This past month, a state court in Idaho dismissed the suit of Habib Sadid, a tenured professor at Idaho State University (ISU), who claimed that he was retaliated against for criticizing the actions of university officials. Among his claims, Sadid argued that the university’s actions violated his First Amendment rights. A copy of the decision can be found on the American Association of University Professors' (AAUP) website.
The case marks yet another decision in which a court has relied on Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), to hold that a professor had not engaged in speech protected by the First Amendment. In Garcetti, the Supreme Court held that a public employee engaging in communication pursuant to carrying out his or official duties does not engage in speech for purposes of the First Amendment. But, the Court left open the question of whether the decision applied to speech by faculty members. Still, several courts have applied Garcetti to faculty speech with no reasoned consideration of the extent to which, if any, that the case should apply to such speech. In Sadid’s case, for example, the court relied for persuasive authority on a federal district case, Hong v. Grant, 519 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (C.D. Cal. 2007), where the court also reflexively applied Garcetti.
The interesting (and troubling) twist in Sadid’s case involves the court’s determination that he did not write newspapers articles critical of the university as a private citizen. The court held that the “tone” of the letters was that of an employee, deeming it especially important that he identified himself as an ISU employee.
The case was another example of how several courts have used Garcetti in faculty speech cases with no consideration of the fact that the Supreme Court left the door open of whether the decision should even apply to faculty speech. Even proponents who argue that First Amendment protection for academic freedom should, at most, accrue to institutions versus individual professors have not embraced the idea of applying Garcetti to faculty speech. The case especially touched a nerve with me since I wrote a recent article on the issue of individual academic freedom under the First Amendment with a special focus on the Garcetti decision. Feel free to check it out if you’re so inclined. The article is: A Confused Concern of the First Amendment: The Uncertain Status of Constitutional Protection for Individual Academic Freedom, 36 Journal of College and University Law 145.