The court explained that “Whether speech addresses a matter of public concern is to be 'determined by the content, form, and context of a given statement.’” As to the content of the speech, the court found that “Because these articles focus on the systemic impact of tenure, not Wetherbe's own job conditions, the content of the speech indicates that the speech involves a matter of public concern.”. [...] Buchanan’s use of profanity and discussion of her sex life and the sex lives of her students was not related to the subject matter or purpose of training Pre-K–Third grade teachers.” Since the court found that Buchanan’s speech was not protected, it held that her termination did not violate the First Amendment. [...] The use of provocative ideas and language to engage students, and to enliven the learning process, is well within the scope of academic freedom protected by the First Amendment. [...] The court specifically relied on a sympathetic interpretation of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Garcetti case, expressly invoking the justices’ “reservation” of free speech and press protections for academic speakers and writers. [...] The appellate court ruled that Robin Meade, the outspoken critic and active union officer, was “not alone in expressing concern about the treatment of adjuncts.” The panel added that “colleges and universities across the country are targets of increasing coverage and criticism regarding their use of adjunct faculty.” In this regard, the court broke important new ground not only with regard to acad.
Authors
- Pages
- 58
- Published in
- United States of America
