of ... sexually derogatory comments is ... so pervasive and abusive as to demonstrably hinder the learning experience.” Id. Although it is true that the complaining student in the case at hand filed her sexual harassment Complaint against Plaintiff with the College and not under Title IX, the College nonetheless took disciplinary action against Plaintiff in light of the College’s policy against sexual harassment, and the same concerns thereby apply. Indeed, the inquiry and the concerns are the same whether the sexual harassment claim is brought pursuant to Title IX or pursuant to an internal sexual harassment policy. See Richard H. Hiers, Academic Freedom in Public Colleges and Universities: O Say, Does that Star Spangled First Amendment Banner Yet Wave?, 40 Wayne L.Rev. 1, 48 (1993) (<HOLDING>). This, along with the College’s interests in
recognizing that teachers sanctioned for exercising what they believe to be constitutionally protected speech face the same legal hurdles of connick pickering and mt healthy holding that what is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech holding that false statements are constitutionally protected holding that after the district court determined that the plaintiffs speech was protected the court was required to inform the jury of its ruling that knapps speech was constitutionally protected holding that financial disincentives on speech burden first amendment rights for purposes of the pickering balance