979 F.3d 128
2d Cir.2020Background
- Jeremy Collins, an online Communications 101 student at Charter Oak State College, posted a submitted assignment response on a course message board that criticized the assigned video and classroom materials in a humorous/ironic tone.
- The message board was college-provided, accessible only to enrolled students, the instructor (Rebecca Putt), and administrators, and designed as a pedagogical tool for assignments and discussion.
- Putt removed Collins’s post (and related comments), told him she would delete it because it "offended" her and others, gave him full credit but copied the response into a Word document, and offered guidance for future posts.
- Collins sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming First Amendment viewpoint discrimination and Fourteenth Amendment due‑process violations for failing to follow disciplinary policies; the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), applying Hazelwood.
- The Second Circuit affirmed: it held Hazelwood governs, Putt’s deletion was reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns, Collins failed to plausibly allege viewpoint discrimination, and his due process claim was subsumed by his First Amendment claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Collins) | Defendant's Argument (Putt/College) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable First Amendment standard: Hazelwood vs. Tinker | Tinker should govern because Collins’s post was personal expression, not school-sponsored | The post was school‑sponsored (response to assignment on college message board); Hazelwood applies | Hazelwood applies: post was part of a supervised, curriculum‑related activity on a college message board |
| Application of Hazelwood: deletion permissible if reasonably related to pedagogical concerns | Deletion was censorship of protected classroom speech; not justified pedagogically | Deletion was to keep message board focused on assignment responses and pedagogical aims | Deletion was reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns and thus permissible under Hazelwood |
| Viewpoint discrimination: whether deletion targeted Collins’s viewpoint | Putt deleted the post because she was offended by its viewpoint and disagreed with its perspective | Deletion targeted content/style (non‑responsive rant), not viewpoint; comparable critical but more measured posts remained | Collins failed to plausibly allege viewpoint discrimination; deletion targeted off‑topic content/style, not a prohibited viewpoint |
| Due process: failure to follow internal procedures / substantive due process claim | Defendants deprived Collins of process and used vague/offensiveness standard to censor speech | Collins had opportunity to be heard (emails, refund offer); no protected property/liberty interest in adherence to internal procedures; claim duplicates First Amendment | Due process claim fails: Collins received sufficient process and any substantive due‑process allegation is subsumed by the First Amendment claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) (schools may regulate school‑sponsored student speech if reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns)
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (school may regulate non‑sponsored student speech only to prevent material and substantial disruption)
- Peck ex rel. Peck v. Baldwinsville Cent. Sch. Dist., 426 F.3d 617 (2d Cir. 2005) (distinguishes Hazelwood/Tinker categories; applies Hazelwood to curriculum‑related activities)
- R.O. ex rel. Ochshorn v. Ithaca City Sch. Dist., 645 F.3d 533 (2d Cir. 2011) (applies Hazelwood to school‑sponsored online activity with school imprimatur)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: conclusory allegations insufficient to state plausible claim)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) (students entitled to opportunity for "informal give‑and‑take" as minimum process)
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995) (government may not discriminate against speech based on viewpoint)
- Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) ("giving offense" can be a viewpoint; disfavouring ideas because they offend is viewpoint discrimination)