Opinion ID: 384563
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Restrictions on Speech

Text: 18 The faculty sought to censure Willis for reasons related to the assignment dispute. Branson refused to allow the faculty to vote on the censure motion at a faculty meeting of September 13, 1977. Plaintiff Bellone, as spokesman for the English faculty, made a censure motion at the October 1977 faculty meeting which Branson ruled out of order. Defendants contend that Branson's rulings were based on his belief that faculty by-laws required personal charges to be brought before the University's judiciary committee and not before an open faculty meeting. 19 On October 13, 1977 Branson sent Bellone a registered letter, which in pertinent part read: 20 (Y)ou have moved that the faculty vote to censure your colleague and department chairman, Dr. Gladys Willis.... 21 We regard your continuing attempts to have this resolution voted on by the faculty most seriously. 22 Please treat this as a warning that any further breaches of commonly-accepted academic principles of fair play will be considered cause for appropriate discipline, including termination of your employment contract at Lincoln. 23 I am placing a copy of this letter together with your motion of September 13 in your personnel file. 24 Plaintiffs claim that Bellone was deterred from making the motion again, although no disciplinary action was taken against him. Subsequently, the faculty held a divisional meeting, in which the faculty met without President Branson in the chair. At this meeting, on November 15, 1977, the motion passed. The district court found Bellone has suffered no harm from Dr. Branson's letter warning him that he considered the continuation of attempts to censure Dr. Willis at faculty meetings to be grounds for discipline. Under the University's By-Laws, a hearing before the judiciary committee, composed of fellow faculty members, is required before a tenured faculty member such as Bellone can be terminated, and a fair hearing is required before any lesser discipline can be imposed.
25 At a faculty meeting on May 2, 1978, plaintiff Virginia Gunn criticized her department chairman, Joseph Rodgers, of the Languages and Linguistics Department. Later that same day Rodgers wrote a memo to the administration evaluating Gunn and criticizing her teaching abilities. Among the items mentioned by Rodgers was a reference to the inordinate amount of time (Gunn spent) writing memos and seeking bones of contention. Eight of the plaintiffs wrote to Rodgers on May 16, 1978 accusing him of making an unwarranted and personal attack upon Gunn, whom they termed an excellent teacher. That letter was distributed to the faculty together with a copy of the Rodgers' evaluation of Gunn, which had been attached with Gunn's approval. Subsequently, Branson sent a letter to seven of the signers objecting, in strong terms, to their letter and distribution and requesting their attendance at a meeting with him and University counsel. The faculty members had not been advised in the letter that the University contemplated that this was a hearing from which discipline might result. When they learned that at the hearing, they refused to participate further. No disciplinary action was ever taken as a result of the meeting. 26 Plaintiffs claim that defendants' conduct in this connection had a chilling effect on them and caused some of them emotional stress. The district court found that (i)t is traditional that communications regarding evaluations of teachers be kept confidential. Plaintiffs contend this finding is clearly erroneous, relying on unrebutted testimony that each faculty member may decide whether a confidential memo placed in his/her file ought to be released. 27
28 On October 6, 1975 Branson wrote to the LUC-AAUP bargaining committee criticizing three of the plaintiffs for allegedly inaccurate statements which had appeared in the West Chester Daily Local News several days earlier. Branson's letter read in part: 29 (Plaintiffs) Mr. Jones, Mr. Pierce and whoever else are responsible for that October 3, 1975 article are guilty of violating these three principles: the article is viciously inaccurate; the article shows no restraint; and the article is not balanced or fair or just. Inasmuch as the violated principles are those of AAUP, the University expects some action. No school can permit itself to be so irresponsibly maligned. (emphasis added) 30 In a second incident, the Philadelphia Bulletin published a story on May 26, 1976, quoting two of the plaintiffs on the effect of a proposed administration plan to cut faculty by one-third. On June 7, 1976, Branson wrote plaintiff Winchester the following letter, with copies to the University's attorneys and the Chairman of the Board of Trustees: 31 In the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin on Wednesday, May 26, 1976, you are quoted verbatim in a news story. A copy of the story is enclosed. Please check the statement attributed to you carefully. If this office does not receive a corrected statement from you by June 17, 1976, I shall interpret your failure to correct the statement as admission that what you are quoted as saying you did say. 32 Finally, on November 15, 1977 Branson wrote a letter to the University attorney which was placed in Plaintiff Pierce's personnel file. It stated in part: 33 Again the Union has engaged in completely unethical behavior. Pierce called the Daily Local News Reporter and read the AAUP letter to him! This deserves a strong letter from you to AAUP Washington. 34 Plaintiffs assert they viewed the above letters as threats of punishment for speaking to the press and that on some occasions they were deterred from such protected activity. 35 The court held that the October 6, 1975 letter was not a threat and did not prevent plaintiffs from maintaining contacts with the press. The other two letters were not specifically addressed by the trial court.
36 In late April 1978, faculty members, including most of the plaintiffs, announced their intention to conduct a picket or vigil during former President Ford's visit to the campus, the protest aimed at drawing attention to perceived problems at Lincoln. Plaintiffs had previously picketed the offices of the law firm representing the University on two occasions, and they had also picketed the office of the acting Board Chairman in Oxford, Pennsylvania. 37 On the night of April 25, 1978, preceding President Ford's visit of April 26, a number of the plaintiffs received this phone-delivered telegram at their homes: 38 Lincoln University considers any faculty picketing during term of collective bargaining (sic) to be in violation (sic) and unprofessional conduct, a cause for discipline up to dismissal. 39 J. Freedley Hunsicker, Jr. Attorney for the University Lincoln University Lincoln University, PA 19352 40 Hunsicker testified at trial that the telegram was authorized and sent by Branson except for two grammatical errors not affecting the telegram's substance. Some plaintiffs picketed the next day but no disciplinary action was taken. 41 Plaintiffs contend the telegram bans all faculty picketing without regard to time, place, manner, or subject matter. Plaintiffs assert the telegram affected the content and nature of the ensuing picketing. Defendants claim the telegram was sent on Branson's belief that the picketing would involve issues exclusively controlled by the grievance resolution provisions of the collective bargaining agreement in effect at that time. They state that when the University counsel determined that such issues were not involved, no disciplinary action was taken. The district court found: 42 The University's objection to picketing by members of the faculty was based upon a good faith belief that picketing over matters subject to the contractual grievance procedures was unlawful. As for those to whom the telegram of April 25, 1978 was sent, they were not at all deterred from exercising their rights. They appeared on the scene carrying signs protesting the issuance of the telegrams.