Keefe v. Adams
Keefe v. Adams
Keefe v. Adams
16-1035
CRAIG KEEFE,
Petitioner,
v.
BETH ADAMS, ET AL.,
Respondents.
QUESTION PRESENTED
May a public college expel a student from a pro-
gram on the grounds that his speech outside class (and
even outside the campus) is inconsistent with profes-
sional conduct norms?
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Question Presented...................................................... i
Table of Contents ........................................................ ii
Table of Authorities ................................................... iii
Interest of the Amici Curiae ....................................... 1
Summary of Argument ............................................... 2
Argument .................................................................... 3
I. The Logic of the Decision Below Would Let
Colleges Punish Views That Administrators
See as Contrary to Professional Norms ................ 4
A. The Code of Ethics for Nurses Embodies
Ideological Commitments ................................ 4
B. The Opinion Below Cannot Be Defended
as Authorizing Only Viewpoint-Neutral
Restrictions ...................................................... 6
C. The Opinion Below Cannot Be Defended
as Simply Restricting Speech at the
Wrong Place and Time ................................... 7
D. University Student Speech Is Protected
Against Content-Based Restrictions
Even If They Are Viewpoint-Neutral .............. 9
II. The Decision Below Jeopardizes Speech in
Law Schools, Business Schools, and Many
Other University Programs ................................ 10
Conclusion ................................................................. 15
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Calif. Admin. Office of this Courts,
Cases
Other Authorities
nor did any person or entity, other than amici or their counsel,
make a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission
of this brief. The parties were notified of amicis intention to file
a brief more than ten days before the filing date, and have con-
sented to this filing.
2
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The opinion below authorizes college administra-
tors to expel students for their speech, whenever that
speechincluding speech entirely outside any curric-
ular projectsupposedly fails to comply with profes-
sional norms.
3
ARGUMENT
First Amendment protection is critical at universi-
ties, one of the vital centers for the Nations intellec-
tual life. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of
Va., 515 U.S. 819, 835-36 (1995). If uncorrected, the
opinion below, and other recent circuit decisions like
it, will set a dangerous precedent: Colleges will be able
to punish students for expressing their views, based
simply on administrators judgments that certain
speech is inconsistent with their subjective under-
standing of professionalism.
4
http://nursingworld.org/DocumentVault/Ethics-1/Code-of-Ethics-
for-Nurses.html; this is the code that the Colleges policy ex-
pressly adopts. Pet. A-21.
6
CONCLUSION
The logic of the decision below would let colleges
punish a vast range of student views that administra-
tors view as unprofessional speech. It would apply
not just to nursing students, but to students at law
schools, business schools, and other academic institu-
tions.
The decision cannot be defended on the grounds
that such restrictions are viewpoint-neutral, or cover
only speech at the wrong place and time. Indeed, it
relies on and endorses cases that have upheld view-
point-based restrictionsand, in any event, even
viewpoint-neutral but content-based restrictions on
university speech are unconstitutional.
16