800px-University_Hall_UToledoAlliance Defending Freedom and the Pacific Justice Institute have filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court that asks the court to review the case of a University of Toledo employee fired simply because she wrote an opinion column in her own personal name with a viewpoint that university officials didn’t like.

The university fired Crystal Dixon, who works in the school’s Human Resources department, after she wrote a short op-ed responding to a local newspaper’s editorial that compared the efforts of homosexual activists to the black civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. As an African-American, Dixon respectfully disagreed with the paper’s editorial. She did not mention her job at the university.

“Universities should be the marketplace of ideas, not environments where officials dictate conformity to their own views even outside of the campus,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel David Hacker. “Seventy years of legal precedent make it clear that government officials have no authority to rob public employees of their First Amendment freedom of speech outside of work on a non-work-related matter.”

“University officials cannot mandate that all employees, in their personal capacities, have the same opinion as they do. This much is extremely clear in First Amendment law,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot.

After the paper published Dixon’s column, the university wrote its own in opposition to Dixon’s point of view and then terminated her employment.

In 2006, the Supreme Court wrote, “It is well settled that ‘a State cannot condition public employment on a basis that infringes the employee’s constitutionally protected interest in freedom of expression.’” In a different case in 1995, the high court also wrote, “Even though respondents work for the Government, they have not relinquished ‘the First Amendment rights they would otherwise enjoy as citizens to comment on matters of public interest.’”

The brief filed with the Supreme Court in Dixon v. University of Toledo explains that the university “fired Dixon for writing the op-ed, because they deemed it not in ‘accord’ with the ‘values’ of the University of Toledo. They ignored that she wrote as a citizen and it was the university who publicly exposed her as an employee. In [the university’s] view, any public disagreement with the university’s values, even though those values were neither the subject of the original editorial nor Dixon’s op-ed, warranted Dixon’s dismissal from employment.”

When Dixon sued over her termination, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit rejected her First Amendment claim because she was a public employee.

“In doing so, the Sixth Circuit ignored seventy years of precedent establishing that if ‘there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein,’” states the brief, which was filed together with Kevin Snider, chief counsel of Pacific Justice Institute and one of nearly 2,300 allied attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom.

Photo credit: Xurxo via Wikimedia Commons (CC-By-SA 3.0)

1 comment
  1. I wish them the best, however with closeted Justices like Kagan on the Court and other liberals, what chance does Freedom of Speech have nowadays?

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Historic Week for Professional Educators of Iowa After Moravia and Earlham Teachers Decertify Unions

WINDSOR HEIGHTS – Moravia and Earlham teachers made history this week after…

With Christ in the Voting Booth: The Foreword by Mike Huckabee

Today starts a series of posts excerpted from my book, With Christ…

Reflecting on the First Half of 2018

Congressman David Young: 2018 is quickly passing by and it’s important to reflect on our accomplishments as a community and country, and continue to strive towards improvements for Iowa.

Congresswoman Diane Black Introduces Legislation to Protect Conscience

Congresswoman Diane Black (R-TN) introduced H.R. 940, the Health Care Conscience Rights Act (HCCRA), to defend conscience rights against HHS mandate.