"Academic Freedom" is Annihilated in the 21st Century

This is the next article that I am going to write. I am thinking about it but haven't written it out yet.

Academic Freedom as a "legal" concept doesn't really exist other than within the protections we are provided under the first amendment -- that amendment gives us protection against state action which circumscribes our ability to speak - there's always a balancing test going on in these cases. This is something I wrote about for the article in Technical Communication -- however in that case I didn't talk about "Academic Freedom" because I was addressing an audience that cared more about work place expression - "speech" at work.

But, I have recently become of aware of how a 2006 supreme court opinion is playing out and the news is not good. In fact, I find the news terrifying.

The case is Garcetti v. Ceballos, ___US___, 126 SCt 1951, 164 LEd2d 689 (2006). It was decided May 30, 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-473.pdf

OK, and T. Herrington wrote an article in Computers and Composition some years ago connecting first amendment issues with copyright issues -- I mean it is a matter of how the law stops us from self-expressing, I suppose.

But, in this case, the Supreme Court stated that when a public employee is acting within their "official duties" then first amendment protection does not apply, i.e. your employer can dictate what you can and cannot say. This is alarming when one considers that teaching in the classroom is indeed our "official duty."

At first (here I mention the 6th circuit because Michigan is in the 6th circuit and I live and work in Michigan), the 6th circuit seemed to be interpreting Garcetti narrowly. What I mean by "narrowly" is that subsequent interpretations severely limit the application of the Garcetti holding.

I have a list of cases here that interpreted the case, but I won't enumerate all of them. But, in Van Compernolle v. City of Zeeland, 2007 WL 2015985 (CA6, July 9, 2007), a police officer was fired due to union related speech. The court stated that Garcetti didn't apply because Garcetti "dealt only with speech that is required as part of the employee's duties, as opposed to speech in the course of employment generally, and is thus consistent with our cases holding that speech in the course of employment may be entitled to First Amendment protection."

Subsequently, Garcetti is now being interpreted more broadly. Within the year (2007), the court has held the following actions to be speech unprotected by the first amendment:
1. After hiring a consultant firm to explore the morale of the work force, one employee was interviewed and described her trials and tribulations at work. She was fired for her speech.
2. An employee was fired for speech during trial -- if speech is part of the employee's duties, it is not protected speech.
3. A WEMU radio announcer's firing due to speech during a broadcast was not protected because the speech was part of his duties.
4. A public agency bookkeeper questioned the legality of certain expenditures -- she was fired and her speech was held to be not protected by the first amendment.

Anyway, I'm not going into anymore details now -- but this is the setting currently for "digital speech." Digital speech hasn't been litigated yet in this context, as far as I know.