Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/91

 which outweighed the professor’s asserted interest in academic freedom to discuss his religious beliefs in relation to the exercise physiology course he was required to teach. This was particularly true where the Eleventh Circuit was “not convinced … that Dr. Bishop ha[d] fully comprehended the separation of his personal views from his professorial duties that the University demands.” Id. at 1076 n.7.

Ultimately, the Eleventh Circuit found that a professor cannot do an end-run around required curriculum by hijacking a course’s content and injecting religious beliefs into the classroom under the guise of offering their “professional opinion” on the subject. Considering the facts and the Establishment Clause concerns at play in Bishop, the Eleventh Circuit “concluded that the University as an employer and educator can direct Dr. Bishop to refrain from expression of religious viewpoints in the classroom and like settings.” Id. at 1077.

This is not to say, however, that the University’s restriction was permissible