Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/17

 unlimited. Indeed, the Supreme Court has “repeatedly emphasized the need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools.” Tinker, 393 U.S. at 507 (citations omitted).

With respect to regulating in-class speech consistent with constitutional safeguards, this Court again pauses to distinguish between the State’s valid exercise in prescribing a university’s curriculum and the State’s asserted interest in prohibiting educators from expressing certain viewpoints about the content of that curriculum. The Supreme Court has long recognized that “[a] university’s mission is education,” and it “has never denied a university’s authority to impose reasonable regulations compatible with that mission upon the use of its campus and facilities.” Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 267 n.5 (1981). “By and large, public education in our Nation is committed to the control of state and local authorities.” Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968). To that end, universities may generally make content-based decisions “as to how best to allocate scarce resources or ‘to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.’ ” Widmar, 454 U.S. at 278 (quoting Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 263 (1957) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result)).