| In Keyishian v. Board of Regents the U.S. Supreme Court declared academic freedom, "...a special concern of the First Amendment." This study was a legal analysis of caselaw relating to the academic freedom of public school teachers and college faculty. This study addressed the legal limits of academic freedom law in public primary and secondary schools and in higher education. Using a variety of legal databases, including WestLaw and LEXIS, the researcher sought to identify and analyze all published legal decisions regarding faculty academic freedom in these contexts. The scope of the study was national and encompassed legal rulings from both federal and state courts.; The objective of this study was to delineate, as specifically as possible, the legal limit between the academic freedom rights of faculty to speak and express themselves and the authority of educational administrators to regulate such speech and expression. This study separately examined the academic freedom of public school teachers and college faculty and then divided the relevant caselaw into three distinct speech contexts: classroom, intramural, and extramural. Unlike similar studies, this project also sought to examine all academic freedom caselaw and to examine academic freedom issues within specific topics such as political and union activities, religious expression, and newspapers.; The researcher made both general and specific conclusions regarding faculty academic freedom. In general, academic freedom increases as the caselaw moves from the classroom to the intramural and extramural context. Educational leaders may only regulate speech on a matter of public or curricular concern when an overwhelming educational reason for the regulation exists. As a practical matter such reasons are easier to establish in the primary and secondary context. Courts also ruled that personal speech is not protected under academic freedom doctrines. Specific conclusions also were made regarding a wide range of specific academic freedom activities. Certain areas of speech and expression, such as union activities, external testimony, and policy criticism, are almost completely protected from administrative action. By contrast other areas, such as religious expression, personal grievances, and text selection, may, in most contexts, be effectively regulated by administrators. |
