Inside Higher Ed is reporting that a federal court has found that Idaho State University did not infringe upon professor Habib Sadid's - a vocal critic of the university's administration - First Amendment rights when it dismissed him from employment, despite the finding of a faculty panel that there was no reason for such a dismissal. 

The court's finding is another troubling application of the Supreme Court's Garcetti decision - which limits the free speech of public employees at the workplace - on the academic workplace. Specifically, these decisions impinge on the principle of shared governance, where faculty have a voice in important decisions facing their institutions. Circumscribing the faculty's ability to voice criticizing their adminstrations is tantamount to circumscribing their role in the governance of the academy.

As IHE points out, the Garcetti decision is being applied unevenly, depending on the jurisdiction, and the original decision does not necessarily suggest it should be applied to higher education. Given the spate of cases where it has been applied, however, it appears likely that it will need to be legally resolved at a higher level. 

The National Coalition Against Censorship, along with Free Exchange on Campus members including the American Association of University Professors, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Federation of Teachers, the Modern Language Association, the National Education Association, and the People for the American Way Foundation (among others), has released a Call to Action over censorship in response to threats of violence. The call to action was prompted by the Yale University Press's decision to remove cartoons featuring images of the Prophet Mohammed from a scholarly work, citing a fear of religiously-motivated violence.

"The failure to stand up for free expression emboldens those who would attack and undermine it. It is time for colleges and universities in particular to exercise moral and intellectual leadership," the groups said in the statement. 

"Self-censorship is a way of avoiding issues that should be addressed and avoiding responsibility for being part of the conversation," said Joan E. Bertin, NCAC's Executive Director. "The right to free speech is meaningless if it can be defeated simply by saying that someone might take offense and lash out."  

Actually there are words.  St. Louis University recently told the College Republicans that they can't bring David Horowitz to campus.  One of the members of this coalition, the American Association of University Professors, said it best this week:

"Now that St. Louis University has cancelled a scheduled October speech by conservative activist David Horowitz, it joins the small group of campuses that are universities in name only. The free exchange of ideas is not just a comforting offshoot of higher education; it defines the fundamental nature of the enterprise. As the AAUP has long asserted, all recognized campus groups have the right to invite any speakers they wish. The College Republicans exercised that right. There should not have been a mechanism in place for the administration to review the offer to Horowitz and withdraw it. The administration's claim to support academic freedom has been hollowed out by the practical and symbolic effects of this one public act. A campus that enforces ideological conformity supports indoctrination, not education. I call on St. Louis University to apologize to its students and faculty and to reissue the invitation. The motto "Abandon Ideas All Who Enter Here" is not one that serves our country well."