Decision Reversed in Freedom of Speech Case
In February, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed a lower court's decision in Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, a case involving a University of Utah drama student, and ordered a lower court to reconsider the case. In 2001, a district court had ruled against the student, who sued her professors for violating her right to free speech and free exercise of religion under the First Amendment after they warned her to stop changing the scripts of required in-class performances. Christina Axson-Flynn, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, had been excising from the scripts words that she found "offensive." Her professors asserted that taking on difficult and challenging roles, even if they make actors feel uncomfortable, is an essential part of theatrical training and of the theater department's curriculum.
The district court had agreed, saying that if curriculum requirements constituted 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."
When Axson-Flynn appealed the lower court's decision, the AAUP filed an amicus brief in behalf of the professors. The brief argues that seeking to hold professors liable for damages because they insist that students complete established course requirements contravenes settled principles of First Amendment faculty academic freedom. The brief further asserts that it is appropriate to give a high level of deference to academic judgments and requirements established by university faculty.
The decision of the federal appellate court embraced the notion that courts should defer to the professional judgment of faculty to determine what is pedagogically appropriate in the college classroom. The court ultimately concluded, however, that "there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether [the professors'] justification for the script adherence requirement was truly pedagogical or whether it was pretext for religious discrimination."
More information about the case is available in the Legal section of the AAUP's Web site.
|