ABSTRACT
The plurality and concurring opinions in Sweezy constituted the first decision where the Court suggested that academic freedom had special protection under the First Amendment. Judges as lay persons are among the class of persons whom professional academic freedom has historically sought to exclude from interference in academic affairs. The plurality, led by Chief Justice Warren, noted that the state's inquiry inflicted harm both on the petitioner's liberties in the area of academic freedom, and on freedom in the community of American universities. Justice Powell's plurality opinion agreed with the university that diversity clearly is a constitutionally permissible goal for an institution of higher education. The underlying policy rationale for constitutionalizing academic freedom is not well developed in Sweezy or in later cases. Constitutionalizing academic freedom to preserve the autonomy of the university and those affiliated with it from government attempts to control or direct either the content of academic speech.
