case after she went to this event associated with other people at the event she was retaliated against by being terminated so we're not saying that restrain her from going to rather in retaliation for her doing so they terminated her the the any given term they could have decided not to for new the contract i think that's correct as long as they don't do so because in retaliation for exercise of her fundamental rights it's going to be my next question because they do so for any reason whoever he might be if the decision were open at the end of her contract term we now have to decide whether to continue with her or hire someone else so we have this other applicant who we've had some experience if the decision not to retain your client could be justified by the no on first amendment implication of hiring someone that they thought better qualified more qualified more acceptable whatever in other words a non first amendment reason doesn't permit us to focus on that employment decision with disregard for the history with the  factor in her germination decision was her exercise of person marriage rights that's enough for her to get to the trial and we think it's evidence that that clearly was the case and that she has that evidence to put the motive in the issue and therefore should she get t even under that says though i think that clearly they have not shown overriding a harm to their interest by her going to this to justify her determination i voted with the rest of my time for a vote of no thank you thank you for your court my name's tellus albums and i'm here on behalf of the defendants in this case who are officials of the clark community college i intend to focus on the two most fundamental reasons that this court should affirm the  claim first hudsons use of for college classroom to organize a field trip to the w t o protest was not protected by the first amendment  involving a matter of public concern and the call and it seriously jeopardize the interests of the college and effectively managing its institution second even if the first amendment did apply to this conduct the were entitled to qualified immunity there is no clearly established law in this area and these defendants were objectively reasonable in deciding not to rehire this part time temporary professor or economics one  now yesterday in san diego vs rowe the united states supreme court issued a decision that provides powerful support on both of these reasons with respect to the first amendment the san diego ca reaffirms that dispositive and important nature of conics public concern test the public concern requirement is based on a common sense realize ation that when the government is acting as an employer it must be given broad latitude in managing its employees without the fear of intrusive judicial oversight under the auspices of the first amendment but connick also recognizes that along with this deference to the government as an employer there's a recognition that the employees does have a first amendment right to engage in matters of political or social  right to and to not be retaliated against on matters that involve are that are of concern to the public at large and that's the threshold requirement requirement here that the plaintiffs was unable to court has recognized that the most important factor in the public concern test is the content of the expressive activity this plaintiff has admitted that content had to do with the decision not to rehire her she admits that it was fine to the college if she went to the w t o protest or if individuals who happened to be students at the college went for the w t o protest the only objection was to hudson taking her car college students to the w t o protest the content was not at issue this is not a case where the government was suppressing her right to associate  with like minded individuals at the w t o rally it's not a case where the the government has infringed her ability combine to i meant on matters of public concern or to criticize the government as an employer and then in the san diego case the supreme court has reaffirmed that and noted that typically when the when the public concern test is found it spied it is it is been satisfied by employees who have been terminated concerned whether that is what narrowest oshie ational concern is she is asserting a right to associate with her students but that is a matter of internal pedagogic concern now with the extra curricular affairs of a professor who wants to go outside the classroom and associate with students that may raise a closer question but that's not their kid i think the difference here if we're talking about public concern in a first amendment context ring is rooted in cases that deal with the government's ability to not hire individuals because of their membership in political party and as well as their interest in speaking out against the government so the case law on one hand we have a lack of authority provided by the plaintiff indicating that this associational interest to deal with the client of the  if she wants to be fact levi's or is fired for how does that differ this is different from that case if i think it was the reason it differs is because that's an extra curricular activity and i'm not a familiar with the cases protecting a professor and instructors choice of teaching methods does not rise to the level of protected expression so what we have here is the pedagogic concerns of the college certainly give it to to regulate the associate a limited right of association with students but fair i'm wondering if what you're doing is now you have a completely reasonable restrictions so yes i think yeah i mean that i will be moving on to that point i agree that if you assume that this association within the college curriculum between a professor and a student raises a public concern on similar to the other cases involving speech then we have a related argument under pickering and that's on in this case the call it should have legitimate concerns that outweighs any such interest that the employee had and analysis to associational activity and i think that provides a good framework i do think though that we have to realize that pickering and conic are focused on the interest of the public at the focus is not on internal matters of employment situations but really it is an interest in the marketplace of ideas to ensure that public employees who often have the best information about what the government is doing not be restricted in their ability to engage in a free and open debate and i think that says this case apart because here we don't really have a free and open debate we have a matter of association between a professor and the students which is really more of an internal matter subject to the prerogative of the employer in that and my final point is on the issue of qualified immunity i think if this court finds that the first amendment is implicated in this case it is virtually impossible for the pla qualified immunity will rarely if ever be overcome and that's under the pickering analysis and the recent san diego case to give further support to this heavy burden of qualified immunity because in san himself as a law enforcement officer in his listing he sold police uniforms including his own department's uniform so the court probably said your conduct you're you're not just in gauging explicit activity