Academic Freedom in the Heartland: Rights Consciousness and the United States Supreme Court

Darren Botello-Samson

doi:10.5539/jpl.v8n4p208

Abstract

In late 2013, the Kansas Board of Regents proposed a social media policy, a policy which the board eventually unanimously approved. The policy authorized “the chief executive officer of a state university…to suspend, dismiss or terminate from employment any faculty or staff member who makes improper use of social media.” A strong and unified condemnation of the policy followed, led primarily by the faculty of those institutions and their various faculty governance organizations. This conflict between the free speech rights of academics and the governing authority of government and university administrations in the state of Kansas was neither the first nor last such conflict; U.S. courts had already established a doctrine over the free speech rights of public employees. Therefore, this conflict presents an opportunity to observe how the judicial establishment and definition of rights affects subsequent political conflict and discourse. The conflict over the social media policy adopted by the Kansas Board of Regents raises questions of whether the established judicial articulations of free speech in an academic setting shaped the efforts of Kansas faculty in opposition to this policy and the crafting of the policy itself.

Highlights

1.1 Introduce the ProblemOn September 16, 2013, David Guth, a tenured associate professor of journalism at the University of Kansas, a research university in the middle of the United States, posted a statement to his Twitter account in reaction to the shootings at the Washington Naval Yard in Washington, D.C., that occurred earlier that day, directing his anger toward the National Rifle Association (NRA)
Several contextual elements of the Kansas Board of Regents (KBOR) Social Media Policy are relevant to the issue of formal legal doctrine and its relationship to political opportunities and organizational resources in legal mobilization
While the Court has generally held that First Amendment speech protections are to be afforded a high level of protection, the Court has had to grapple with the unique conditions of free speech within public employment

Summary

Introduction

On September 16, 2013, David Guth, a tenured associate professor of journalism at the University of Kansas, a research university in the middle of the United States, posted a statement to his Twitter account in reaction to the shootings at the Washington Naval Yard in Washington, D.C., that occurred earlier that day, directing his anger toward the National Rifle Association (NRA). “#NavyYardShooting The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Time, let it by YOUR sons and daughters. Professor Guth was placed on paid administrative leave by the University of Kansas and several members of the state legislature called for his termination (Celock, 2013)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion