A Nevada Math Professor Who Was Disciplined for Criticizing Curriculum Changes Will Get His Day in Court
In 2019, the Nevada System of Higher Education decided that students who needed remedial math instruction could receive it at the same time they were taking college-level math courses instead of completing it as a prerequisite. In response to that new "co-requisite" policy, the math department at Truckee Meadows Community College (TMMC) decided to make its courses less rigorous. Those changes did not sit well with math professor Lars Jensen, who criticized them in two emails to TMCC faculty members and in a handout he distributed at a January 2020 "Math Summit" where "the community" was invited to discuss the curriculum revision.
Because of that criticism, Jensen complained in a federal lawsuit, he received a letter of reprimand and two "unsatisfactory" performance reviews, which triggered a termination hearing. Those disciplinary actions, he argued, violated his First Amendment rights by punishing him for constitutionally protected speech. Although a federal judge dismissed Jensen's lawsuit with prejudice in September 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit revived his claims on Monday, ruling that the alleged conduct of TMMC administrators violated "clearly established" law, meaning they were not shielded by qualified immunity.
The 9th Circuit panel's unanimous ruling in Jensen v. Brown "is a major victory for the free speech rights of academics," Daniel Ortner, an attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) who argued Jensen's case before the appeals court last November, said in a press release. "This decision will protect professors from investigation or threats of termination for their speech, and promote accountability for administrators who violate the First Amendment."
In a December 2019 email to other math department faculty members, Jensen expressed concerns about the curriculum changes. The following month, Julie Ellsworth, TMCC's dean of sciences, convened a meeting aimed at discussing the "co-requisite" policy "with the community." But when Jensen tried to lay out his critique during a question-and-answer session, she cut him off.
Jensen responded by returning to his office, where he prepared a one-page handout arguing that the decision to "lower the academic level of Math 120 so students will be able to complete the course at current rates" would undermine the value of the college's certificates and degrees. He noted that local businesses, which subsidize the school through their taxes, expect that graduates they hire will be qualified for jobs that require math proficiency.
When Jensen returned to the meeting and began handing out his flyer, Ellsworth collected the copies and told him to cut it out. After Jensen "reminded Ellsworth that it was break time and that he was not being disruptive or disturbing anyone," she reiterated her command, which he disregarded. She warned him that he had "made an error by defying her."
A week after that encounter, Ellsworth delivered on her threat by notifying Jensen that she planned to write him a letter of reprimand for his "insubordination," which was ultimately placed in his personnel file. Undaunted, Jensen reiterated his criticism of the "co-requisite" policy in an email to the entire TMMC faculty.
The repercussions for Jensen's outspokenness continued. During Jensen's May 2020 performance review, the math department's chair recommended a rating of "excellent." Ellsworth instead rated Jensen's performance as "unsatisfactory," again citing his "insubordination." The following year, the department chair still thought Jensen's performance had been "excellent." But Anne Flesher, TMMC's dean of math and physical sciences, deemed it "unsatisfactory." She "identified minor issues with Jensen's performance, based on criteria that Jensen asserts were not equally applied to other faculty." Those two consecutive "unsatisfactory" ratings resulted in a disciplinary investigation by another administrator, Natalie Brown, and a termination hearing, although Jensen ultimately kept his job.
Jensen sued Ellsworth, Flesher, and Brown in their personal and official capacities, arguing that they had retaliated against him for speech protected by the First Amendment. Assessing the viability of those claims, the 9th Circuit applied the criteria established by a line of cases beginning with the Supreme Court's 1968 decision in Pickering v. Board of Education, which involved a public school teacher who was fired for publicly criticizing the school board's allocation of funds.
The 9th Circuit concluded that Jensen's criticism of dumbed-down math standards addressed "a matter of public concern." And even if he was speaking as a "public employee" rather than a "private citizen," it said, his speech was "related to scholarship or teaching," meaning it was protected under the 9th Circuit's 2014 ruling in Demers v. Austin. The appeals court also thought Jensen had plausibly alleged that his protected speech was a "motivating factor" in the disciplinary actions against him.
