Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    AI and Microcredentials
Sign In
News

U.S. Appeals Court to Weigh the Speech Rights of Public-College Faculty Members

By Peter Schmidt August 12, 2011

In a case emerging as a major test of the free-speech rights of faculty members at public colleges, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is being asked to decide whether Northeastern Illinois University could legally punish a professor who advised student activists by deeming her own statements of protest to be job-related.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

In a case emerging as a major test of the free-speech rights of faculty members at public colleges, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is being asked to decide whether Northeastern Illinois University could legally punish a professor who advised student activists by deeming her own statements of protest to be job-related.

The dispute involves a lawsuit filed against the university by Loretta Capeheart, a tenured associate professor of justice studies who has advised the university’s student Socialist Club and was denied promotions and a faculty award after clashing with administrators over her protest activities. The American Association of University Professors is concerned enough about the potential ramifications of a ruling against Ms. Capeheart that on Thursday it filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the appeals court to hold her speech to have been protected under the First Amendment.

The lawsuit accuses Sharon K. Hahs, the university’s president, Lawrence P. Frank, its provost, and Melvin C. Terrell, who was vice president for student affairs during the period covered by the litigation, of violating Ms. Capeheart’s First Amendment rights by retaliating against her for her speech. The lawsuit separately accuses Mr. Terrell of defamation for publicly stating that Ms. Capeheart had been accused by a student of stalking, even though the student had not filed a formal charge against her and never did end up doing so.

The question of whether Ms. Capeheart’s protest-related speech was constitutionally protected is what has drawn the attention of the AAUP and other advocates of academic freedom and First Amendment rights.

The case is one of several in which the federal courts have grappled—and sometimes differed—on the question of how to apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which held that public agencies can discipline their employees for any statements made in connection with their jobs.

The Garcetti case involved a district attorney’s office, not a college, and the Supreme Court’s majority opinion explicitly put off the question of whether the decision should apply to speech related to scholarship or teaching. Nevertheless, several lower courts have cited the Garcetti ruling in decisions concluding that public colleges had the right to discipline faculty members for speech deemed to be related to their jobs. Among the few victories for those who argue Garcetti should not apply to academic speech was an April ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which held that the University of North Carolina at Wilmington could not deny a promotion to a faculty member, the prominent conservative commentator Michael S. Adams, based on journalistic writings that university administrators had deemed job-related.

The speech at issue in Ms. Capeheart’s case is connected to her criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, her opposition to the February 2007 arrests of students protesting at a Central Intelligence Agency recruiting event, and her complaints that the university was doing a poor job of recruiting Hispanic faculty members and students. Her lawsuit claims that administrators threatened to take disciplinary action against her when she protested military recruitment at an April 2006 job fair on Northeastern Illinois’s campus, and were similarly perturbed by her efforts to contact administrators and rally faculty members in defense of the students arrested for protesting CIA recruitment in 2007. It accuses administrators there of also seeking to retaliate against her for publicly complaining, when the Illinois legislature’s Latino Caucus visited the campus in September 2006, that the university’s failure to have enough money to hire more Hispanic faculty members stemmed from excessive administrative spending.

In July 2007 the faculty of the university’s justice-studies program, which was being transformed into an independent department, overwhelmingly voted for Ms. Capeheart to lead that new department, but Mr. Frank, the university’s provost, declined to appoint her to the post. Administrators also denied her a seat on the search committee to select the department’s new chair, and in the spring of 2007 denied her an award for faculty excellence, even—she alleges—while granting awards to other faculty members who were no more qualified.

Last February, Judge Blanche M. Manning of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois rejected Ms. Capeheart’s First Amendment claims.

On the question of whether the professor had suffered retaliation for her criticism of the university’s Hispanic recruitment efforts, Judge Manning held that, although such speech was not connected to Ms. Capeheart’s professional duties, too much time had elapsed between the September 2006 incident and the retaliatory acts that she had alleged for the latter to be blamed on the former.

ADVERTISEMENT

Regarding Ms. Capeheart’s speech related to the CIA and military recruitment, Judge Manning held that Ms. Capeheart could not claim that such speech was protected under the First Amendment because she made such statements pursuant to her professional duties. The judge’s ruling said Ms. Capeheart herself had acknowledged “her involvement in protests over recruiting and her advocacy on behalf of student protesters were part of her role as adviser to the Socialist Club.”

Both Ms. Capeheart’s appeal and the AAUP’s brief on her behalf argue that the Garcetti decision’s holding regarding the job-related speech of public employees should not be applied to such academic disputes. They also challenge the lower court’s conclusion that the speech at issue was job-related.

The AAUP’s brief says: “The message of the district court’s ruling is chilling and clear: University administrators need not tolerate outspoken faculty dissent on matters of broad public concern or on the university’s institutional response to those concerns.”

Dana Navarro, a spokeswoman for Northeastern Illinois, issued a statement on Friday that said her institution “is dedicated to the exchange of ideas and free speech both on campus and within the greater society,” and it firmly believes that “at no time were Dr. Capeheart’s First Amendment rights abrogated.”

“Northeastern Illinois University is pleased that the district court ruled in its favor and on appeal will urge the Seventh Circuit to affirm that decision,” the statement said.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
About the Author
Peter Schmidt
Peter Schmidt was a senior writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education. He covered affirmative action, academic labor, and issues related to academic freedom. He is a co-author of The Merit Myth: How Our Colleges Favor the Rich and Divide America (The New Press, 2020).
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Photo illustration showing Santa Ono seated, places small in the corner of a dark space
'Unrelentingly Sad'
Santa Ono Wanted a Presidency. He Became a Pariah.
Illustration of a rushing crowd carrying HSI letters
Seeking precedent
Funding for Hispanic-Serving Institutions Is Discriminatory and Unconstitutional, Lawsuit Argues
Photo-based illustration of scissors cutting through paper that is a photo of an idyllic liberal arts college campus on one side and money on the other
Finance
Small Colleges Are Banding Together Against a Higher Endowment Tax. This Is Why.
Pano Kanelos, founding president of the U. of Austin.
Q&A
One Year In, What Has ‘the Anti-Harvard’ University Accomplished?

From The Review

Photo- and type-based illustration depicting the acronym AAUP with the second A as the arrow of a compass and facing not north but southeast.
The Review | Essay
The Unraveling of the AAUP
By Matthew W. Finkin
Photo-based illustration of the Capitol building dome propped on a stick attached to a string, like a trap.
The Review | Opinion
Colleges Can’t Trust the Federal Government. What Now?
By Brian Rosenberg
Illustration of an unequal sign in black on a white background
The Review | Essay
What Is Replacing DEI? Racism.
By Richard Amesbury

Upcoming Events

Plain_Acuity_DurableSkills_VF.png
Why Employers Value ‘Durable’ Skills
Warwick_Leadership_Javi.png
University Transformation: a Global Leadership Perspective
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin