SEATTLE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEWVolume 37, No. 1, Fall 2013
ARTICLES
Academic Freedom and Professorial Speech in the Post-Garcetti World
Oren R. Griffin(fn*)
I. INTRODUCTION
Academic freedom, a coveted feature of higher education, is the concept that faculty should be free to perform their essential functions as professors and scholars without the threat of retaliation or undue administrative influence. The central mission of an academic institution, teaching and research, is well served by academic freedom that allows the faculty to conduct its work in the absence of censorship or coercion. In support of this proposition, courts have long held that academic freedom is a special concern of the First Amendment, granting professors and faculty members cherished protections regarding academic speech.
As early as 1957, in Sweezy v. New Hampshire,(fn1) and as recent as 2006 in Garcetti v. Ceballos,(fn2) the Supreme Court has grappled with clarifying academic-freedom protections. In Garcetti, the Supreme Court held that when public employees make statements in the course of performing their official duties, they are not insulated by the Constitution from employer discipline.(fn3) Pursuant to Garcetti, it becomes plausible that a faculty member's expression or speech, at least at a public college or university, would not be entitled to constitutional protection under the First Amendment and may be the basis for disciplinary action. The ramifications could be significant for academics who speak and write in the course of performing their official job duties. In the majority opinion, however, Justice Kennedy attempted to set aside such concerns by stating that the Garcetti holding may not forestall some constitutional protection for professorial speech.(fn4) But the majority opinion only implicates academic scholarship and classroom instruction as perhaps deserving of constitutional protection.
At the outset, this article recounts the Garcetti majority opinion and the accompanying opinions offered by the dissenters. Secondly, the article explores the meaning of academic freedom for individual academics and faculty as expressed through various judicial decisions, including the post-Garcetti case law, as well as other higher education advocates. Next, the article delves into the complexity of academic speech and some intriguing contemporary examples. Finally, the article discusses the challenges confronting academic-freedom protections going forward and the opportunity created by the Supreme Court's decision in Garcetti. In sum, this article seeks to address the current state of individual academic freedom at America's colleges and universities.
II. A VIEW OF THE GARCETTI DECISION
In Garcetti v. Ceballos, Richard Ceballos, a public employee working as a deputy district attorney for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, became embroiled in a dispute with his supervisors regarding the contents of an affidavit that was used to obtain a search warrant critical to a criminal prosecution.(fn5) Ceballos believed that the affidavit included various inaccuracies and misrepresentations and concluded that the criminal case should be dismissed after receiving an unsatisfactory explanation for the inaccuracies from the warrant affiant, a Los Angeles County deputy sheriff.(fn6)
Further, Ceballos submitted his memo and findings to his supervisors, which resulted in a heated discussion about the search warrant and the merits of the criminal case.(fn7) Despite Ceballos's contrary recommen-dation, the criminal prosecution proceeded.(fn8) The defense attorney for the accused filed a motion challenging the search warrant, and Ceballos was called by the defense to testify regarding the deficiencies within the search warrant.(fn9) Subsequently, Ceballos claimed that he was subject to a string of retaliatory employment actions that included an unwanted reassignment and transfer, as well as the denial of a promotion.(fn10) Ceballos responded by filing a grievance and eventually suing the District Attorney's Office for violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.(fn11)
The District Attorney's Office argued that Ceballos's memo was not protected speech under the First Amendment because the memo was written pursuant to his employment duties.(fn12) The district court agreed, granting defendant's motion for summary judgment.(fn13) On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Ceballos's memo was protected speech under the First Amendment pursuant to the reasoning set out in Pickering v. Board of Education(fn14) because the memo concerned speech regarding a matter of public concern, i.e., alleged government miscon-duct.(fn15) The court of appeals did not address whether the speech was made in Ceballos's capacity as a private citizen or public employee.(fn16) On certiorari before the Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority in the 5-4 decision, reversed, stating the following: "We hold that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline."(fn17)
Justice Kennedy indicated that Ceballos wrote the memo because that was within the scope of his employment.(fn18) "The fact that his duties sometimes required him to speak and write does not mean his supervisors were prohibited from evaluating his performance."(fn19) Further, the majority observed that job-related expressions outside of a public employee's official duties were protected by the First Amendment, such as informed opinions that may be offered by a teacher to a school board on matters related to school operations.(fn20)
The Court's opinion included dissenting responses from Justices Stevens(fn21) and Breyer,(fn22) with a more extensive response from Justice Souter.(fn23) Although briefly discussed, Justice Stevens disagreed with the notion that a categorical difference existed between speaking as a citizen and speaking in the course of one's employment.(fn24) Stevens found it immaterial whether a public employee's speech was made pursuant to one's job duties.(fn25) Relying on the Court's decision in Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, wherein concerns raised by a teacher about a school district's racist employment practices were entitled to First Amendment protection, Stevens announced that a new rule dependent on a job description was senseless and misguided.(fn26)
Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion took note of the complexity that beset free speech concerns for public-sector employees and employers generally, and contended that the degree of First Amendment protection afforded public employees will differ based on the category of speech at issue.(fn27) Breyer was unable to join the majority, however, because it held that public employees speaking pursuant to their official duties are never insulated from employer discipline.(fn28)
Finding this position too narrow, Breyer explained that Pickering balancing-weighing an employee's free speech interests against an em-ployer's interests in promoting efficient public service operations- should apply to public employee speech regarding matters of public concern made in the course of performing job duties.(fn29) Ceballos's position as a prosecutor and lawyer obligated him to share exculpatory evidence with defense counsel, thereby establishing a basis to protect speech offered in the course of performing his job as a deputy district attorney.(fn30) Breyer indicated that pursuant to Brady v. Maryland,(fn31) Ceballos's memo-randum was entitled to First Amendment protection, and because Ce-ballos was acting as a lawyer, his speech was subject to examination by canons of the profession that obviated the need for government authority to control the public employee's speech.(fn32)
Further, Breyer endorsed Pickering, balancing on the facts presented in Garcetti, because professional and special constitutional obligations mandate protection for Ceballos's employee speech.(fn33) As a lawyer, Ceballos's speech was subject to regulation by canons of the profes-sion.(fn34) Also, as a prosecutor, he was required by constitutional obligations to communicate with the defense regarding exculpatory evidence and scrutinize evidence relied upon by the government.(fn35) Based on these circumstances, Breyer held that First Amendment protection should be granted to such employee speech and that Pickering balancing should be applied. (fn36)
Justice Souter, with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg joined, offered a third dissenting opinion indicating that the reach of the majority's holding went too far by categorically discounting public em-ployee speech.(fn37) Agreeing that a government employer has a substantial interest in effectuating its policy objectives, Souter observed that employee speech is not entitled to absolute First Amendment protection.(fn38) Thus, employee speech that represents a distraction or obstacle to the implementation of lawful public policy may be correctly denied First Amendment protection.(fn39) Contrary to the majority's view, however, Souter argued that Pickering balancing was the proper approach to determine eligibility for First Amendment protection when an employee speaks critically about his or her employer.(fn40)
Souter took specific issue with the...
