Felkner v. R.I. Coll.

WILLIAM FELKNER v. RHODE ISLAND COLLEGE; JOHN NAZARIAN, individually and in his official capacity as President of Rhode Island College; CAROL BENNETT-SPEIGHT, individually and in her official capacity as Dean of the School of Social Work; JAMES RYCZEK, individually; ROBERTA PEARLMUTTER, individually and in her official capacity as Professor of Social Work; and S. SCOTT MUELLER, individually and in his official capacity as Assistant Professor of Social Work

C. A. No. PC-2007-6702

Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence

August 31, 2021

For Plaintiff: tlyons@straussfactor.com

For Defendant: jeffmichaelson@cox.net; doddlawoffices@aol.com

DECISION

McGUIRL, J.

This action is on remand from the Rhode Island Supreme Court. See Felkner v. Rhode Island College, 203 A.3d 433 460 (R.I. 2019).

I Facts and Travel

A detailed summary of the factual allegations in the case is provided here, relating to the issue before the Court concerning Defendants' claim for qualified immunity. Plaintiff William Felkner (Plaintiff) enrolled in Defendant Rhode Island College's Masters of Social Work degree program in the fall of 2004. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13.) At the time, Rhode Island College was the only post-secondary institution in the state that offered a master's degree in social work. Id. ¶ 1. The School of Social Work designed the degree to be completed by a full-time student within two years. Id. ¶ 85. Plaintiff entered the program with the personal belief that market economies best serve the interests of all members of society across socioeconomic boundaries, as opposed to government welfare programs. Id. ¶ 12. Rhode Island College describes the School of Social Work as dedicated to the core value of "social justice," in addition to other values.^[1] (Defs.' Mem. 11-12.) Plaintiff would later describe his enrollment as "a great lesson in oppression" that caused him to "feel stronger in his convictions" than ever before. (Ex. 20, Part 3, at 2.) Plaintiff and the faculty of the School of Social Work began clashing during October of Plaintiff's first semester over the School-sponsored showing of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. (Am. Compl. ¶ 16.) See Felkner, 203 A.3d at 440 n.5.

Plaintiff objected to the sponsored showing of the film via email to Defendant James Ryczek (Ryczek) and suggested also showing FahrenHYPE 9/11 as a rebuttal. (Am. Compl. ¶ 16.) Ryczek responded the same day:

"I don't think anyone here would want to quash alternative views. Again, as I have said in class . . . I want us to have an open discussion and debate about issues. In fact, questioning is an extremely important social work skill, and I know that I am doing a great deal of questioning with students about how they have traditionally thought about certain issues . . . and that is challenging for both me and the student.

"Yet, if a student finds that they are consistently and regularly experiencing opposite views from what is being taught and espoused in the curriculum, or the professional 'norms' that keep coming up in class and in field then their fit with the profession will not get any more comfortable, and in fact will most likely become increasingly uncomfortable.

"I will be the first one to admit a bias toward a certain point of view. But I don't characterize my 'bias' in this instance as a pejorative thing. In fact, I think the biases and predilections hold toward how I see the world and how it should be are why I am a social worker. In the words of a colleague, I revel in my biases. So, I think anyone who consistently holds antithetical views to those that are espoused by the profession might ask themselves whether social work is the profession for them . . . or similarly, if one finds the views in the curriculum at RIC SSW antithetical to those they hold closely, then this particular school might not be a good fit for them. I don't want you to think that I am suggesting that you are such a person . . . but, then again you may be . . . only you can make that determination. It is not uncommon that the educational process here lends itself to such reflections on the part of many students.

"Please, let me know if you want to talk further with me about these things." (Ex. 5 ¶ 9 (emphasis added)).

In addition to these statements to Plaintiff, at some point in Plaintiff's first semester, Ryczek advertised that the National Association of Social Workers, which many of the School of Social Work faculty members were involved in, was "working actively to defeat [then-President George W.] Bush." (Ex. 13 at 133:14-24.)

