After judging approx. 25 1L oral arguments(!) that debated the academic freedom doctrine, I have learned a lot about this issue in the last few weeks, and I don’t agree that academic freedom vests solely in the University.
There is a pretty sharp circuit split on the issue, and the courts seem to be divided on what pieces of the doctrine extend to the professor. While the doctrine was initially intended to prevent the Government from interfering with the four freedoms cited by Stephanie, more recent courts have applied it to professors in that they, too, have freedom to pursue their own ends. This has generally meant that professors (at least at a public university) should have the right to teach in the method and with the content of their choosing, all the while recognizing that they are public employees that do owe some duty to respect the policies of their employer. See Piarowski v. Ill. Cmty. Coll., Dist 515, 759 F.2d 625 (7th Cir. 1985); Hillis v. Stephen F. Austin State Univ., 665 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1982).
The tension has usually come in when the professor has sought to use the mantle of academic freedom to do something (i.e. refuse to adjust grades) that disturbs the University’s right to institute grading policies and other more “business oriented” concerns.
A professor’s method of dramatizing his lecture seems to be fairly attenuated from what I have learned is the true realm of the University’s academic freedom. The students have their own “rights” in the classroom, and they may evaluate and judge this professor as they see fit. To summarily fire him for the method of his lecturing seems to run counter to the very purpose of academic freedom, no matter in whom it ultimately vests.
However - this appears to be a private university, therefore a First Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 might fail if a this private school is held to not be acting under color of state law.
Kevin Wimberly
