DiBona v. Matthews
220 Cal. App. 3d 1329, 269 Cal. Rptr. 882, 1990 Cal. App. LEXIS 571 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public college administration violates the First Amendment rights of an instructor and students when it cancels a class based on the controversial content of its curriculum due to an 'undifferentiated fear' of disturbance or community opposition, as such censorship is not justified absent a showing that the expression would materially and substantially interfere with the educational environment.
Facts:
- Alan DiBona, an instructor at the Educational Cultural Complex (ECC), a branch of the San Diego Community College District, selected the play 'Split Second' for his summer Drama 250 class.
- The play concerns a Black police officer who shoots and kills a White suspect after being subjected to racial slurs, and then fabricates a self-defense story.
- DiBona held auditions and selected a cast of approximately 14 students, including assistant director J. Scott Gundlach, who began an initial read-through of the play.
- On June 16, ECC President Robert L. Matthews received a call informing him that local church leaders were upset about the play.
- Matthews and Dean James Hardison read the play, deeming its language 'inappropriate' and its plot 'weak.'
- Matthews told DiBona he did not want to 'take on' the religious community and was concerned about potential unrest, given the politically charged atmosphere surrounding the concurrent Sagon Penn criminal trial.
- Hardison informed DiBona that the decision to cancel the class was due to the 'sensitivity of the community to the subject matter' and suggested the class perform 'The Wiz' instead.
- After the administration prohibited the performance of 'Split Second' as part of the class, the students and DiBona performed the play off-campus, but DiBona was not paid and the students received no academic credit.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Alan DiBona and J. Scott Gundlach filed an action in the trial court against college administrators Robert L. Matthews and James Hardison, alleging violations of their constitutional rights.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the case was moot, plaintiffs lacked standing, and their actions did not violate the First Amendment.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all grounds.
- The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the intermediate court of appeal.
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 college administration's cancellation of a drama class, based on the controversial subject matter and profane language of the selected play and fears of community opposition, violate the First Amendment rights of the instructor and a student?
Opinions:
Majority - Wiener, Acting P. J.
Yes, the college administration's cancellation of the drama class violates the First Amendment rights of the instructor and student. School officials cannot censor expression based on an 'undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance.' Citing Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., the court reasoned that to justify censorship, the administration needed to show that the play would 'materially and substantially interfere' with the school's operation, which it failed to do. The court distinguished the college setting from the high school context of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, noting that First Amendment protections apply with greater force on college campuses where students are adults. The administrators' concerns about community opposition and the play's 'inappropriate' language were insufficient justifications to suppress expression on a college campus, as the mere dissemination of ideas, however offensive, may not be shut off in the name of 'conventions of decency.'
Dissenting - Huffman, J.
No, the cancellation of the class did not violate the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. The case should have been dismissed on procedural grounds as moot and for lack of standing. On the merits, the dissent argues that the majority opinion improperly strips school administrators of their right to control curriculum. Relying on Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the dissent contends that educators are entitled to exercise greater control over school-sponsored expression, such as a school play, to disassociate the school from speech that is vulgar, profane, or otherwise unsuitable. The administrators had legitimate pedagogical concerns about the play's content and its potential negative impact on the school's relationship with the community, especially during a time of heightened local racial tension. This was a valid exercise of administrative discretion, not unconstitutional censorship.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the distinction between the scope of First Amendment protections in secondary versus post-secondary education. It limits the applicability of the deferential Hazelwood standard, which allows high school administrators broad control over school-sponsored speech, in the context of a public college. The ruling strengthens the principles of academic freedom for college instructors and students by establishing that censorship of curriculum based on controversial content requires a showing of potential material and substantial disruption, not merely a fear of community opposition. This precedent makes it more difficult for college administrators to cancel courses or remove materials based on their perceived political sensitivity or potential to offend.
