The Fundamental Values Of Social Work

A student who had objected to showing the firm Fahrenheit 9/11 and had not finished degree requirements had his suit against Rhode Island College School of Social Work and a number of individual defendants dismissed on qualified immunity grounds.

The dismissal was affirmed by the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

In response to the student’s expressed concerns about the film

The sponsor of the film presentation, Professor Daniel Weisman (Professor Weisman), responded to Felkner that the SSW was “not committed to balanced presentations” and that, “[f]or the most part, Republican ideology is oppositional” to the fundamental values of the social work profession. Nevertheless, Professor Weisman did show the rebuttal film suggested by Felkner to the same classes that saw the first film because he felt it was “the reasonable thing to do.”

Issues ensued with a group presentation

After complaints from group members that Felkner was not participating in accordance with class expectations, Professor Ryzcek disaggregated Felkner’s grade from the group. He went on to give Felkner a failing grade for the debate and on his paper, and ultimately gave Felkner a C-plus grade for the course. Felkner appealed his failing grades for the paper and the debate to the Academic Standing Committee (ASC).

His appeals were not successful

The decision of the ASC was upheld in both instances. Felkner approached the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)  about his alleged mistreatment. RIC’s then-President, Nazarian, received a letter from FIRE, dated January 28, 2005, stating that RIC should reconsider the appeal and withdraw its policies because they are unconstitutional. In a letter, Nazarian replied to FIRE that no RIC student had been punished for failing to embrace a certain political position.

At the end of the course, Professor Ryczek informed Dr. Olsen that he would not teach the second half of the class the next semester because, as an adjunct faculty member, managing Felkner required too much of his time. Felkner was moved to a section of the course taught by a full-time instructor. In an assignment that required approval by Professor Pearlmutter, Felkner proposed that he would form a group with students from other colleges to lobby RIC for an Academic Bill of Rights. Professor Pearlmutter rejected this proposal. Felkner then submitted a project request to lobby in favor of the then-governor’s proposed welfare-reform program. This suggestion was also rejected.

Subsequently, Professor Pearlmutter permitted Felkner to work on a project lobbying for the defeat of SB 525. Professor Pearlmutter told Felkner that she would penalize his grade on the project if he did not work on it with students from her class. Felkner, however, chose to work in a group with two individuals from outside of RIC. Additionally, Felkner audio-recorded an exchange with Professor Pearlmutter without her knowledge and went on to post a rough transcript of the conversation to the website he had created to expose what he characterized as the “liberal bias” at RIC. Several students approached Professor Pearlmutter about the confidentiality of the class being compromised by Felkner’s website postings. She allowed students to discuss their concerns about the website one day in class. Felkner asserted that his political ideology was “assail[ed]” in the classroom and that Professor
Pearlmutter would not give him the opportunity to respond. Felkner further asserted that Professor Pearlmutter unmistakably communicated that only liberal ideas could help the poor and advance the cause of social justice.

SB 525

a proposed amendment to a “temporary cash assistance program for Rhode Islanders having a difficult time making ends meet.” Felkner later requested permission from Professor Ryczek to advocate in opposition to SB 525 in the class debate because, according to Felkner, “SB 525 did not actually help people get off welfare with higher-paying jobs * * *.” Professor Ryczek refused to allow Felkner to change his debate position and required Felkner to argue in favor of SB 525. According to Felkner, Professor Ryczek told him that RIC was a “perspective school” and that if Felkner was to lobby on SB 525, it would need to be “in [RIC’s] perspective.” Additionally, Felkner wrote his policy paper from a perspective opposing the passage of SB 525.

Professor Perlmutter filed a complaint against the student with the Academic Standards Committee.

Further issues arose with respect to the completion of degree requirements and

In December 2007, Felkner filed the instant action in Providence County Superior Court, alleging multiple violations of the Rhode Island and United States constitutions.

Dismissal by the trial court was affirmed

The only claims against RIC in the amended complaint were for equitable relief. Accordingly, no claims against RIC remain as an institution because RIC is not a person, pursuant to § 1983. “This Court has recognized that ‘neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” under § 1983.’” Zab v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections, 269 A.3d 741, 746 (R.I. 2022) (quoting Pontbriand v. Sundlun, 699 A.2d 856, 868 (R.I. 1997)). Therefore, only the § 1983 claims against the individual defendants remained.

The court’s earlier order of remand is linked here.(Mike Frisch)