|
« AAUP Homepage
|
AAUP Files Brief in Curriculum Case
In May the AAUP filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of theater professors at the University of Utah who were sued by a student over curricular requirements. The case, Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, involves the university theater department’s requirement that acting students perform set pieces, some of which include profanity. Because of religious objections, student Christina Axson-Flynn refused to use the words “God” or “Christ” as profanities or to use specific obscenities
After being informed by her professors that modifying the required texts was unacceptable, she dropped out of the theater program and sued, contending that the program’s demand that she use language she found objectionable amounted to a constitutionally impermissible infringement of her rights to free exercise of religion and free speech under the First Amendment. The professors argued that taking on difficult or uncomfortable roles is an essential part of an actor’s training.
In 2001 a federal district court ruled in favor of the professors, saying that if being required to participate in such a classroom exercise was a First Amendment violation, then “a believer in ‘creationism’ could not be required to discuss and master the theory of evolution in a science class; a neo-Nazi could refuse to discuss, write, or consider the Holocaust in a critical manner in a history class”; and “a Catholic law student could not be required to make an argument in favor of capital punishment during an in-class exercise designed to enable law students to argue cases they find unsympathetic.” The court concluded that although forcing citizens to espouse ideological positions is unconstitutional, requiring participation in class exercises is not the same and that “learning in a university setting involves the ability to discuss and take on other points of view in a serious manner.” Axson-Flynn appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.In its brief, the Association argues that holding professors liable for damages because they insist that students complete established course requirements would contravene long-accepted principles of faculty academic freedom. “The prospect of subjecting university professors to possibly heavy damages in court for requiring a student to follow a prescribed curriculum is truly frightening, even if, as in this case, the student’s reasons for rejecting certain elements of that curriculum reflect deeply held religious values,” says Robert O’Neil, the author of the AAUP’s brief and director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for Free Expression. “The right to determine what shall be taught and studied lies at the core of academic freedom
|