Opinion ID: 384563
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Branson Letters Regarding Press Communications

Text: 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.