Bloomberg Law’s combination of innovative analytics, research tools and practical guidance provides you with everything you need to be a successful litigator.
By Kimberly Robinson
Dec. 30 — Statements that sexual relationships between teachers and underage students were “fine” properly led to the denial of a student's application to become a student teacher, the Ninth Circuit held Dec. 29.
The University of Hawaii didn't violate student Mark Oyama's First Amendment rights by denying his application, Judge Kim M. Wardlaw's opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said.
The court spent much of its time searching for the right framework to analyze Oyama's First Amendment claim and landed on a hybrid one for evaluating free speech claims brought by university students seeking training for public employment.
It adopted a “certification” framework, merging elements of the U.S. Supreme Court's student speech doctrine and public employee speech doctrine embodied in Tinker v. Des Moines Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) and Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), respectively.
A number of other federal courts have seemingly applied a similar framework, though the “doctrinal bases for these decisions differ: some invoke student speech doctrine, some rest on public employee speech doctrine, and at least one presents a new test altogether,” the court said.
Neither the student speech doctrine—assessing the regulation of student speech at K-12 institutions—nor the public employee speech doctrine—assessing the regulation of government employees' speech—provided an adequate method because they failed to consider “the role of academic freedom at public universities,” the court said.
The student speech regime failed to account for the “ ‘special niche' universities occupy ‘in our constitutional tradition' ”—namely, training the “next generation of professionals,” the court said.
Moreover, the public employee regime was inadequate because as “a student at the University of Hawaii, Oyama enjoyed greater freedom to test his ideas, critique professional conventions, and develop into a more mature professional than he would as a government employee.”
Several circuits—including the First, Sixth, Tenth and Eleventh—have adopted similar “certification” frameworks, the court said.
It added that even though “these decisions lack a common doctrinal foundation, they appear to provide a rule we find instructive here: universities may consider students' speech in making certification decisions, so long as their decisions are based on defined professional standards, and not on officials' personal disagreement with students' views.”
The Ninth Circuit fashioned its own test, saying that the university's action here passed constitutional muster because it “related directly to defined and established professional standards, was narrowly tailored to serve the University's core mission of evaluating Oyama's suitability for teaching, and reflected reasonable professional judgment.”
Refusing to approve Oyama for student teaching—a necessary step to becoming a teacher in Hawaii—because he said “that ‘it would be fine' for ‘a 12-year-old girl' to have a ‘consensual' relationship with her teacher” was directly related to the university's duty to ensure that Oyama met state and federal teaching standards, the court said.
Oyama's statements were inconsistent with rules prohibiting such relationships and requiring teachers to report them, the court said.
Judges Marsha Berzon and John B. Owens joined the opinions.
Eric A. Seitz, Della Au Belatti and Sarah R. Devine, all of Honolulu, represented Oyama. Christine Tamashiro, Darolyn H. Lendio and Ryan M. Akamine, all of Honolulu, represented the defendants.
To contact the reporter on this story: Kimberly Robinson in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jeffrey D. Koelemay at email@example.com
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)