Winston Salem Times

In what is being hailed as a victory for free speech rights within academic institutions, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) secured a favorable settlement in a lawsuit on behalf of Dr. David Phillips, a professor who was found to be wrongfully terminated by North Carolina education officials after giving a series of lectures on free speech. 

Hal Frampton, senior counsel in the Center for Conscience Initiatives at Alliance Defending Freedom, defended Phillips' case. 

“We filed suit after David Phillips, who was a long time teacher at the North Carolina Governor’s School, a residential summer program, was fired after he gave a series of optional seminars, on free speech issues, on the importance of viewpoint diversity, critiquing some ideas from from critical theory,” Frampton told Winston Salem Times.  

Phillips, a longstanding teacher at the North Carolina Governor’s School, a prestigious residential summer program, found himself abruptly dismissed after offering a series of optional seminars to students on free speech and the importance of viewpoint diversity. 

“After the third of those optional seminars, he was called into the administration office, told that he was being fired, told that he wouldn't be given an explanation, and just sort of sent packing,” Frampton said. 

The seminars also included critiques of ideas from critical theory, sparking controversy within the school administration.

“The irony wasn't lost on us that he's giving seminars on the importance of viewpoint diversity and then he suddenly finds himself fired,” Frampton said. “That was certainly one of the features of the case that was of interest.”  

As part of the settlement, the Governor’s School has paid Phillips approximately four years of his annual stipend.

ADF legal noted the school has also adopted a policy to respect faculty free speech in its elective seminars to affirm its commitment to offering seminars with a wide range of viewpoints and grants faculty members the freedom to craft academic experiences reflecting their unique perspectives and expertise. 

The lawsuit alleged that DPI “trampled on his constitutional right to free speech, retaliated against him for refusing to adopt Defendants’ radical ideology, and discriminated against him because of his race, sex, and religion.”

The legal filing details a negative audience reaction to Phillips’ lectures, during which he spoke out against racially divisive ideology he saw the North Carolina Governor’s school embracing. 

“At the conclusion of each lecture, members of the audience-including staff members-reacted with open hostility to the ideas and viewpoints discussed,” the lawsuit reads. 

“And they attacked whiteness, maleness, heterosexuality, and Christianity-none of which should have been relevant—in their comments and questions. Despite the hostility, Dr. Phillips stayed long after the published end time for each lecture to respond calmly to each question, and he even offered to meet with students and staff members later for further discussion.” 

After the third lecture on “viewpoint diversity” he was terminated by North Carolina Department of Public David Stegall, former Deputy Superintendent and Chief Academy Officer for the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. 

“Phillips learned that a few staff members had complained about the content of the optional seminars,” the lawsuit reads. 

“But instead of investigating these complaints, determining if any policies were violated, or addressing any concerns with Dr. Phillips-indeed without even giving Dr. Phillips an opportunity to hear the complaints and respond- Defendants took their own stand against viewpoint diversity by firing Dr. Phillips because they disagreed with his views.”

Framtpon said the case should be a signal to other school administrators. 

“The sort of top line message here is that the teachers don't shed their constitutional rights at the door of the schoolhouse, that teachers have a right to free speech,” he said. “Viewpoint diversity is important, and that no one should be fired simply for expressing views that the administration doesn't like. And I think that this case demonstrates that those rights are valid, that they're robust and that people are willing to defend them.”