# Amicus Curiae Brief — Edwards v. California University of Pennsylvania > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386018_0993%3A4 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1999 - **Citation:** 525 U.S. 1143 ## Text ) 18 reason that students enjoy at least as much “freedom in learning” as professors do “freedom in teaching” as espoused in the CBA. Thus, the University has unavowedly declared its classrooms an arena intended for the open exchange of viewpoints between professors and students. The Third Circuit’s opinion omitting any reference to the University’s defiance of the CBA warrants review and reversal. C. When a public university grants broad academic freedom rights to its faculty, it may not selectively revoke that grant based upon the viewpoint being expressed. While there is considerable scholarship on the subject of academic freedom, both in theory, and under the Constitution, there appears to be little or no scholarship discussing a public university's selective revocation of a prior delegation of academic freedom. ~ Admittedly, there is some debate regarding whether a university must delegate some authority over academic decisions to its faculty. It does not follow, however, that if a university is not required to delegate, it has absolute discretion in revoking any delegations made prior. See Petition for Writ of Cert. at 27. The University’s actions in this case are analogous to the school board’s actions in Pico. 457 U.S. at 853. While the books at issue in this case had not yet been purchased, nor placed in the library, they had been ordered. See Petition for Writ of Cert. at 5. The University had a longstanding policy of granting the requests of facuity members for supplemental Class materials. See id. In addition, the CBA states that “faculty members are entitled to freedom in the selection of textbooks, audio/visual aids and other teaching aids.” /d. at 3. ' See e.g., Nathan Glazer, Academic Freedom in the 1990's, 22 WM. MITCHELL L. REV. 479 (1996): Gregory A. Clarick, Public School Teachers and The First Amendment: Protecting The Right To Teach. 65 N.Y .U. L. REV. 693 (June 1990); The Academy and the Courts: A Symposium On Academic Freedom, 16 U.C. Davis L. REV. (Summer 1983) (compilation of seven articles each addressing a different aspect of academic freedom). —— 19 Nevertheless, upon receipt of a single complaint by one student, who did not testify at trial, the University ordered Dr. Edwards to “cease and desist” from employing twenty-four titles of “suspect materials” in the teaching of his class. Petition for Writ of Cert. at 4. The Court held in Pico that despite the significant interests of parents and the school board, the school board was prohibited from removing the books. 457 U.S. at 853. While the University may be free to approve or disapprove which books it buys for its library or what materials it orders for its bookstore, this administrative authority, necessitated by a scarcity of resources, does not include the power to restrict Dr. Edwards from offering a list of books as suggested reading on the topic of bias and censorship because of their viewpoint.” The only conclusion one can draw from the University’s actions is that it revoked the academic freedom it had delegated to Dr. Edwards through the CBA. There is no other evidence that the University intended to terminate its adherence to the CBA as to any other professor. Therefore, it can be deduced that the University intended to continue its adherence to the CBA except as to Petitioner. Like the University in Rosenberger. Respondent defied its specific written policy in order to suppress one viewpoint from one speaker. 515 U.S. at 819. The only explanation for this selective discrimination was that the Respondent wished to censor one of the viewpoints being expressed in Dr. Edwards’ class. See Petition for Writ of Cert. at 3-6. A government ban of books based upon a single objection by an alleged student to the viewpoint of the books is inconsistent with the First Amendment and harmful to the intellectual freedom necessary to sustain a free society. ~ Respondent did not simply invoke its administrative authority and refuse to allocate resources for Dr. Edwards’ book order (though this acuion would also be suspect under the First Amendment if done solely on the basis of viewpoint). Respondent also prohibited Dr. Edwards from utilizing or suggesting any of the materials in discussing his subject even, arguably. if he purchased the books himself and placed copies on reserve in the library for student examination. 20 Freedom is abridged by those who object to a_ particular viewpoint “each ripping a page from this book, then that, until the day came when the books-were empty and the minds were shut and the libraries closed forever.” RAY BRADBURY, FAHRENHEIT 451 149 (Ballantine Books 1979) (1953). Selective academic freedom is an oxymoron. If the University reserves the right to revoke the CBA at will, and only as to one professor or one viewpoint, then academic freedom under the CBA is a sham. See Edwards v. Aguilard 482 U.S. 578 (1987) (holding that statute that limited a_ teacher's discretion was antithetical to the statute’s stated purpose of academic freedom). The University’s own “primary guiding document” belies its arguments in the lower courts. Accordingly, amici strongly urge this Court to reaffirm the Constitution, more specifically the First Amendment, as the “primary guiding document” to carry out its most basic function- to guarantee an unrestricted marketplace of ideas- and restore academic freedom to a position worthy of the American system of higher education. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons the Court should grant the Petition For Writ Of Certiorari. Respectfully Submitted. Kelly Shackelford* Byron K. Henry Liberty Legal Institute 9()3 East 18", Suite 230 Plano, TX 75074 (972) 423-8889 *Counsel of Record January 13, 1999 Attorneys tor Amicus Curiae Intercollegiate Studies Institute --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386018_0993%3A4. Public record. Not legal advice.