On May 16, Sixth Circuit Judges Richard Griffin, Helene White, and Eric Murphy decided the case of Gruber v. Tenn. Tech. Bd. of Trustees, which was just posted on Westlaw. The case involved Dr. Julia Gruber and Andrew Smith, professors at Tennessee Technological University (TTU), who sued Dr. Lori Bruce, TTU’s provost and vice president for academic affairs, for alleged First Amendment retaliation based on discipline imposed after they distributed flyers on campus. The flyers accused another professor, Dr. Andrew Donadio, of being a racist and associated with a hate group, Turning Point USA, which they claimed was not welcome at TTU.
The court found that the plaintiffs’ speech was a matter of public concern, but TTU’s interest in preventing disruption to its environment outweighed the professors’ speech rights. The manner in which the flyers were distributed, targeting a colleague and students in a public setting, was deemed disruptive. The accusations of racism not only harmed the accused but also affected students’ education and the professors’ ability to perform their teaching duties.
By attacking students and colleagues publicly on campus, the plaintiffs undermined TTU’s educational mission and disrupted the collegial environment. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ speech was not protected under the First Amendment due to its potential to cause disruption and harm to the university community.
In fact, if the conclusion is reached that the First Amendment protected the plaintiffs’ speech, it would mean that TTU would not have the authority to remove the flyers from its property. Therefore, this case does not suggest that TTU attempted to use its employment relationship with the plaintiffs to control their speech outside of the university’s functions.
Overall, the Pickering balancing test does not support the protection of the plaintiffs’ speech. The flyers, which targeted a professor and student organization and expressed that they were unwelcome on campus, posed a credible threat of disrupting TTU’s academic goals. This type of speech is precisely the kind that an educational institution has a compelling interest in preventing. According to the Pickering balancing test, TTU’s interest in averting a potential disturbance to its educational and communal atmosphere outweighed the plaintiffs’ desire to distribute the flyers. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ speech was not safeguarded, thereby dismissing their claim of First Amendment retaliation.
Source link
