William Felkner v. Rhode Island College
203 A.3d 433 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public university's academic decisions that restrict a student's speech must be reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. A student can defeat summary judgment by presenting sufficient evidence that the university's stated pedagogical reasons were merely a pretext for unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
Facts:
- In 2004, William Felkner, a self-described 'conservative libertarian,' enrolled in the Master of Social Work (MSW) program at Rhode Island College (RIC).
- In a 'Policy and Organizing' course, Professor James Ryczek required students to choose a social welfare issue from a pre-approved list and lobby for it.
- After initially agreeing to advocate for a specific bill, Felkner changed his mind and asked to argue against it. Professor Ryczek denied the request, stating the school teaches from 'our perspective.'
- Felkner submitted a paper and participated in a debate from his preferred opposing viewpoint and received a failing grade for not following the assignment's directives.
- In a subsequent course, Professor Roberta Pearlmutter rejected Felkner's proposed projects, including one on welfare reform, for not advancing 'social justice.'
- After Felkner secretly recorded a conversation with Professor Pearlmutter and posted it online, she filed a complaint with the Academic Standing Committee (ASC).
- The ASC found Felkner violated the social work code of ethics for the 'deceptive' recording and required him to agree in writing to stop recording without permission or face dismissal.
- Faculty members later initially rejected Felkner's proposed field placement in the governor's office and his integrative project on welfare reform, with one professor calling the topic 'toxic,' before the placement was eventually approved.
Procedural Posture:
- William Felkner sued Rhode Island College and several of its officials in the Providence County Superior Court (a state trial court), alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- The defendants' initial motion for summary judgment was denied.
- Felkner filed an amended complaint, adding claims for procedural due process violations and conspiracy.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion to strike Felkner's claim for punitive damages.
- Years later, after significant discovery, the defendants filed a renewed motion for summary judgment on all counts.
- The trial court granted the defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment, entering a final judgment in their favor.
- Felkner, as the appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment and the striking of his punitive damages claim to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
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 curriculum that requires a student to adopt and advocate for a specific political perspective, and penalizes him for expressing contrary views, create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the university's actions were a pretext for unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination rather than a legitimate pedagogical concern?
Opinions:
Majority - Majority
Yes. A public university's curriculum that penalizes a student for expressing contrary political views creates a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext. While educators have broad discretion, they do not offend the First Amendment only so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. Here, Felkner presented sufficient evidence, including expert testimony, to create a factual dispute over whether the defendants' actions were genuinely pedagogical or were a pretext for punishing his conservative views. The subjective motivation of the defendants is a question for a jury, making summary judgment on his free speech, compelled speech, and unconstitutional conditions claims improper.
Dissenting - Justice Robinson
No. There is no genuine issue of material fact because the defendants' actions were within their broad academic discretion and related to legitimate pedagogical purposes. The case involves 'petty academic squabbles,' not constitutional violations. Requiring a student to argue from an opposing viewpoint is a valid educational tool, and Felkner was justifiably graded on his failure to follow the assignment's requirements. His other complaints are either moot or the result of his own failure to comply with academic procedures, and courts should not second-guess these genuinely academic decisions.
Dissenting - Justice Indeglia
This opinion concurs with the majority on the First Amendment issue but dissents on the procedural due process claim. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Felkner received due process. The Academic Standing Committee's failure to create a record of the disciplinary hearing or provide written findings of fact explaining its decision may have deprived Felkner of a meaningful appeal, which is a key component of fair procedure.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the Hazelwood standard in higher education, specifically regarding viewpoint discrimination claims. By reversing summary judgment, the court signals that while universities possess broad academic freedom, this authority is not a shield for actions that may be a pretext for suppressing disfavored political expression. The decision emphasizes that a professor's subjective motivation can become a triable issue of fact, potentially making it easier for students to bring such First Amendment claims to a jury. This precedent reinforces the line between legitimate pedagogical requirements and unconstitutional compelled speech or viewpoint-based punishment in the university classroom.
