educate and prepare teachers to become public school teachers i completed two months of preprogram activities in the spring of twenty thirteen i can omit stuff course modules that we had to complete and  i was preparing for the summer when we continue our graduate studies and our preparation but on the first day of the program the defendant anyway she removed me by email to a letter that was  in the program preventing us from helping the neediest students and from continuing the work i did with me to be students with all my students so i wanted to address two things i was speaking the  was completely understand that i didn't have any examples of conduct is it actually isn't the first time that conduct and speech get confused there's a case called people's first as the university of missouri that talks about how conduct rules get  have failed to meet our requirements because you are no longer in good standing with the relay graduate school of education it was clear from the materials that his older men had been provided including the fellow commitment form that she had to remain in good standing with her partnering educational institute here was the relay graduate school of education and she failed to do so and that was the basis for her removal from the fellowship program she couldn't continue in the fellowship if she were not also in ruled in pursuing her master studies admission to the program in that determination was up to them in the final commitment form made clear that the graduate school would make its own determinations about admission to good standing you know she's claiming viewpoint discrimination and we don't even know what she said i really took it so badly let's absolutely correct your honor we don't know what she said if we don't know what speech is actually at issue here and ask for the claim of viewpoint discrimination the only defendants remaining here are lansky and anyway there's no allegation that either of them ever deleted or exercise control over ms or about speech that she made in any online forum so to the claim about viewpoint discrimination there's absolutely no allegations in the complaint that would support that and i would like to emphasize that particularly with respect to mr lansky there's no allegation that he had any involvement whatsoever in ms automats removal from the program all we know from the complaint is that after she was removed from the program she had one phone conversation with him we don't know exactly what happened in that conversation and again as to his way there's no allegation that she was motivated by ms it or meant speech when she communicated that his older man was removed because she was no longer in good standing with really i'm turning briefly to the other claims with respect to equal protection that claim is based on the alleged first amendment violation and as a result there rises and falls with th first amendment claim they coalesce and because there is no plausible allegation of a first amendment violation there's also no equal protection violation here with respect to procedural due process there are no allegations that support  constitutionally protected property interest this was an at will relationship and therefore the only available process that she might have pursued was an article seventy eight proceeding she was entitled to know more than that in finally with respect to section  hundred five the alleged conspiracy there are no possible allegations just to suggest that two people conspired and furthermore there is no allegation of any kind of invidious discriminatory animus based on race or similar classification and the district court see a spontaneous or took an analysis of whether to grant leave to repeat in determines that it would be futile here because of substantive defects we'd ask this court to affirm that determination and to  all which had to do with the unprofessional conduct if you actually read through the removal letter she posited two reasons one of which is hers the second is to his ability to be motivated by the speech as i explained in my paperwork really did not receive the the e mail address and as i proved with one of my other touch me it's why it was one of those people so i would say she's definitely more possibly related than relay who may or may not have been an audience to any of the speech at all and then  were placed because that was who would have forwarded the speech or who had access to the speech at all and so i do think there is a scenario under which that is acceptable  the students are supposed to be free to criticize the government this must be free to criticize their faculty in the decisions that they made in placing us and what their goals were and why they were not meeting them so i want to i would like