Cooper v. Ross

472 F. Supp. 802 (1979)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Cooper v. Ross

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
472 F. Supp. 802 (1979)


Grant Cooper (plaintiff) was employed as an assistant history professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (Arkansas). Cooper was a proud member of the Progressive Labor Party (PLP) and subscribed to a Marxist point of view, something that he shared with his students. Cooper had been teaching for three years but did not have tenure. Teachers were given a curriculum to follow but had discretion in how they covered it. After a profile was done on him in a student newspaper, Cooper became the subject of controversy, and he was sued by members of the Arkansas state legislature for violating a law mandating that no state employee be a member of the Communist Party. Cooper began participating in public forums, during which he criticized a book that was used by another faculty member. At a meeting with Arkansas’s chancellor, Robert Ross (defendant), Cooper was asked whether he could teach his class from an objective point of view, instead of from a Marxist point of view as Cooper had attested to doing. Cooper replied that doing so would be intellectually dishonest. However, Cooper always encouraged debate in his classes and invited his students to challenge him. After being notified that he was not being reappointed for the 1974-75 school year, Cooper requested a list of reasons. A letter from Arkansas listed several reasons unrelated to Cooper’s political beliefs, including his questionable grading practices and student complaints about meetings and holding scheduled classes. The letter stated that the dean of the Division of Social Science received numerous complaints about Cooper and his unwillingness to cover the material. The letter also referred to Cooper’s criticism of the book used by his colleague. At Cooper’s request, the decision was reviewed by an ad hoc committee, which determined that the proper procedures were followed but expressed concern over the university’s stated reasons and quality of evidence. Cooper filed suit, alleging that Arkansas’s decision not to reappoint him constituted a violation of his First Amendment rights to free association and free expression.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Heaney, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 733,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 733,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 733,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership