Brown v. Li
170 Educ. L. Rep. 463, 308 F. 3d 939 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public university may regulate the content of a student's curricular work, such as a master's thesis, provided the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. A university's refusal to approve academic work that fails to conform to established professional standards does not violate the student's First Amendment rights.
Facts:
- Christopher Brown was a master's degree candidate at the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB), a public university.
- Brown was required to write a thesis and have it approved by his thesis committee, which included Defendants Dr. Galen Stucky, Dr. Daniel Morse, and Dr. Fred Lange.
- Brown submitted his thesis to the committee without an acknowledgments section, and the committee members signed an approval page for that version.
- After securing the committee's signatures, Brown secretly inserted a two-page section titled 'Disacknowledgements,' which used profanity to criticize university officials, former Governor Wilson, and others.
- Brown attempted to file the modified thesis at the university library, which was a prerequisite for earning his degree.
- Upon discovering the unapproved section, Brown's committee informed him that the 'Disacknowledgements' did not meet professional standards and that they would not approve a thesis containing it.
- Brown appealed the committee's decision through several university channels, including the Academic Affairs Committee and the Graduate Council, all of which upheld the committee's decision.
- UCSB initially did not confer Brown's degree because he refused to remove the 'Disacknowledgements' section and file the originally approved thesis.
Procedural Posture:
- Christopher Brown filed a § 1983 action against Charles Li and other UCSB officials in the U.S. District Court, alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the federal claims.
- Brown, as appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where the UCSB officials were the appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public university's refusal to approve a master's thesis that contains an acknowledgments section failing to conform to professional and academic standards violate the student's First Amendment free speech rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Graber, J.
No, a public university's refusal to approve a master's thesis containing a non-conforming acknowledgments section does not violate the student's First Amendment rights. The court applied the standard from Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which holds that educators may exercise editorial control over student speech in school-sponsored activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. A master's thesis is a curricular assignment designed to teach students professional standards in their field. The committee's refusal to approve a thesis that failed to meet those standards was reasonably related to the legitimate pedagogical goal of teaching the proper format for a scientific paper. Furthermore, the committee members have their own First Amendment right not to be compelled to endorse or be associated with speech in a thesis for which they are held responsible.
Concurring - Ferguson, J.
Agrees with the outcome but for different reasons. The case is not about the First Amendment but about academic dishonesty. By secretly adding a section to his thesis after it was approved, Brown engaged in deception. The First Amendment has never protected untruthful speech or academic misbehavior like cheating. The university was within its rights to refuse to accept the altered thesis just as it could punish a student for plagiarism.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Reinhardt, J.
Disagrees with the First Amendment analysis. The Hazelwood standard, designed for immature high school students, is inappropriate for the university setting, which should be a 'marketplace of ideas' for adults. Even if Hazelwood were the correct standard, the university's response—withholding Brown's degree for nearly a year and placing him on academic probation—was grossly disproportionate. This extreme reaction creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the university was motivated by a desire to punish Brown for his critical viewpoint, rather than for a legitimate pedagogical reason.
Analysis:
This case is significant for extending the deferential Hazelwood 'legitimate pedagogical concerns' standard, originally developed for high school speech, to the university curriculum context. Although Judge Graber's First Amendment reasoning did not command a majority and is thus not binding precedent, it provides strong persuasive authority for affording universities broad discretion to regulate the content of academic assignments. The decision reinforces the principle that a student's free speech rights within the curriculum are not absolute and are limited by the educational objectives of the institution. The dissent highlights the ongoing tension between protecting academic freedom for adult students and granting institutions editorial control over academic work.
