Court Opinion

ID: 9425209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:14:03.914189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:54.039406
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Rehnquist,
with whom The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Blackmun join,
dissenting.
We held in Healy v. James, 408 U. S. 169, 180 (1972), that “state colleges and universities are not enclaves immune from the sweep of the First Amendment.” But that general proposition does not decide the concrete case now before us. Healy held that the public university there involved had not afforded adequate notice and hearing of the action it proposed to take with respect to the students involved. Here the Court of Appeals found, and that finding is not questioned in this Court’s opinion, that “the issue arises in the context of a student dismissal, after service of written charges and after a full and fair hearing, for violation of a University rule of conduct.” 464 F. 2d 136, 138.
Both because I do not believe proper exercise of our jurisdiction warrants summary reversal in a case dependent in part on assessment of the record and not squarely governed by one of our decisions, and because I have serious reservations about the result reached by the Court, I dissent from the summary disposition of this case.
I
Petitioner Papish has for many years been a graduate student at the University of Missouri. Judge Stephenson, writing for the Court of Appeals in this case, summarized her record in these words:
“Miss Papish’s academic record reveals that she was in no rush to complete the requirements for her grad*674uate degree in Journalism. She possesses a 1958 academic degree from the University of Connecticut; she was admitted to graduate school at the University of Missouri in September in 1963; and although she attended school through the fall, winter, and summer semesters, she was, after 6 years of work, making little, if any, significant progress toward the achievement of her stated academic objective. At the time of her dismissal, Miss Papish was enrolled in a one-hour course entitled ‘Research Journalism’ and in a three-hour course entitled ‘Ceramics 4.’ In the semester immediately preceding her dismissal, she was enrolled only in ‘Ceramics 3.’ ” 464 F. 2d, at 138 n. 2.
Whatever may have been her lack of ability or motivation in the academic area, petitioner had been active on other fronts. In the words of the Court of Appeals:
“3. On November 1, 1967, the Faculty Committee on Student Conduct, after notice of charges and a hearing, placed Miss Papish on disciplinary probation for the remainder of her student status at the University. The basis for her probation was her violation of the general standard of student conduct.... This action arose out of events which took place on October 14, 1967 at a time when the University was hosting high school seniors and their parents for the purpose of acquainting them with its educational programs and other aspects of campus life. She specifically was charged, inter alia, with openly distributing, on University grounds, without the permission of appropriate University personnel, two non-University publications of the Students for Democratic Society (SDS). It was alleged in the notice of charges, and apparently established at *675the ensuing hearing, that one of these publications, the New Left Notes, contained ‘pornographic, indecent and obscene words, “f — ,” “bull s — ,” and “sh--s.” ’ The notice of charges also recites that the other publication, The CIA at College: Into Twilight and Back, contained ‘a pornographic and indecent picture depicting two rats apparently fornicating on its cover . . .
“4. Some two weeks prior to the incident causing her dismissal, Miss Papish was placed on academic probation because of prolonged submarginal academic progress. It was a condition of this probation that she pursue satisfactory work on her thesis, and that such work be evidenced by the completion and presentation of several completed chapters to her thesis advisor by the end of the semester. By letter dated January 31, 1969, Miss Papish was notified that her failure to comply with this special condition within the time specified would result in the termination of her candidacy for a graduate degree.” Id., at 138-139, nn. 3, 4.
It was in the light of this background that respondents finally expelled petitioner for the incident described in the Court’s opinion. The Court fails to note, however, two findings made by the District Court with respect to the circumstances under which petitioner hawked her newspaper near the memorial tower of the University:
“The Memorial Tower is the central unit of integrated structures dedicated to the memory of those students who died in the Armed Services in World Wars I and II. Other adjacent units include the Student Union and a Non-Sectarian chapel for prayer and meditation. Through the Memorial Arch pass parents of students, guests of the University, stu*676dents, including many persons under 18 years of age and high school students.” 331 F. Supp. 1321, 1325 n. 4.
“The plaintiff knowingly and intentionally participated in distributing the publication to provoke a confrontation with the authorities by pandering the publication with crude, puerile, vulgar obscenities.” Id., at 1325.
II
I continue to adhere to the dissenting views expressed in Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, 408 U. S. 901 (1972), that the public use of the word “M-f-” is “lewd and obscene” as those terms were used by the Court in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942). There the Court said:
“There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.” Id., at 571-572.
But even were I convinced of the correctness of the Court’s disposition of Rosenfeld, I would not think it should control the outcome of this case. It simply does not follow under any of our decisions or from the language of the First Amendment itself that because peti*677tioner could not be criminally prosecuted by the Missouri state courts for the conduct in question, she may not therefore be expelled from the University of Missouri for the same conduct. A state university is an establishment for the purpose of educating the State’s young people, supported by the tax revenues of the State’s citizens. The notion that the officials lawfully charged with the governance of the university have so little control over the environment for which they are responsible that they may not prevent the public distribution of a newspaper on campus which contained the language described in the Court’s opinion is quite unacceptable to me, and I would suspect would have been equally unacceptable to the Framers of the First Amendment. This is indeed a case where the observation of a unanimous Court in Chaplinsky that "such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality” applies with compelling force.
Ill
The Court cautions that “disenchantment with Miss Papish’s performance, understandable as it may have been, is no justification for denial of constitutional rights.” Quite so. But a wooden insistence on equating, for constitutional purposes, the authority of the State to criminally punish with its authority to exercise even a modicum of control over the university which it operates, serves neither the Constitution nor public education well. There is reason to think that the “disenchantment” of which the Court speaks may, after this decision, become widespread among taxpayers and legislators. The system of tax-supported public universities which has grown up *678in this country is one of its truly great accomplishments; if they are to continue to grow and thrive to serve an expanding population, they must have something more than the grudging support of taxpayers and legislators. But one can scarcely blame the latter if, told by the Court that their only function is to supply tax money for the operation of the university, the “disenchantment” may reach such a point that they doubt the game is worth the candle.