The Marquette Dentist Controversy: A Labor Viewpoint

There is an interesting debate brewing in the blogosphere about a story that How Appealing posted on today.  Apparently, a Marquette University dental student was suspended for the rest of the academic year for running a personal blog which was uncomplimentary to the school, its professors, and other students (although no individuals were named).  In a letter to the student dated Dec. 2, Denis Lynch, the dental school's associate dean for academic affairs, said the committee had found the student "guilty of professional misconduct in violation of the dental school's Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct."

Howard points to three articles and posts discussing the case: An article in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel; an article from the Marquette tribune entitled, "Student suspended for blog posts; His lawyer says an appeal has been filed," and from Inside Higher Ed: "Dental Pain at Marquette." 

 The reason I want to discuss this controversy in a workplace context is because the issues raises an interesting question where professional students work at clinics where patient pays money and whether such students are more like employees or students.  Christine Hurt over at the Conglomerate blog argues in a post that to the extent that these individuals are considered employees or "agents" of the university, the university-employer should be able to demand a duty of loyalty from them and be able to suspend them or take other disciplinary action (Christine thinks a reprimand would have been more appropriate) when they are disloyal.

On the other hand, Eugene Volokh over at The Volokh Conspiracy wonders in a post whether the dental student is more in the nature of a student who should be granted, along with other members of the university community, the right to speak (or blog) without fear or repercussions.

My thought is this: the NLRB has just ruled that graduate students at NYU are students, not employees capable of securing protection under the NLRA (see my previous posts on this here, here, and here) .  Consequently, should a university be able to argue from both sides of its mouth and on the one hand say that students are like employees and therefore owe a duty of loyalty to the university, but on the other hand, are students so that the university does not have to worry  about their potential bargaining rights?  Christine points out in an email exchange that these dental students could be agents without being employees and have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of the university.  To be honest, I know such fiduciary duties exist within employee benefits and corporate law, but have never heard it argued for in this type of university setting.

In any event, I think that as long as graduate and professional students are classified as students under the labor laws of this country, they should have the more stringent First Amendment protections that citizens generally enjoy in commenting on matters of community interest (even though we are dealing with a private university here).  In short, I think Marquette is wrong and the dental student's appeal should lead to the overturning of this chilling discipline.

Paul M. Secunda