Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/24

 and Seventh Circuits, noting that these courts have applied Garcetti to in-class instruction in the elementary and high school settings. ECF No. 52 at 20–21, in Case No: 4:22cv304-MW/MAF (citing Mayer v. Monroe Cnty. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 474 F.3d 477, 479 (7th Cir. 2007) and Evans-Marshall v. Bd. of Educ. of Tipp. [sic] City Exempted Vill. Sch. Dist., 624 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2010)). But, like the Supreme Court in Garcetti, the Sixth Circuit in Mayer declined to determine “[h]ow much room is left for constitutional protection of scholarly viewpoints in post-secondary education … .” Mayer, 474 F.3d at 480. Indeed, the Sixth Circuit’s holding was limited to the principle that “the first amendment does not entitle primary and secondary teachers, when conducting the education of captive audiences, to cover topics, or advocate viewpoints, that depart from the curriculum adopted by the school system.” Id.

Likewise, in Evans-Marshall, the Seventh Circuit distinguished the appellant’s constitutional claim from Garcetti, noting that “[s]he is not a teacher at a ‘public college’ or ‘university’ and thus falls outside of the group the dissent wished to protect.” 624 F.3d at 343 (cleaned up). In concluding that Garcetti applied to appellant’s speech as a public high school teacher, the Seventh Circuit emphasized that different “constitutional rules applicable in higher education do not necessarily apply in primary and secondary schools, where students generally do not choose whether or where they will attend school.” Id. at 344.