Dan Linnemeir v. Board of Trustees of Purdue University
2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 17922, 260 F.3d 757 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state university does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by permitting a student to perform a controversial or blasphemous play as part of a course requirement, provided the university explicitly disclaims endorsement of the play's message and does not actively promote hostility toward religion.
Facts:
- Three residents of Indiana objected to a scheduled performance of Terrence McNally’s play Corpus Christi at the Fort Wayne campus of Indiana University Purdue University (IPFW).
- The play Corpus Christi portrays Jesus Christ as a homosexual who engages in sexual relations with his disciples, containing passages that are considered blasphemous and offensive to many believing Christians.
- The play was scheduled to be presented at a university theater that is open to any group whose use comports with the university’s educational mission.
- The performance was being put on by a theater major as part of his course requirements for the university.
- IPFW explicitly disclaimed any endorsement of the play’s theme, stating in the playbill that “The selection and performance of the play do not constitute an endorsement by [the university] of the viewpoints conveyed by the play.”
Procedural Posture:
- Christopher Mahoney, Pamela Mahoney, and William K. Miller (the Indiana residents) filed a lawsuit in the district court seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the university from staging the play.
- The district court denied the request for a preliminary injunction.
- The Indiana residents (plaintiffs-appellants) appealed the district court's refusal to grant a preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and moved for a stay pending appeal under Fed.R.App.P. 8.
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 state university violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by permitting a student to present a play that depicts Jesus Christ as a homosexual who has sexual relations with his disciples, as part of a course requirement, when the university explicitly disclaims endorsement of the play's message?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge
No, a state university does not violate the First Amendment by allowing the performance of a play like Corpus Christi as part of a student's course requirements, even if it offends religious beliefs, so long as the university does not endorse the play's message or demonstrate hostility toward religion. The court denied the motion for a stay pending appeal because the contention that the First Amendment forbids a state university to provide a venue for views antagonistic to conventional Christian beliefs is absurd. Such a prohibition would cripple academic freedom and prevent the teaching of important works by countless figures considered antagonistic to conventional beliefs. The court emphasized that while a public university cannot have a policy of promoting atheism or anti-religious views, merely providing a venue for a student's academic project, with an explicit disclaimer of endorsement, does not constitute such hostility or endorsement. The student is not a university employee, and the university was not hostile to Christianity. Academic freedom and states’ rights demand deference to educational judgments that are not invidious, especially when the university has been scrupulous in publicly disclaiming alliance with the play's message.
Dissenting - Coffey, Circuit Judge
Yes, a state university would violate the Establishment Clause by staging Corpus Christi because it constitutes government-sponsored hostility and disparagement towards Christianity. Judge Coffey argued that allowing the university to stage the play would be seen as government-sponsored attacks on religion. He contended that the evidentiary record was too sparse to properly determine if the Studio Theater was a "limited public forum." Without clear evidence of a truly open public forum, the speech should be attributed to the university (government speech), not private speech. Analyzing under the Lemon test, the university's substantial sponsorship (including faculty approval, university advertising, faculty advising the student, the Chancellor's public support and intention to attend, and use of university facilities) conveyed a message of disapproval and hostility toward Christianity, violating the Establishment Clause's purpose prong. He disagreed with the majority's broad application of "academic freedom," arguing that it has limits and must be balanced against the religious rights of students, protecting them from government hostility. He also raised concerns about potential viewpoint discrimination, noting the university's anti-harassment policy protecting other groups but seemingly not applied to protect Christians in this case. Therefore, he would have granted the stay to allow for further development of the record.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the breadth of academic freedom within public universities, affirming that permitting student-driven, curriculum-related expression, even if highly offensive to some, does not automatically constitute government endorsement of the message or violate the Establishment Clause. It distinguishes between a university actively promoting a viewpoint and merely providing a venue for diverse, even challenging, educational content. The dissent highlights the tension between academic freedom and the Establishment Clause, particularly when a university's actions might be perceived as actively hostile to a religion, and emphasizes the need for a robust factual record to determine "public forum" status and potential viewpoint discrimination.