Plaintiff eventually learned that Professor Daniel Weisman sponsored the showing of Fahrenheit 9/11; Plaintiff similarly contacted Weisman about showing FahrenHYPE 9/11 as a rebuttal. (Am. Compl. ¶ 19.) Professor Weisman responded thus on October 29, 2004:

"Thank you for leaving me the film. I have followed through on my promise to contact the other professors whose classes saw Fahrenheit. I'm awaiting their responses. I want to correct a perception you seem to have: the SSW is not committed to balanced presentations, nor should we be. We are not a debating society; we are a values-based profession and we are responsible to promote the values that underlie social work. For the most part, Republican ideology is oppositional to the profession's fundamental values. Republican social workers face a challenge of how to reconcile the conflict. Most of the few I've met have figured out how to separate their personal and professional lives. I'm not sure how the others manage.

"I've offered to show the film not because I'm open minded, but for two specific reasons: 1) I know what it's like to have minority views about things, and 2) like to stir up students to make them think. I do not share most of the analysis you offered in your note.

"As for your assertion that showing this film is a chance to prove my intentions, it is not my intent to prove myself to you or anyone else. I made the offer because, for me, it was the reasonable thing to do." (Ex. 3.)

Professor Weisman did show FahrenHYPE 9/11 to two of his classes, and Ryczek offered to show the film outside of class. (Ex. 5 ¶ 6.) Plaintiff thereafter created a now defunct website dedicated to critique the left-wing bias that he perceived as a School of Social Work student, in addition to utilizing other media platforms. (Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 20-21.) Plaintiff published his email correspondence with Ryczek and Professor Weisman on his website, which caused Ryczek to cease communicating via email. Id. ¶ 23. Plaintiff also met with two additional professors in the School (who are not parties to this action) about the films, one of whom stated to Plaintiff that she hoped "all social workers are liberal." Id. ¶ 24.

During November 2004, Plaintiff communicated with Defendant John Nazarian (Nazarian) and Dr. Dan King, then Rhode Island College's Vice President for Academic Affairs and not a party here, over Plaintiff's issues with the School of Social Work faculty. Id. ¶¶ 26-27. These communications did not assuage Plaintiff's concerns. Id. On November 14, 2004, Plaintiff submitted the first of several articles to The Providence Journal about his experiences as a student. Id. ¶ 28. Plaintiff similarly spoke on two radio talk shows. Id. ¶ 29.

Plaintiff also experienced issues with Ryczek over his final assignment as a member of Ryczek's class during his first semester. (Am. Compl. ¶ 33.) Per Plaintiff, Ryczek assigned students to form groups to lobby the Rhode Island General Assembly for social welfare programs from a specific list of topics approved by Ryczek. Id. However, in an affidavit, Ryczek contends that two group assignments existed: one to debate a social welfare issue; and a second to write a policy research paper "based on the perspective the student chose within her/his debate group." See Ex. 5 ¶ 19; see also Ex. 7. Per Ryczek, he provided a list of "'suggested' issues that were part of the 'One-RI Platform' . . . and other 'hot topic' issues that were coming up in the next legislative session." (Ex. 5 ¶ 20.) Ryczek stated that he "never characterized the list as exhaustive or 'approved' nor the only issues that could be chosen." Id. ¶ 21.

Regardless, Plaintiff felt that none of the topics dovetailed with his personal views, except for a proposed "Education and Training Amendment to the Family Independence Program," a temporary cash assistance program for Rhode Islanders experiencing financial issues. (Am. Compl. ¶ 36.) As part of the group project, Plaintiff discovered that two studies contradicted the research that the program utilized. Id. ¶¶ 37-39; Ex. 5 ¶ 37. Plaintiff approached Ryczek about these contradictory studies and requested to argue against the program, which Ryczek denied out of concerns of fairness and to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to learn how to advocate for a position that he did not agree with. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 40-41; Ex. 5 ¶¶ 38-40.) According to Plaintiff, when denying his request to advocate against the program, Ryczek stated that "Rhode Island College 'is a perspective school and we teach that perspective'" and "'if you are going to lobby on [the program], you're going to lobby in our perspective.'" (Am. Compl. ¶ 42.)

Plaintiff wrote his paper against passage of the program, contrary to Ryczek's instructions, and received an "F" failing grade on both the paper and associated classroom debate. Id. ¶ 43; Ex. 5 ¶ 41.) Ryczek offered to allow Plaintiff to re-write the paper for a better, passing grade, but Plaintiff appealed the grade which caused Ryczek to eventually enter a "C+" passing grade. (Am. Compl. ¶ 50; Ex. 5 ¶ 43.) As part of Plaintiff's appeal, the Rhode Island College Academic Standing Committee conducted a hearing on January 20, 2005, at which Ryczek...