Court Clips Distributing Pamplets on Homosexuality in Class

A cosmetology instructor’s distribution of pamphlets on the sinfulness of homosexuality is neither protected speech nor does the school’s prohibiting such distribution constitute prior restraint under the First Amendment.

The instructor sued Carl Sandburg College when her part-time contract was not renewed after someone reported that she gave a gay student two religious pamphlets and told that student to read the pamphlets and discuss them with her. After investigation, the college admonished the instructor and, when her contract came up for renewal, the college did not offer her a new contract. The trial court dismissed her case.

The Seventh Circuit noted that the First Amendment “protects the right of faculty members to engage in academic debates, pursuits, and inquiries and to discuss ideas.” However, such discussions are not without limits.

“Classroom or instruction speech, in short, is inevitably speech that is part of the instructor’s official duties, even though at the same time the instructor’s freedom to express her views on the assigned course is protected,” the court wrote in affirming the trial court’s decision.

The appellate court found in this case that the instructor’s speech, “both verbal and through the pamphlets she put in Ruel’s pocket, was not related to her job of instructing students in cosmetology. Indeed, if it did anything, it inhibited her ability to perform that job by undermining her relationship with Ruel and other students who disagreed with or were offended by her expressions of her beliefs.” The record indicated that of eight student evaluations of the instructor’s performance, five spoke about the instructor’s emphasis on religion.

As to the issue of prior restraint, the court said: “[W]e see no reason why a college or university cannot direct its instructors to keep personal discussions about sexual orientation or religion out of a cosmetology class or clinic.”

Martha Louise Piggee v. Carl Sandburg College, Seventh Cir. No. 05-3228, September 19, 2006.