could be liable under § 1981 for causing an employer (under a “cat’s paw” theory) to take retaliatory action against an employee. We have not gone so far, however, as to suggest that a plaintiffs fellow employees violate the implied retaliation prohibition in § 1981 by not seeking out the plaintiff to collaborate on professional projects. Moreover, Katz’s decisions about what research projects to pursue — and with whom — are protected by the First Amend ment and would not serve as a proper basis for holding him liable for violating Shott’s civil rights. See Trejo v. Shoben, 319 F.3d 878, 884 (7th Cir. 2003) (First Amendment protects faculty member’s right to participate in “academic debates, pursuits, and inquiries”); Dow Chemical Co. v. Allen, 672 F.2d 1262, 1275 (7th Cir. 1982) (<HOLDING>); McElearney v. University of Ill. at Chicago
recognizing the right to counsel on appeal holding that the constitutional right to a speedy trial includes the right to a reasonably prompt sentencing holding right to testify was federal constitutional right recognizing defendants right to due process includes the right to present a defense by crossexamining witnesses recognizing that right to academic freedom includes right to carry on research without interference from fellow faculty members