Those considerations are not necessarily decisive, the 9th Circuit noted, because "a public employee's right to speak is not absolute and may be outweighed by the state's interest 'as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.'" But in this case, the appeals court said, the defendants had failed to demonstrate any such countervailing interest. In particular, they could not point to any significant disruption of the college's operation caused by Jensen's speech.
By itself, the appeals court ruled, Ellsworth's complaint about "insubordination" was not enough to override Jensen's First Amendment interests, especially since it hinged on her disapproval of what he was saying. "The state's interest in punishing a disobedient employee for speaking in violation of their supervisor's orders cannot automatically trump the employee's interest in speaking," the 9th Circuit said. "In assessing the state interest, there is good reason for focusing on the disruptive impact of the employee's speech, rather than simply disobedience to an order to stop speaking. If we were instead to allow an employer to prevail solely on the basis that the employee disobeyed the employer's order not to speak, employers would have carte blanche to 'stifl[e] legitimate speech or penalize[e] public employees for expressing unpopular views.'"
Contrary to the district court's analysis, the 9th Circuit concluded that the case law on all of these points was clear enough at the time of Jensen's conflict with TMMC administrators that they should have recognized the distinction between legitimate discipline and unconstitutional retaliation. That does not necessarily mean Jensen will win the case, but it does mean he will have a chance to try.
"The college's actions tarnished my reputation and chilled my speech," Jensen said in the FIRE press release. "The Ninth Circuit's decision vindicates my First Amendment rights and allows me to have my day in court."
The post A Nevada Math Professor Who Was Disciplined for Criticizing Curriculum Changes Will Get His Day in Court appeared first on Reason.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Associated Press seeks full appeals court hearing on access to Trump administration events
The Associated Press on Tuesday asked for a hearing before the full U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, seeking to overturn a three-judge panel's ruling that allowed the Trump administration to continue blocking AP access to some presidential events — a four-month case that has raised questions about what level of journalistic access to the presidency the First Amendment permits. Three judges of that court on Friday, in a 2-1 decision, said it was OK for Trump to continue keeping AP journalists out of Oval Office or other small events out in retaliation over the news outlet's decision not to follow his lead in changing the Gulf of Mexico's name. He had sought a pause of a lower court's ruling in AP's favor in April that the administration was improperly punishing the news organization for the content of its speech. 'The decision of the appellate panel to pause the district court's order allows the White House to discriminate and retaliate over words it does not like, a violation of the First Amendment,' AP spokesman Patrick Maks said. 'We are seeking a rehearing of this decision by the full appellate court because an essential American principle is at stake.' A hearing before the full court would change the landscape — and possibly the outcome as well. The two judges who ruled in Trump's favor on Friday had been appointed to the bench by him. The full court consists of nine members appointed by Democratic presidents, and six by Republicans. The news outlet's access to events in the Oval Office and Air Force One was cut back starting in February after the AP said it would continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its copy, while noting Trump's wishes that it instead be renamed the Gulf of America. For decades, a reporter and photographer for the AP — a 179-year-old wire service whose material is sent to thousands of news outlets across the world and carried on its own website, reaching billions of people — had been part of a small-group 'pool' that covers a president in places where space is limited. ___ David Bauder writes about media for the AP. Follow him at and
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Associated Press seeks full appeals court hearing on access to Trump administration events
The Associated Press on Tuesday asked for a hearing before the full U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, seeking to overturn a three-judge panel's ruling that allowed the Trump administration to continue blocking AP access to some presidential events — a four-month case that has raised questions about what level of journalistic access to the presidency the First Amendment permits. Three judges of that court on Friday, in a 2-1 decision, said it was OK for Trump to continue keeping AP journalists out of Oval Office or other small events out in retaliation over the news outlet's decision not to follow his lead in changing the Gulf of Mexico's name. He had sought a pause of a lower court's ruling in AP's favor in April that the administration was improperly punishing the news organization for the content of its speech. 'The decision of the appellate panel to pause the district court's order allows the White House to discriminate and retaliate over words it does not like, a violation of the First Amendment,' AP spokesman Patrick Maks said. 