Suit filed over academic freedom

By WND Staff

A professor at the California University of Pennsylvania is appealing his rights to free speech, due process and equal protection to the U.S. Supreme Court after the university allegedly restricted his choice of classroom materials, criticized his teaching performance, and suspended him with pay for a portion of one academic term because he used material of a religious nature in his classes.

In 1989, Dr. Dilawar Edwards taught a class at the California University of Pennsylvania, a four-year public university in Pennsylvania. Entitled “Introduction to Educational Media,” the course initially had focused on how teachers could successfully utilize various tools within the classroom such as photographs, chalkboards and projection equipment. However, Edwards decided to add a new emphasis to the course which would focus on censorship, bias, humanism and religion.

In May 1989, one of Edwards’ students complained to the university’s administration that he was using the class to facilitate religious ideas. Although the university had made an agreement with the faculty that they could choose any materials they wanted for their courses, university’s Vice President for School Affairs Nancy Nelson directed Edwards that he “cease and desist” from using “doctrinaire materials” of a religious nature. Although Edwards appealed this decision to John Pierce Watkins, the president of the university, Watkins approved of Nelson’s decision.

In 1991, Edwards brought suit against California University alleging that his First Amendment free speech rights, his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, and his rights under the Establishment Clause were violated. He later amended the complaint which included an equal protection claim.

Edwards continued teaching the IEM course using his own syllabus from 1991 to 1992, but in 1992, Professor David Campbell became chairman of the Education Department at California University. Campbell became concerned that Edwards had “interjected something that didn’t belong in the (IEM) course, a distinct bias on religion and religious questions.” Because of Campbell’s concern, the department’s faculty voted to reinstate an earlier syllabus of the course. When Edwards objected, Campbell promised that he would put the matter on the agenda for the faculty’s September 1993 meeting. He never did.

In the weeks prior to the fall 1993 term, Edwards’ classes were rearranged. He was assigned to teach an “Educational Tests and Measurements” course for the first time. Upset with the change, Edwards missed classes and walked out of others.

In an exchange between Edwards and Campbell during a 1993 September faculty meeting, Campbell called Edwards an “embarrassment to the department.” He even suggested that Edwards might be more suited to a “fundamentalist college” rather than a “public university.”

Because students were complaining about Edwards’ class, the faculty put together a packet of materials that they wanted to discuss with Edwards at the end of October. At the meeting, Edwards asked for time to review the materials. Upon Edwards’ request, Nelson relieved Edwards of his duties, with pay, until he was ready to address the university’s concerns. He remained suspended with pay for the remainder of the semester.

Upon being suspended, Edwards filed an amended complaint which contained a free speech claim, a retaliation claim, a due process claim and an equal protection claim. In 1997, the case went to trial, but the district court denied his motion. He appealed.

Eventually, after Edwards made various appeals in district and federal courts, there was no other place to go but the U.S. Supreme Court. Last Friday, the Pacific Justice Institute, a Sacramento-based organization dedicated to the defense of religious freedom and other basic constitutional civil liberties, filed a petition for certiorari before the United States Supreme Court. Attorney Craig L. Parshall, affiliate attorney for the Pacific Justice Institute, filed the petition.

“This is a classic case of selective viewpoint-based censorship which is openly hostile towards traditional Christian perspectives,” said attorney Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute.

Dacus explained that Edwards’ motives were to provide a balanced course for the students, and, according to Dacus, he succeeded.

“Some students testified that his course was so balanced, they didn’t even know what his faith was,” Dacus remarked.

The Pacific Justice Institute would like to see the Supreme Court rule that anti-religious viewpoints by the university are unconstitutional. Dacus believes that it is also unfair to the students at the university.

“A university is supposed to represent an open marketplace of ideas, not a witch trial for religious censorship,” said Dacus.

Dacus hopes that this won’t be the end of Edwards’ fight. Of the many cases brought before the U.S. Supreme Court every year, however, only a few are heard. All he can do now is wait.