In a landmark decision, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has decreed that officials from the University of Louisville may be held personally accountable for alleged retaliation against a professor.
The professor's contract was not renewed after he expressed skepticism towards gender ideology, a move that the court has now deemed a violation of his First Amendment rights.
According to The Post Millennial, the unanimous ruling was delivered by a three-judge panel, with Judge Andre Mathis penning the 22-page decision. He emphatically stated, "The First Amendment protects popular and unpopular speech alike," reinforcing the fundamental American principle of freedom of speech.
The professor at the center of this controversy, Allan Josephson, was a faculty member in the universitys medical school, specializing in psychiatry. In October 2017, he participated in a panel discussion on childhood gender dysphoria with the Heritage Foundation. Following his participation, the medical school demoted him, and his contract was subsequently not renewed in 2019. The ruling clarified, "Even if Josephsons participation in the Heritage Foundation panel were part of his official duties, that would not alter our conclusion that he engaged in protected speech at that event."
In response to his treatment, Josephson filed a lawsuit against university officials. He claimed that the defendants had infringed upon his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by "retaliating against him for the views he expressed on gender dysphoria." The defendants sought summary judgment, asserting that both sovereign immunity and qualified immunity shielded them from the lawsuit. However, the lower court rejected these motions, leading the defendants to appeal.
The appeals court ruling affirmed that Josephson "engaged in protected speech because it related to core academic functions," and that "a reasonable jury could find that each Defendant retaliated against Josephson because he engaged in speech protected by the First Amendment."
The ruling further elaborated, "Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Josephson, as we must, Josephson has shown that he engaged in protected speech when he spoke as part of the Heritage Foundation panel. Defendants should have known that Josephsons speech was protected and that retaliating against Josephson for his speech would violate his First Amendment rights. Therefore, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity."
Josephson's fight for justice continues, as he seeks reinstatement to his former position and the removal of any reference to the contract nonrenewal from his personnel file. This case serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing struggle for freedom of speech, particularly in academic settings, and the potential personal consequences for those who dare to voice unpopular opinions.
Login