On The Docket
David B. Brushwood, BSPharm, JD
In June 2024, this column summarized a legal case in which the dismissal of a student pharmacist from her pharmacy program was upheld based on the “broad discretion” that is granted by courts to academic institutions. According to a recent court ruling, that broad discretion may not extend to the denial of a student pharmacist’s constitutional right to freedom of speech.
Background
A student pharmacist maintained social media accounts under a pseudonym, where she posted about “song lyrics, fashion, and sexuality.” The social media accounts did not identify her as a student pharmacist and did not indicate any affiliation with her academic institution.
Shortly after the student’s studies began, she was informed by the college’s professional conduct committee that the committee had received an anonymous complaint about the student’s social media postings. After reviewing the posts, the committee concluded that they were “sexual,” “crude,” and “vulgar” in nature. The committee determined that the posts violated professionalism standards. The committee did not recommend that the student be disciplined.
The following academic year, the student was informed that the committee had received a second complaint similar to the first. The committee concluded that the posts were “a serious breach of the norms and expectations of the profession.” The committee voted to expel the student. The dean reversed this decision.
The student sued the university alleging a violation of her freedom of speech. The university moved for dismissal of the lawsuit. The student had graduated by the time the court reviewed the case, and the court dismissed the case, ruling that the student had suffered no adverse action because her expulsion was reversed. From this ruling, the student appealed.
Rationale
The appellate court first noted that academic institutions “have a special interest in regulating speech that materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.” The court also noted that “the leeway the First Amendment grants to schools in light of their special characteristics is diminished when the speech at issue occurs off campus.”
The court concluded that the student had plausibly alleged that the committee’s actions had a chilling effect on her right to free speech.
The court cited prior case law for the principle that “if student speech is unrelated to the curriculum and school-sponsored activities, and suppression of the speech does not further a legitimate pedagogical concern, then the First Amendment only permits suppression of the speech when it causes substantial disruption of, or material interference with, school activities.”
The court ruled that, based on the student’s complaint, the college’s treatment of her speech “clearly transgressed the school’s authority.”
The dismissal of the case was reversed. The case will proceed to trial or settlement.
Takeaways
The most important legal ruling in this case is that academic institutions have authority over professional activities only as they relate to the academic program. Individual student statements outside the academic setting cannot be controlled by academic institutions if the statements do not affect academics. Freedom of speech is not absolute, but it cannot be restricted without an academic reason.
Expectations for professionalism at schools and colleges of pharmacy should reflect standards of the pharmacy profession. Student pharmacists who cannot act professionally will fail as practicing pharmacists and it is the responsibility of schools and colleges of pharmacy to assure that graduates are trained in professionalism.
The self-regulated pharmacy profession, through its state licensing agencies, has begun to enforce standards for social media postings by pharmacists in their professional role, to protect the interests of patients and the public. Policies established by academic institutions should reflect these professional standards. Collaboration with the state licensing agency in the development of academic professionalism policies is a wise approach.
Although the court in this case did not directly address the issue, consideration of anonymous complaints concerning student pharmacists must be undertaken with extreme caution. ■