Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Professional Development Classes Aren’t Government Speech

by September 12, 2024
September 12, 2024
Professional Development Classes Aren’t Government Speech

Thomas A. Berry and Alexander Khoury

Like many states, California requires licensed medical doctors to periodically attend classes known as “continuing medical education” (CME). These courses are taught by private lecturers, who design their own courses and apply to the state for accreditation. But under California’s new requirements, all accredited lectures must include a discussion about the impact of implicit bias. Private lecturers (typically medical doctors or academics) must address implicit bias even if they think doing so is counterproductive or irrelevant to the subjects they are teaching.

Dr. Azadeh Khatibi and a group of other medical doctors and course instructors sued the Medical Board of California to challenge this requirement. They argued that the new implicit bias mandate violates their First Amendment rights against compelled speech. But a California district court disagreed and dismissed their case. The court held that their lectures were “government speech” and thus afforded no First Amendment protection. Khatibi and the other plaintiffs have appealed the district court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Cato has filed an amicus brief on their behalf.

Our brief makes two key points. First, the government speech doctrine does not supersede the compelled speech doctrine. To determine whether the speech at issue is government speech rather than private speech, the district court focused on the amount of control the government exerts over a privately created message. But hinging the test for government speech on government control would incentivize the government to overregulate private speech and thus evade First Amendment scrutiny. Courts should instead focus on whether the government has adopted private speech as its own or has empowered a consenting private person to speak on the government’s behalf. Under a proper government speech analysis, CME lectures are not government speech.

Second, our brief stresses that the government’s attempt to regulate CME instruction violates basic tenets of academic freedom. The First Amendment freedom of speech protects academic expression, even in state-controlled universities. CME instructors should be afforded no less protection when teaching in a private capacity, independent from the state.

For these reasons, the district court’s decision to dismiss Khatibi’s case should be reversed, and the implicit bias mandate should be struck down.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Majority of Americans don’t trust AI-generated election information, poll finds
next post
Fox News Power Rankings: Trump loses his edge as we brace again for post-debate impact

You may also like

Don’t Reward the Government for Hiding Constitutional Violations

March 21, 2024

The Government Can’t Target TikTok Because of the...

June 28, 2024

If You Spend Time in Jail Because the...

February 15, 2024

New Cato Paper: Immigrants Generated $3.3 Trillion in...

April 15, 2025

China’s March from Imitation to Innovation: The Case...

February 19, 2025

Census Bureau Analysis Supports Cato’s MENA Analysis

October 9, 2023

Case v. Montana Brief: Limit Loopholes to the...

August 7, 2025

Federal Housing Tax Credit: 2,060 Pages of Brutal...

March 19, 2024

The New Deal and Recovery, Part 26: The...

March 24, 2023

TAKE IT DOWN Act Shows That Noble Intentions...

April 16, 2025

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • UK prices for Mounjaro weight-loss jab to rise by up to 170% after Trump pressure on drugmakers

      August 15, 2025
    • UK workers rank among the world’s most miserable, survey finds

      August 15, 2025
    • Did Oregon’s Drug Decriminalization Increase Crime or Overdoses? —Separating Short-term Spikes from Long-term Trends

      August 15, 2025
    • Jennings v. Smith Brief: Defending Alabamians from Illegal Police Demands for ID

      August 15, 2025
    • UK bioethanol industry on brink as government rejects rescue deals

      August 15, 2025
    • UK small firms that celebrate success see faster growth, Xero study finds

      August 15, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,796)
    • Investing (2,215)
    • Politics (16,389)
    • Stocks (3,228)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved