��֭����

Here at ��֭����, we often come across speech-related policies and practices with disturbing implications. But perhaps one of the most unsettling practices is compelling speech — that is, attempting to force an individual to voice particular statements or sentiments even if he doesn’t endorse them.

This scenario is not relegated to dystopian novels. According to former Rhode Island College graduate student William Felkner, it happened to him in 2004 when an instructor gave him a failing grade after he refused to publicly express beliefs he didn’t hold. 

Unfortunately, his nearly two-decades-long legal battle, supported by ��֭����, ended in defeat on April 20, when the Rhode Island Supreme Court qualified immunity to the college officials who Felkner alleged penalized him for refusing to toe an ideological line.

Felkner’s story

In fall 2004, Felkner was a graduate student at Rhode Island College, a small public school in Providence. 

According to Felkner, a professor in the School of Social Work required he and his classmates advocate on behalf of one of a limited list of social welfare programs — none of which Felkner supported. Later, as part of the assignment, students would be expected to lobby the state General Assembly in support of their chosen issue. 

On multiple occasions, to multiple professors, Felkner expressed his objections to the project, proposing ways he might complete it without arguing against his beliefs.  Each time, he was turned down. When Felkner did not complete the assignment according to the specifications, he received a failing grade. 

Rhode Island College violates freedom of conscience

Press Release

The School of Social Work at Rhode Island College has threatened to reduce a student’s grades if he chooses not to lobby the Rhode Island legislature for policies with which he disagrees.

Read More

Ultimately, he complete his masters degree.

Recognizing that the college and its officials had no right to penalize him for refusing to publicly lobby for a cause he didn’t support, Felkner sued.

However, the who heard Felkner’s case sided with the college officials, granting them summary judgment on the theory that the School of Social Work’s actions served an academic purpose. Still, Felker continued to fight back. He appealed the decision to the Rhode Island Supreme Court in 2016, and FIREfiled an amicus brief on his behalf. 

We argued the trial judge did not properly review the evidence, including the testimony of James Ryczek, the director of field education at RIC’s Social Work Program. We relayed details from the factual record before the court, including that Ryczek “testified at his deposition that social work students were required to lobby for a position chosen by the school, even if it conflicted with their personal beliefs.” 

Forcing a student to lobby for a cause in which he does not believe, we argued, is blatantly unconstitutional.

The court , drawing a clear distinction between requiring a student to debate a topic from a specific perspective in a classroom setting and requiring him to do so in public:

The fact that a student may be required to debate a topic from a perspective that is contrary to his or her own views may well be reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. That relationship is far more tenuous, however, when the student is told that he or she must then lobby for that position in a public forum.

With that, we hoped the matter had been put to rest. 

But that hope was quickly shattered. The issue of whether the defendants retaliated against Felkner was still an open question of fact. And, on remand, the trial court once again with the defendants, granting them qualified immunity. Again, the court viewed Felkner’s claims as a mere academic dispute, not a violation of his First Amendment rights. 

After nearly 20 years in legal limbo, Felkner’s First Amendment rights were not vindicated, and the school officials who violated them will face no consequences for their actions.

So, again, Felkner appealed. And, again, FIREfiled an amicus brief.

In this brief, filed in June 2022, we told the Rhode Island Supreme Court, per the trial court’s earlier ruling of summary judgment, it must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to Felkner. This would mean denying the defendants qualified immunity because, at the time of their actions, clearly established law affirmed Felkner’s right to be free from retaliation for refusing to publicly speak against his own beliefs.

Unfortunately, the appeal failed. The Rhode Island Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision, affirming the “academic dispute” characterization despite having rejected it just three years prior. 

After nearly 20 years in legal limbo, Felkner’s First Amendment rights were not vindicated, and the school officials who violated them will face no consequences for their actions.

A bad precedent

This result is a blow to the fundamental rights of college students everywhere. It begs the question: Should students avoid entire fields of study, knowing they may legally be retaliated against for refusing to compromise their values? 

And it undermines the teaching and learning function of higher ed institutions. As we wrote in our brief, “Granting public college officials the protection of qualified immunity when they violate students’ rights undermines the protection of student speech that guarantees the ‘robust exchange of ideas’ necessary to train our nation’s future leaders.”

Felkner’s unwillingness to bend his principles to pressure from administrators, even when his degree was on the line, is admirable, even and especially in the face of a legal loss.

At ��֭����, we believe in the vision of a robust education: the meeting of minds, the free exchange of ideas, the heated debate. First and foremost, we believe in the right not to be compelled to speak against our own beliefs, which underpins all of these practices. 

When speech is compelled, our perception of reality is distorted, as we cannot reasonably assume that a person’s public statements reflect his true beliefs. Felkner’s unwillingness to bend his principles to pressure from administrators, even when his degree was on the line, is admirable, even and especially in the face of a legal loss. Likewise, his determination to defend his First Amendment rights for 18 years — almost as long as FIREhas existed — underscores the fact that doing this work is a marathon, not a sprint.

In that spirit, FIREwill continue apace, passionately defending First Amendment rights whenever and wherever they’re threatened, ensuring people can speak, listen, and learn free from coercion.