Essay Instructions: Two cases just three questions--
Kaplin, W. & Lee, B. The law of higher education (4th ed.). San Francisco: Wiley &
Sons. [Electronic version].
Kellough, J.E. (2006). Understanding affirmative action: Politics, discrimination, and
the search for justice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. [Electronic
version].
Martin v. Parrish (1 page respond)
805 F.2d 583 (5th Cir. 1986)
OPINION: EDITH HOLLAN JONES, Circuit Judge:
Whether a publicly employed college teacher is constitutionally protected in the abusive use of profanity in the classroom is the most significant issue presented by this appeal. We hold that the constitution does not shield him and therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
I. BACKGROUND
Appellant Martin was an economics instructor at Midland College in Midland, Texas. Appellees are the president, vice president, dean and trustees of the college. The dean and vice president originally disciplined Martin in 1983, following a formal student complaint regarding Martin?s inveterate use of profane language, including ?hell,? ?damn,? and ?bullshit,? in class. Martin was warned orally and in writing that should his use of profanity in the classroom continue, disciplinary action requiring suspension, termination or both would be recommended. Heedless of the administrators? concerns, Martin continued to curse in class, using words including ?bullshit,? ?hell,? ?damn,? ?God damn,? and ?sucks.? Two students filed written complaints concerning Martin?s speech in the classroom on June 19, 1984, which included the following statements: ?the attitude of the class sucks,? ?[the attitude] is a bunch of bullshit,? ?you may think economics is a bunch of bullshit,? and ?if you don?t like the way I teach this God damn course there is the door.? Following notice of this outburst, the dean initiated actions to terminate Martin, which culminated, following several administrative steps, in approval by the college?s board of trustees.
* * * *
II. ANALYSIS
Appellant asserts his language was not obscene,Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 77 S. Ct. 1304, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1498 (1957), but only profane and as such enjoys constitutional protection unless it caused disruption. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S. Ct. 766, 86 L. Ed. 1031 (1942). We find this argument an incomplete and erroneous expression of pertinent first amendment jurisprudence.
The constitution protects not simply words but communication, which presupposes a speaker and a listener, and circumscribes this protection for purposes which enhance the functioning of our republican form of government. The ?rights? of the speaker are thus always tempered by a consideration of the rights of the audience and the public purpose served, or disserved, by his speech. Appellant?s argument, by ignoring his audience and the lack of any public purpose in his offensive epithets, founders on several fronts.
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 103 S. Ct. 1684, 75 L. Ed. 2d 708 (1983), recently explained the limits of first amendment protection of speech afforded public employees like Martin. The Supreme Court reiterated that the goal of such protection is to prevent suppression of such employees? participation in public affairs and ?chilling? of their freedom of political association. 461 U.S. at 145?46, 103 S. Ct. at 1689. It is limited to speech on matters of ?public concern,? otherwise, government would be hobbled in its regulation of employment conditions, and public employees would enjoy immunity from the consequences of their speech not shared by anyone in the private sector. If the offending speech does not bear upon a matter of public concern, ?it is unnecessary for us to scrutinize the reasons for [the] discharge.? Connick, 461 U.S. at 147, 103 S. Ct. at 1690. Moreover, ?whether an employee?s speech addresses a matter of public concern must be determined by the content, form, and context of a given statement....? Id.
There is no doubt that Martin?s epithets did not address a matter of public concern. One student described Martin?s June 19, 1984, castigation of the class as an explosion, an unprovoked, extremely offensive, downgrading of the entire class. In highly derogatory and indecent terms, Martin implied that the students were inferior because they were accustomed to taking courses from inferior, part?time instructors at Midland College. The profanity described Martin?s attitude toward his students, hardly a matter that, but for this lawsuit, would occasion public discussion. Appellant has not argued that his profanity was for any purpose other than cussing out his students as an expression of frustration with their progress ?? to ?motivate? them ?? and has thereby impliedly conceded his case underConnick.
* * * *
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Questions
1. In order for the speech of a public institution?s faculty member to be protected under thePickering/Connickline of cases (see theStudent EditionSection 6.1.1), what criteria must be satisfied? Do these criteria suitably balance the interests of faculty members and the institution in the higher education context?
2. Specifically, what was the fatal flaw in the instructor?s speech? Was it the profanity itself? Or was it the belittling nature of the speech? Or something else? Suppose the instructor had used the same profanity in the course of a lecture on the shortcomings of Communist economic systems; would the result have been different? Or suppose the instructor had made comments sharply derogatory of the students? attitudes but had used words like ?heck? and ?bull? rather than ?hell? and ?bullshit?; would the result have been different?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 9.1. Student Organizations 1 page response-
Midstate University is a large state university. In the last few years, several student organizations have been established at the university that focus, in whole or in part, on religious values, religious worship, and religious evangelism. The New Light Fellowship, a student group affiliated with an outside religious organization, has been active on campus for two years. It is recognized by the Student Government Association, and thus receives funding from mandatory student fees and is allowed to hold meetings in the Student Union. Meetings are devoted to prayer and to discussions of religious philosophy and ethics.
One of the credos of the New Light Fellowship is the separation of the races. The group will not allow students of color to attend its meetings or to become members. Members believe that this practice is religiously based and derives from a literal interpretation of the Bible.
The Association of Black Students (ABS), another student organization recognized by the student government, is aware of the practices of New Light Fellowship. ABS has protested to university officials about the existence of such a group on campus, its funding from mandatory student fees, and its use of campus facilities. The ABS members argue that such university support for the New Light Fellowship violates the Establishment Clause and the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and also violates their free speech rights.
The ABS has filed a lawsuit in federal district court, seeking to enjoin the university from providing recognition, funding, and student union space to the Fellowship. The Fellowship argues that any such action, by the university or by the court, would violate its free exercise of religion and its freedom of association rights.
Advise the university president on the likelihood of ABS?s success in this lawsuit.
Also consider whether the university should redraft its policies for recognition of student organizations and for allocating student fees to student organizations.
Would the analysis be any different if the New Light Fellowship discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation rather than race?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology- List just three interesting points or ideas from each of the video (1 page total) Just list the name and list A,B, C or 1, 2, 3-
Vera John-Steiner, Notebooks of the Mind
View: ?Dan Meyer, Math Makeover
Emily Pilloton, Teaching design for change
Jesse Schell; When games invade real life
Discussion you 3 key ideas from each and your rationale for selecting them:1 page.
Read:
Christensen et al, 7 through Conclusion
Vera John-Steiner, Notebooks of the Mind-UIU library -read- intro and conclusion and scan for what interests you in Parts 1 and 2: http://site.ebrary.com.proxy.myunion.edu/lib/tui/docDetail.action?docID=10279207
View: ?Dan Meyer, Math Makeover: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_meyer_math_curriculum_makeover.html
Emily Pilloton, Teaching design for change: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/emily_pilloton_teaching_design_for_change.html
Jesse Schell; When games invade real life: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jesse_schell_when_games_invade_real_life.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Same concept as above list three key ideas from each-1 page as well
State of Play : Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds
Balkin, Jack M. Noveck, Beth Simone: (pick the chapters that interest you) http://site.ebrary.com.proxy.myunion.edu/lib/tui/docDetail.action?docID=10176208
View: Tom Chatfield: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/tom_chatfield_7_ways_games_reward_the_brain.html
David Perry: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/david_perry_on_videogames.html
Will Wright:http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/will_wright_makes_toys_that_make_worlds.html
Jane McGonigal: Gaming can make a better world:http://www.ted.com/talks/jane_mcgonigal_gaming_can_make_a_better_world.html