FIRE Letter to Millsaps College, December 18, 2024

December 18, 2024
Frank Neville
Office of the President
Millsaps College
1701 North State Street
Jackson, Mississippi 39210
Sent via U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail (frank.neville@millsaps.edu)
Dear President Neville:
FIRE, a nonpartisan nonprofit that defends free speech,1 is concerned that Millsaps College has
violated its own policy by disciplining Professor James Bowley for sharing his personal
opinions about the outcome of the 2024 presidential election with his students via his college
email. Presidential elections are the subject of intense national debate, and Millsaps affords
faculty the right to express themselves on matters of public concern. Bowley’s email to his
students is thus protected, and Millsaps has no grounds to pursue investigative or disciplinary
action.
On November 6—the day after the election—Bowley sent an email to the students in his
“Abortion and Religions” class canceling that day’s session to “mourn and process this racist
fascist country[.]”2 Bowley canceled this class because he knew the political leanings of the
three students enrolled in the class and believed they would be upset with the election results.
On November 8, Interim Provost Stephanie Rolph informed Bowley that he had been placed on
temporary administrative leave pending review, specifically for using his “Millsaps email
account to share personal opinions with [his] students.”3
Under Millsaps’ own rules, the institution may not discipline or investigate a faculty member
for sharing his or her opinions with their students. According to Millsaps’ “Major Facts,” the
institution holds “freedom of speech and expression” as fundamental principles.4 Millsaps also
specifically states that when “speaking or writing as a citizen, the teacher is free from
1
For more than 20 years, FIRE has defended freedom of expression, conscience, and other individual rights
on America’s college campuses. You can learn more about our mission and activities at thefire.org.
2
Email on file with author.
3
Notice of Leave Pending Review from Stephanie Rolph, Interim Provost, to James Bowley, professor (Nov. 8,
2024) (on file with author).
4
Major Facts, Policies and Procedures, Expression and Assembly Policy, Personal Expression, MILLSAPS
COLL., 36 (updated Aug. 2024), https://millsaps.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Major-Facts-8.28.24.pdf
[https://perma.cc/EBL7-HCRJ].
510 Walnut Street, Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19106

Phone: 215-717-3473 Fax: 215-717-3440
thefire.org
2
institutional censorship or discipline[.]”5 That written commitment is laudable and would lead
any faculty member to reasonably believe they have expressive rights commensurate with
those guaranteed by the First Amendment. Therefore, while Millsaps is a private institution
not explicitly bound by the First Amendment, First Amendment jurisprudence necessarily
informs Millsaps’ commitments to free expression and academic freedom.
Bowley’s expression of opinion regarding the election falls squarely within his right to speak as
a private citizen on matters of public concern.6 Expressions of public concern include speech
that “can be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to
the community[.]”7 A presidential election is a paradigmatic example of such a matter. And,
while it came in an email to students, Bowley’s opinion was also expressed in his capacity as a
private citizen. The “critical question” in determining whether the speech was that of an
employee or private citizen is “whether the speech at issue is itself ordinarily within the scope
of an employee’s duties, not whether it merely concerns those duties.”8 Institutions of higher
education ordinarily employ faculty to teach students, to engage in scholarship, and to provide
service to the institution. Briefly sharing an opinion, including criticism of an election
outcome, is not within the scope of faculty members’ responsibilities, and students would not
reasonably interpret it as speech on behalf of the institution.9
Even if Bowley’s speech were to be considered within the scope of his job duties,10 many U.S.
circuit courts have recognized protection for a great deal of faculty expression,11 including
“speech related to matters of public concern, whether that speech is germane” to the class or
not.12 This is because the Supreme Court has recognized that higher education depends on
“wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth out of a multitude of
tongues, rather than through any kind of authoritative selection.” 13 And this is especially true
of political speech—such as that at issue here—which lies at the core of the First Amendment’s
5
Faculty Handbook, Faculty Rights and Privileges, Academic Freedom, MILLSAPS COLL., 4 (Revised 2023) (on
file with author).
6
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 140 (1983).
7
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 453 (2011).
8
Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228, 240 (2014).
9
According to the Fourth Circuit, for speech to be “pursuant to official duties,” the speech must be tied to a
“more specific or direct employee duty[.]” Adams v. Trs. of Univ. of N.C.-Wilmington, 640 F.3d 550, 564 (4th
Cir. 2011). Bowley has neither a specific nor direct duty to comment on election outcomes. Additionally, none
of Bowley’s expression can reasonably be interpreted as speaking on behalf of Millsaps. It is commonly
understood that when using their college email, faculty members are speaking for themselves rather than
conveying that they speak for their employer.
10
Faculty speech as a general rule may not be protected if it occurs pursuant to their normal job duties.
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006).
11
Demers v. Austin, 746 F.3d 402, 412 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Buchanan v. Alexander, 919 F.3d 847 (5th Cir.
2019).
12
Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 507 (6th Cir. 2021) (in the college setting, “there are three
critical interests at stake (all supporting robust speech protection): (1) the students’ interest in receiving
informed opinion, (2) the professor’s right to disseminate his own opinion, and (3) the public’s interest in
exposing our future leaders to different viewpoints.”).
13
Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967) (cleaned up).
3
protections. As the Supreme Court has said, “[w]hatever differences may exist about
interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major
purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs.”14
Millsaps furthermore failed to afford Bowley due process. The college summarily placed
Bowley on administrative leave pending a review only two days after Bowley sent the email and
without any showing that Bowley’s continued teaching presented any kind of threat. This is
inconsistent with the most basic principles of procedural due process, including the right to an
initial hearing before punishment. Colleges must provide faculty members with “an
opportunity to explain [their] version of the facts” before imposing any sort of punishment,
including administrative leave pending a review.15
We accordingly request a substantive response to this letter no later than January 3, 2024,
confirming Millsaps will drop the review into Bowley’s expression, allow him to resume his job
duties, and decline to mete out any further disciplinary action against him.
Sincerely,
Haley Gluhanich
Senior Program Officer, Campus Rights Advocacy
Cc: Stephanie Rolph, Interim Provost
Encl.
14
Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966).
15
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 581-82 (1975) (school violated due process principles when it suspended a
student without first gathering facts related specifically to the student, confronting the student with the
facts, and giving the student an opportunity to explain). Placing Bowley on administrative leave is a
disproportional response to Bowley’s speech, which merely shared his opinion. Administrative leave should
be reserved for situations where the faculty member’s presence would constitute a continuing danger to
himself, other individuals or property, or would seriously imperil the operation of the college, none of which
is present here.

FIRE Letter to Millsaps College, December 18, 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRE Letter to Millsaps College, December 18, 2024

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRE Letter to Millsaps College, December 18, 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

December 18, 2024

Sent via U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail (frank.neville@millsaps.edu)

Dear President Neville:

510 Walnut Street, Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19106

Cc: Stephanie Rolph, Interim Provost

You might also like