## Facts

- Joseph F. Smith was a tenured music professor at Kent State University (KSU).
- After tenure, Smith joined other faculty in a petition seeking removal of the music department director; the effort failed.
- Smith was assigned to teach Music 280 (music history), received an unfavorable evaluation, and refused to teach the course again despite being directed to do so.
- KSU initiated termination proceedings for refusal to perform the assigned teaching duties.
- A faculty hearing committee found Smith should be required to teach the course, but recommended against termination and instead recommended retention conditioned on acceptance of reasonable future teaching assignments.
- The university president and board renewed Smith’s contract with an express condition: a further refusal of a reasonable assignment would result in automatic removal from the faculty.
- Smith again refused to teach Music 280 and refused to meet with departmental officials about the assignment.
- After an additional hearing before the university president, KSU terminated Smith’s employment.
- Smith sued KSU and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation and Fourteenth Amendment due process violations.

## Issues

1. Whether Smith’s termination was unconstitutional retaliation for protected First Amendment activity rather than discipline for refusal to perform assigned duties.
2. Whether, given Smith’s tenure-based property interest, KSU provided constitutionally adequate procedural due process before termination.
3. Whether the termination implicated a protected liberty interest based on reputational harm that foreclosed future employment.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed judgment for KSU and its officials.
- The court held the termination rested on Smith’s repeated refusal to accept reasonable teaching assignments, not on protected speech.
- The court held the process provided—faculty committee proceedings, notice, and subsequent hearing before the president—satisfied due process.
- The court rejected the liberty-interest claim because Smith did not show publication of stigmatizing false charges coupled with a status change sufficient to meet the governing standard.

## Legal Principles

- A public university may discipline or discharge a tenured professor for cause, including refusal to perform reasonable assigned teaching duties, even if the professor previously engaged in protected expressive activity.
- A First Amendment retaliation claim fails where the record supports a legitimate, nonretaliatory basis for discharge and does not show the adverse action was imposed for protected speech.
- Tenure creates a protected property interest in continued employment, but due process is met when the employee receives notice of charges and a meaningful opportunity to be heard through fair institutional procedures.
- A liberty-interest claim based on reputation requires more than discharge; it requires stigmatizing charges and their dissemination in a manner that effectively forecloses future employment opportunities.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld Kent State’s termination of a tenured professor who repeatedly refused a teaching assignment deemed reasonable, concluding the discharge was for insubordination rather than protected speech and that the university’s layered hearing process provided constitutionally sufficient due process without establishing any cognizable liberty-interest deprivation.


Smith v. Kent State Univ., 696 F.2d 476 (6th Cir. 1983)