Bishop v. Aronov

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
Citations	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
Judges 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]

• Works related to Bishop v. Aronov at Wikisource
• Text of Bishop v. Aronov, 926 F.2d 1066 (11th Cir. 1991) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia OpenJurist

This article relating to case law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

• v
• t
• e

This creationism-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

• v
• t
• e