Sullivan v. The Ohio State University

Summary

Dr. Mark Sullivan, a longtime senior lecturer at Ohio State University’s Fisher College of Business, filed a federal lawsuit in September, 2023, against the university and several administrators, claiming that they violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for classroom speech. For years, Sullivan had taught a course called “Crucial Conversations,” which trained students to navigate high-stakes and uncomfortable discussions. As part of a longstanding role-play exercise based on a real-life quote from mobster Whitey Bulger, Sullivan quoted a racial slur to simulate a difficult conversation. Although he had conducted this exercise in over 40 prior semesters without incident, a single student complaint in Fall 2021 triggered a university investigation.

The university’s human resources office initially determined that Sullivan’s conduct did not violate policy. Nevertheless, the administration chose not to renew his appointment in 2022. Sullivan argued that the decision was a direct response to protected classroom speech and filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging retaliation and viewpoint discrimination. He asserted that his use of offensive language served a clear academic purpose and that punishing him for it violated his rights as a public university faculty member. The university moved to dismiss the case, claiming that its actions were justified and that the officials involved were protected by qualified immunity.

In early 2025, a federal judge rejected OSU’s motion to dismiss, ruling that Sullivan’s classroom speech addressed matters of public concern and was likely protected by the First Amendment. The court concluded that the law clearly established a professor’s right to engage in pedagogically relevant academic speech, even when controversial or offensive. The judge also found that the university’s interest in avoiding disruption did not outweigh Sullivan’s expressive rights in this context.