holding that, with respect to substantive due process claims in the academic context, a “court should . . . look to the record as developed before the academic agency to determine whether there was substantial evidence before the agency to support the action taken, with due care taken to judge the constitutionality of the school’s action on the basis of the facts that were before the agency, and on the logic applied by it.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that, with respect to substantive due process claims in the academic context, a “court should . . . look to the record as developed before the academic agency to determine whether there was substantial evidence before the agency to support the action taken, with due care taken to judge the constitutionality of the school’s action on the basis of the facts that were before the agency, and on the logic applied by it.”
- upholding dismissal of teacher for making speeches using profane language and criticizing university administration and policies on the basis that such conduct was a breach of minimal duty of loyalty and civility
- teacher’s use of profane language in speech to students criticizing the school administration, and teacher’s preparation and distribution of leaflets announcing a protest meeting which violated school regulations were not protected
- categorizing, in the Four- teenth Amendment context, “universities” as “creatures of the state”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM:
The Petition for Rehearing is Denied and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en bane, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is Denied.