## Facts

- Bertell Ollman, a Marxist political science professor, was recommended to chair the University of Maryland’s Department of Government and Politics.
- Columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak published an op-ed column, “The Marxist Professor’s Intentions,” discussing controversy over Ollman’s proposed appointment.
- The column relied on Ollman’s writings and unnamed sources, including an attributed statement that “Ollman has no status within the profession, but is a pure and simple activist.”
- The column described Ollman’s book in strongly evaluative terms and raised rhetorical questions about his scholarship and whether he intended to “convert” students or use the classroom for indoctrination.
- Ollman alleged the column was false and defamatory, harmed his professional reputation, and contributed to the decision not to appoint him.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Evans and Novak on the ground that the column was protected opinion under the First Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether statements in a political op-ed about a professor’s professional standing and teaching intentions were protected expressions of opinion or actionable assertions of fact.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper where the challenged statements were framed in evaluative language and published in an opinion column during a public controversy.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed summary judgment for Evans and Novak.
- The court held the challenged statements were nonactionable opinion, not assertions of verifiable fact.
- The court applied a four-factor analysis focusing on (1) specificity of language, (2) verifiability, (3) the immediate journalistic context, and (4) the broader social context.
- Because the statements were evaluative judgments presented as political commentary, the First Amendment barred liability.

## Legal Principles

- Defamation liability turns on whether a statement can reasonably be understood as asserting actual facts about the plaintiff, rather than expressing evaluative views.
- To distinguish fact from opinion, courts assess, in total context:
  - the definiteness or ambiguity of the language used;
  - whether the statement is objectively capable of proof or disproof;
  - the immediate context (format, placement, tone, and signals of commentary such as rhetorical questions);
  - the broader social context of public debate and controversy.
- Evaluations of professional “status,” academic merit, and ideological motivation are often not objectively verifiable and, when presented as commentary, are constitutionally protected.

## Conclusion

The en banc D.C. Circuit held that a syndicated op-ed’s harsh assessments of a professor’s professional reputation and alleged activism were protected expressions of opinion in context, so they could not support a defamation claim and summary judgment for the columnists was affirmed.


Ollman v. Evans, 750 F.2d 970 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (en banc)