| Bishop v. Aronov | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit |
| Full case name | Phillip A. Bishop v. Aaron M. Aronov, Winton M. Blount, O.H. Delchamps, Jr., Sandrall Hullett, Guy Hunt, William Henry Mitchell, John T. Oliver, Jr., Thomas E. Rast, Yetta G. Samford, Jr., Martha H. Simms, Wayne Teague, Cleophus Thomas, Jr., George S. Shirley, Cordell Wynn, all in their official capacities as members of the Board of Trustees of theUniversity of Alabama |
| Decided | March 15, 1991 |
| Citations | 926F.2d1066; 59 U.S.L.W. 2583; 65 Ed. Law Rep. 1109 |
| Case history | |
| Prior history | District Court ruled in favor of Bishop |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Emmett Ripley Cox,Stanley F. Birch, Jr.,Floyd R. Gibson |
| Case opinions | |
| The University of Alabama can restrict a professor’s religious expressions during instructional time to prevent the appearance of endorsing religion, without violating First Amendment rights | |
| Majority | Gibson |
Bishop v. Aronov, 926F.2d 1066 (11th Cir. 1991),[1] is a significant case concerning the balance betweenacademic freedom and theEstablishment Clause within public universities. TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed whether a public university could restrict a professor’s religious expressions during instructional time without infringing uponFirst Amendment rights.[2][3]
Phillip A. Bishop, an assistant professor ofexercise physiology at theUniversity of Alabama, occasionally shared hisChristian beliefs during class sessions, framing them as his personal “bias.” In April 1987, he organized an optional after-class lecture titled “Evidences of God in Human Physiology,” which discussed the complexity of thehuman body and suggesteddivine creation overevolutionary processes. Attendance was voluntary and did not influence students’ grades. However, some students expressed concerns about potential coercion, given the timing of the lecture before final exams.[4]
In response to these concerns, Carl Westerfield, Head of the Health, Physical Education, and Recreation Department, issued a memorandum instructing Bishop to cease interjecting religious beliefs during instructional periods and to stop holding optional classes presenting a “Christian perspective” on academic topics.
The university’s administration upheld these directives, emphasizing the need to prevent any appearance of endorsing religion, in line with theEstablishment Clause.[4]
Bishop filed a lawsuit against the university’sBoard of Trustees, claiming that the restrictions violated his First Amendment rights tofree speech andfree exercise of religion. TheUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ruled in favor of Bishop, grantingsummary judgment and enjoining the university from enforcing the restrictions.
The university appealed the decision to the Eleventh Circuit. The appellate court reversed the district court’s ruling, holding that the university’s actions did not violate Bishop’sconstitutional rights. The court reasoned that during instructional time, the university classroom is not anopen forum; therefore, the university has the authority to determine appropriate curriculum content and limit discussions to relevant subject matter. The court emphasized that the university’s directives aimed to avoid the appearance of endorsing religion, thereby adhering to Establishment Clause requirements.
This article incorporatespublic domain material from this U.S government document.
Works related toBishop v. Aronov at WikisourceLocated in:Tuscaloosa, Alabama | |||||
| Academics |  | ||||
| People | |||||
| Campus | |||||
| Athletics |
| ||||
| History | |||||
| Media | |||||
| Other | |||||
| |||||
 | This article relating tocase law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it. |
 | Thiscreationism-related article is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it. |