There are appear to be two cases arising from California community colleges. One case was dismissed because the rules in question had not yet come into effect in the plaintiff's college district.
The other was dismissed because - although the guidance from the systemwide Chancellor's office was directive concerning what the statements should contain - this guidance was not legally binding on local college districts.
From EdSource: ...[District] Judge Sherriff wrote that many of the professors’ concerns arose from documents from the Chancellor’s Office, such as guidance, recommendations, model principles and a glossary of terms. He added that none of these recommendations were formally adopted or legally binding, and that what the professors largely objected to was not in their faculty contract. Sherriff also noted that the Chancellor’s Office confirmed in court documents that it could not take any action against professors concerning their speech, because decisions regarding employees, such as hiring, performance evaluations and terminations, are the responsibility of the district...
In September, Sherriff dismissed a related suit on behalf of Bakersfield College history professor Daymon Johnson. Sherriff wrote in his order that Johnson lacked standing because the Kern Community College District that employed him had not yet imposed local policies implementing diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility regulations.
In October, Johnson’s case was filed in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The State Center Community College professors filed an amicus brief in November in support of Johnson, urging the court to “protect academic freedom across the state by vacating the district court’s decision.”
===
Since the Johnson case was appealed, it seems likely that the other will also be appealed. The outcomes of these cases - although they refer to community colleges - could affect UC.
No comments:
Post a Comment