Expulsion Upheld

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a medical school’s expulsion of a student

Kieran Bhattacharya (“Appellant”) is a former medical student at the University of Virgnia [sic] School of Medicine (“UVA”). He claims that numerous UVA officials (collectively, “Appellees”) reprimanded, suspended, and then expelled him in violation of the First Amendment because of the views he expressed during a faculty panel — in other words, because of his protected speech. Appellees assert they took these actions against Appellant not because of his speech, but as a result of Appellant’s confrontational, threatening, behavior.

The district court sided with Appellees, holding at summary judgment that Appellant could point to no evidence that Appellees punished Appellant due to his speech. We agree. Appellant has failed to present evidence sufficient to create a triable issue as to whether his speech caused the actions UVA took against him. A medical school’s administrators have the authority to set the minimum standards of professionalism for conferral of a medical doctorate. Even more, they have the authority and obligation to ensure the safety of the school’s faculty and staff. Appellees appropriately exercised that authority with due regard for the Constitution.

At issue

On October 25, 2018, the student chapter of the American Medical Women’s Association hosted a faculty panel called “Microaggressions: Why Are ‘They’ So Sensitive?” Appellant attended that panel, and he claims to have been punished by UVA for certain statements he made, and questions he asked, on the topic of microaggressions.

The encounter was followed by further incidents that led to a suspension

In December 2018, UVA became aware that Appellant was posting about his suspension online. This included the photographs he took of the [Academic Standards and Achievement Committee]  members, which Appellant posted to the message board 4chan7 with the caption, “These are the f[***]gots ruining my life.” J.A. 1181. The message prompted posts from other users encouraging acts of violence against the ASAC members.

On December 30, 2018, UVA police met with UVA’s Threat Assessment Team to address Appellant’s behavior. They discussed the protective order Appellant’s ex-girlfriend obtained against Appellant; his multiple involuntary commitments; his threats against faculty members at UVA; and his “pattern of retaliatory behavior.” J.A. 1320. The police decided to issue a no trespass order (“NTO”) against Appellant which was delivered to Appellant orally on a telephone call. The police followed up and mailed a written version of the NTO to Appellant’s parents’ house on January 2, 2019. The written NTO prohibited Appellant from entering UVA grounds for four years except as a patient of the medical center and explained the process for appealing the order.

As to pre-suspension actions of the school

we agree with the district court that neither the ASAC Letter, nor the Concern Card that prompted it, were adverse actions caused by Appellant’s speech.

The court majority concluded that conduct, rather than speech, led to the expulsion

Dissent of Judge Quattlebaum

Why radio silence on Bhattacharya’s obvious signs of mental illness? Professionalism in medical schools and in the medical profession is, of course, important. But is that really the issue here? It seems like UVA’s concerns were, or at least should have been, about Bhattacharya’s mental health and his potential danger to himself or others. But rather than identifying the real issues, UVA relied on professionalism. I realize that addressing the real issues head-on might have been complicated. Doing so might have implicated state or federal disability and discrimination laws. But if the real problems were mental health—and all signals point that way—shouldn’t the school have addressed Bhattacharya’s situation accordingly? Instead, perhaps coincidentally or perhaps conveniently, it couched Bhattacharya’s suspension as a matter of professionalism, which might require us to defer to UVA’s academic decisions.

(Mike Frisch)