'We are seeking a rehearing of this decision by the full appellate court because an essential American principle is at stake.' A hearing before the full court would change the landscape — and possibly the outcome as well. The two judges who ruled in Trump's favor on Friday had been appointed to the bench by him. The full court consists of nine members appointed by Democratic presidents, and six by Republicans. The news outlet's access to events in the Oval Office and Air Force One was cut back starting in February after the AP said it would continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its copy, while noting Trump's wishes that it instead be renamed the Gulf of America. For decades, a reporter and photographer for the AP — a 179-year-old wire service whose material is sent to thousands of news outlets across the world and carried on its own website, reaching billions of people — had been part of a small-group 'pool' that covers a president in places where space is limited. Now, an AP photographer routinely gets access to these events, while text reporters rarely do. ___ David Bauder writes about media for the AP. Follow him at and
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Another unanimous win for religious freedom at the Supreme Court
Is religious freedom a wedge issue? The unanimous agreement between all the justices in a decision just issued by the U.S. Supreme Court suggests the answer is no. The Court's example provides an important corrective to the framing of some commentators and advocacy groups. The facts of this case initially seem unreal — the state of Wisconsin determined that the Catholic Charities Bureau was not 'religious enough' to qualify for a tax exemption available to religious organizations in the state. Piling on, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed because Catholic Charities did not proselytize or exclude non-Catholics from its services. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has now corrected that decision and ruled unanimously that the state cannot prefer one religion over another on the grounds of the church's teachings. The Court's opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She points out, 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.' The state had denied the exemption to Catholic Charities simply because the group did not follow the practice of some other churches, which proselytize while providing social services and serve only fellow members. Since doing either of these things would violate the beliefs of the organization, it was treated differently from other religious organizations solely because of this belief. Justice Sotomayor's opinion summarizes the legal standard: 'When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny.' The Court rightly concludes that Wisconsin had no compelling reason that would justify this disparate treatment. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the Court's opinion and wrote separately to note another problem with the Wisconsin court's opinion. The Court treated Catholic Charities as separate from the local Catholic Diocese. This is contrary to the 'religious perspective' of the church, which is owed deference by the state. Ignoring the church's beliefs violated the First Amendment guarantee 'to religious institutions [of] broad autonomy to conduct their internal affairs and govern themselves.' Religion and claims for religious freedom are sometimes characterized as divisive issues. When a presidential commission on religious freedom was recently created, some commentators charged that this would undermine the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court's decision demonstrates that religious freedom issues need not be divisive. The clear constitutional protection of the right of people of faith to live and of religious organizations to operate consistent with their beliefs is right there in the text of the First Amendment. This is a threshold principle that no government can ignore without endangering the most basic liberties of its citizens. This is especially true given the fact that verbal expressions of personal faith have defined modern protections for freedom of speech, and gatherings of members of organized religion form the foundations for protections of freedom of association. State and federal lawmakers should ensure that their actions are consistent with this guarantee. Additionally, reporters, commentators, politicians and advocacy groups should take note that protecting religious freedom is typically a consensus issue for the U.S. Supreme Court, whose role is to ensure that the First Amendment guarantee is protected in legal disputes. In the 12 religious freedom cases decided since 2015, four have been unanimous and four more have garnered only one or two dissenting votes. There are, obviously, some cases where the justices don't reach consensus, but these cases should not cause us to lose sight of the strong support religious freedom claims typically receive. The Court's support for religious freedom is a bright spot in our current political climate. It demonstrates the wisdom of the Framers of the Bill of Rights in including specific religious exercise protections and vindicates one of the nation's highest aspirations: that people of faith should be free to act on their beliefs without interference or discrimination.
