Bishop v. Aronov explained

Litigants:Bishop v. Aronov
Courtseal:US-CourtOfAppeals-11thCircuit-Seal.png
Decidedate:March 15,
Decideyear:1991
Citations:926 F.2d 1066; 59 U.S.L.W. 2583; 65 Ed. Law Rep. 1109
Prior:District Court ruled in favor of Bishop
Majority:Gibson

Bishop v. Aronov, 926 F.2d 1066 (11th Cir. 1991),[1] was a 1991 legal case in which Phillip A. Bishop, an exercise physiology professor at the University of Alabama, sued the college on free speech and academic freedom grounds, when it instructed him not to teach "intelligent design theory" in an extracurricular class and not to lecture on "evidences of God in Human Physiology" in class. The District Court for the Northern District of Alabama found in favor of Bishop but the university appealed and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that the classroom, during instructional time, was not an open forum, and that the university had a right to set the curriculum.[2] [3]

A similar case was Edwards v. California University of Pennsylvania (3d Cir. 1998).[4]

Notes and References

  1. Bishop v. Aronov . 926 . F.2d . 1066 . 11th Cir. . 1991 . https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/926/1066/258472/ . 2017-12-26 .
  2. The Law of Higher Education, William A. Kaplin, Barbara A. Lee, pp 262-263
  3. http://ncseweb.org/creationism/general/creationism-ideology-science Creationism, Ideology, and Science
  4. Edwards v. California University of Pennsylvania . 156 . F.3d . 488 . 3d Cir. . 1998 . https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/156/488/481543/ . 2017-12-26 .