes in the 2024-25 term and 47 minutes in the 2023-24 term.
Student hot-spots on the Corner raise prices in response to increased operating costs
By Lily Kostro | 17 hours agoAndy McClure, owner of The Virginian and a class of 2001 alumnus, said that the last five years have placed a strain on the restaurant business due to significant expense increases.
How does U.Va.’s agreement with the Justice Department compare to the Compact?
By Nicolas Biernacki | YesterdayWhile both the rejected Compact and the Justice Department agreement faced resistance from the University community and have several similarities, the agreement provides firmer protection for academic freedom.
