| Bishop v. Aronov | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit |
| Full case name | Phillip A. Bishop v. Aaron M. Aronov, Winton M. Blount, O.H. Delchamps, Jr., Sandrall Hullett, Guy Hunt, William Henry Mitchell, John T. Oliver, Jr., Thomas E. Rast, Yetta G. Samford, Jr., Martha H. Simms, Wayne Teague, Cleophus Thomas, Jr., George S. Shirley, Cordell Wynn, all in their official capacities as members of the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama |
| Decided | March 15, 1991 |
| Citation(s) | 926 F.2d 1066; 59 U.S.L.W. 2583; 65 Ed. Law Rep. 1109 |
| Case history | |
| Prior history | District Court ruled in favor of Bishop |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Emmett Ripley Cox, Stanley F. Birch, Jr., Floyd R. Gibson |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Gibson |
Bishop v. Aronov, 926 F.2d 1066 (11th Cir. 1991),[1] was a 1991 legal case in which Phillip A. Bishop, an exercise physiology professor at the University of Alabama, sued the college on free speech and academic freedom grounds, when it instructed him not to teach "intelligent design theory" in an extracurricular class and not to lecture on "evidences of God in Human Physiology" in class. The District Court for the Northern District of Alabama found in favor of Bishop but the university appealed and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that the classroom, during instructional time, was not an open forum, and that the university had a right to set the curriculum.[2][3]
A similar case was Edwards v. California University of Pennsylvania (3d Cir. 1998).[4]
