A private university run by a religious organization is accredited by the state and receives state funds. A professor who wrote a column criticizing religion is discharged by the university. The professor sues, claiming violation of freedom of speech. Which statement is correct?

• A. The private university's discharge did not implicate First or Fourteenth Amendment rights because the university is not a state actor.
• B. The discharge violates the First Amendment rights due to religious influence.
• C. Accreditation and partial funding render the university a state actor, triggering constitutional protections.
• D. The Constitution provides no remedy against state-accredited institutions restricting speech as a condition of employment.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment protect against state action, not private action. A private university—even one run by a religious organization, even if it’s state-accredited and receives state funds—is generally not a state actor. Constitutional speech rights bite when the government is the one restricting or compelling speech; private employers can set their own employment policies and discipline employees for what they publish or say.

What matters is whether the government is so involved with the university that its conduct can be treated as the government’s action. Accreditation or funding alone doesn’t automatically make the university’s discharge a constitutional matter; there would need to be substantial government coercion, involvement, or entwinement in the decision. Since the scenario doesn’t show that level of state involvement, the discharge doesn’t implicate First or Fourteenth Amendment rights.

If there were true state action, the analysis would be different and a constitutional remedy could exist; but as stated, the professor’s claim rests on private action, not government action.