Can professor squelch student’s abortion speech?
December 8, 2009 by Taylor HanniganPosted in: From the Courts, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views
The student chose abortion as her topic for a public speaking assignment. When her professor told her to pick something else, she sued.
Franchesca O’Neal was a student in Professor Charles Falcon’s speech communications class at San Antonio College. When it was time to pick a topic for a public speaking assignment, she chose abortion.
But Falcon banned the topic, saying it would be disruptive and would interfere with his goal of teaching students how to present speeches effectively.
O’Neal filed a First Amendment free speech claim, but the court rejected it.
Falcon’s ban on the topic was justified by “legitimate pedagogical concerns.” Based on his experience, he said abortion was a topic that would interfere with his ability to teach students how to present speeches effectively.
He also claimed allowing a speech on abortion would “imping[e] the rights of other students to receive the best classroom training possible.”
The court agreed. Abortion is a heated topic, it said, and Falcon had a legitimate concern that allowing speeches about it would shift the class focus away from communication skills.
Cite: O’Neal v. Falcon.
Did the court get it right? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.
HigherEdMorning delivers the latest HigherEd news once a week to the inboxes of over 200,000 HigherEd professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to HigherEdMorning!
Tags: abortion, First Amendment, free speech, San Antonio College
Loading ...
December 9th, 2009 at 11:44 am
No. I believe the professor should have been able to use the speech to teach students how to handle and present controversial topics. After all, part of speech-making is convincing skeptics of the validity of your ideas.
But this issue has been complicated by the student herself when she filed a second lawsuit against the school because Falcon gave her a “B” grade. Her lawsuit states “I would even be willing to let the B stand to blow the back of his [Falcon's] head out.” Thus causing the school to get a restraining order against her.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/Preventing_a_massacre.html
December 9th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Re: “I believe the professor should have been able to use the speech to teach students how to handle and present controversial topics.”
The speech course was probably introductory. Crowd control would more likely be a graduate-level seminar. Most universities have one or more designated areas for unfettered exchange of ideas. I doubt any university has an anytime, anywhere, any classroom policy for free speech.
Besides, it’s not clear that the student’s motivation included being taught anything. With further information indicating her psycho tendencies, I would give both the professor and the courts a thumbs up. The provided link to a follow-up story was very informative:
“If I could shoot the defendant dead within the limits of the law in exchange for every penny I have asked for, I would shoot him dead and walk away penniless.” Those words, tucked into a lawsuit filed this summer by a San Antonio College student, Francesca O’Neal, against her speech professor, Charles Falcon, prompted district officials to seek a restraining order against the student, effectively kicking her out of school.
O’Neal claims Falcon ridiculed her in front of the class by saying he did not understand a speech she gave. Falcon gave her a B in the class, hurting her chances of eventually becoming a Supreme Court justice, O’Neal said in the lawsuit. She sued for $5 million and an A in the class.
In a pleading filed in August, O’Neal said she knew murder was a crime, but wanted to shoot Falcon dead. Alarmed, district officials obtained a restraining order against O’Neal and provided a police escort for Falcon. In a court hearing last week, O’Neal broke down crying and admitted that she could be susceptible to a psychotic break. The judge extended the restraining order until trial in December.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:14 am
The professor’s ban and the court’s upholding of it are both wrong. Talking about abortion does not rise to the level of the shouting ‘Fire’ in a theater standard regarding free speech. If Francesca had pursued appeals the lower court would have likely been overturned. The second lawsuit sounds frivolous, but the restraining order is clearly posturing. Sounds like everyone involved is either a gnat-strainer or a camel-swallower.
December 10th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
There is not enough information in this story to make an informed judgment. What did the syllabus or assignment say? If it said that students should avoid choosing controversial topics for their speeches, or that all speech topics were subject to the professor’s approval, then his denial of the student’s topic was surely on solid ground. If it suggested that students could give speeches on whatever they liked, then his veto strikes me as very questionable.
December 11th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Sorry Stephen Regan but I disagree. O’Neal’s 2nd lawsuit stated in black and white that she wanted either money & a better grade or the opportunity to kill her professor. This was from an individual with an attitude problem and the military training to back up her threat. Therefore this was not a tempest in a teacup but a potential Virgina Tech and the school was right to treat it as such. And if the school did not file a restraining order and if O’Neal did end up hurting Falcon (or anybody else on campus), the victims could have sued the school for ignoring this known threat.
Michael Soso: I still feel that the professor should have been able to teach his students how to make and listen to speeches, even if the listener does not agree with the topic. Where else should they learn this skill if not in Speech class?
Should Speech classes be limited to topics like the cuteness of kittens or how Wikipedia has changed students’ research?
July 28th, 2010 at 9:01 am
I think the professor, in the future, should just make a more controlled assignment to avoid these problems. For example, students could be told that for their persausive speech, they may choose one of three options:
1) Run for Student Council president.
2) Sell a product.
3) Convince the dean to fund a student research project in your field.
This would eliminate the controversial topic field. If a student tried to pick abortion, the professor could say that was not one of the three assignment options. This would not impinge on free speech; it would simply be giving more specific parameters for a class project.
I am all for free speech. However, it sounds as if the young woman in question has severe psychological issues – anger management problems and possibly delusions of grandeur. Her “B” in what is likely a “100s” level course could affect her chances of becoming a Supreme Court justice? First, I don’t really think a B in a freshman course would be much of an issue if she rose to the level of being a candidate for SCOTUS and while it is of course possible that this would happen, such a goal is like saying you want to be a famous rapper or Hollywood actor. Yeah, it could happen, but chances are pretty remote. Now, once being accused of threatening to kill a professor – that might hurt her chances…