Summary of Hill v. DePaul Univ., a case decided by the Illinois Appellate Court in September:
Jason Hill, a tenured professor at DePaul University, published an article in The Federalist expressing controversial views on Israel. The Faculty Council at DePaul passed a resolution critical of his article but affirmed his academic freedom. The Provost later addressed the issue in a message to the DePaul community. Hill sued, but the court ruled against him. The court found that the statements against Hill were opinions based on the content of his article and therefore not defamatory.
Hill’s claims that DePaul breached promises in its Faculty Handbook and that the statements against him were defamatory were rejected by the court. The court found that the statements were opinions based on the content of Hill’s article and therefore not legally actionable.
The first amendment protects Professor Hill’s freedom to publish his “op-ed” and also protects responsive criticism like the statements in the resolution. The context of the resolution’s statements leans towards them not being actionable, as it is primarily academic criticism of views on a controversial subject. Academic evaluations and decisions are typically not subject to judicial review. The court rejects Hill’s discrimination claim, as he failed to prove any tangible loss or adverse employment action. Despite being censured, Hill retains his job and does not suffer any loss of pay or rank. The harm to his stature or earnings prospects is purely speculative.
Source link
