Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/29

 classroom, Keyishian, 385 U.S. at 683, the Eleventh Circuit and its predecessor have recognized that the First Amendment protects classroom discussions at the secondary and university levels. As early as 1980, the Fifth Circuit held that a high school teacher’s “classroom discussion is protected activity” under the First Amendment. ''Kingsville Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Cooper'', 611 F.2d 1109, 1114 (5th Cir. 1980). The Eleventh Circuit cited Kingsville with approval as recently as 2017, while also noting that Garcetti has since altered the analysis with respect to regulating public-employee speech more generally. See Wollschlaeger v. Governor, Fla., 848 F.3d 1293, 1311 n.6 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (Jordan, J.). And as recently as 2019, the Fifth Circuit affirmed that Kingsville remains good law and that “academic freedom is ‘a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.’ ” See Buchanan v. Alexander, 919 F.3d 847, 852 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Keyishian, 385 U.S. at 603).

Further, the Eleventh Circuit acknowledged in Bishop that the First Amendment protects university professors’ in-class speech and sought to fashion a test that would appropriately balance the speaker’s First Amendment rights with the university’s special interests in enforcing some limitations on that speech. 926 F.2d 1066. Recognizing the university could not restrict a professor’s in-class speech