Ban Violates First Amendment, Court Rules
By Majorie J. Censer
An administrative directive prohibiting faculty and students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign from speaking with prospective student athletes violated the First Amendment, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In June, the court ruled in Crue v. Aiken that the ban constituted prior restraint, as well as "a broad prohibition on speech on a matter of significant importance and public concern." The majority also rejected the administration's argument that such a directive was mandated by National Collegiate Athletic Association rules.
The case first appeared before the U.S. district court in 2002, when faculty and students at the university challenged the administration's ban on communicating with prospective student athletes without approval from the athletics department. The faculty and students wanted to make the athletes aware of their opposition to the institution's use of the Chief Illiniwek mascot, which they say creates a hostile learning environment for Native American students and increases the difficulty of recruiting Native American students to the campus. The district court ruled in July 2002 in favor of the faculty and students, finding that the administration's directive violated the First Amendment. The administration then appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
In October 2003, the national AAUP and the AAUP chapter at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign filed a joint amicus brief supporting the faculty's right to speak to prospective student athletes about the mascot. The brief, which was written by Matthew Finkin, former general counsel of the AAUP and a law professor at the university, focuses on the protections afforded to professors to speak out as citizens under the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure and the university's own regulations. In addition, the brief argues that the First Amendment rights of faculty outweigh the administration's interests.
Finkin called the court's decision straightforward and questioned the university administration's investment of time and money into the case "when the law is as clear and as obvious as it is."
Subsequently, the trustees of the university met and declined to vote on whether to retain the Chief Illiniwek mascot, instead passing a resolution calling for a "consensus conclusion."
|