SAN FRANCISCO—College administrators did not violate offended employees’ rights to be free of workplace harassment and have First Amendment protection for permitting a professor to disseminate ideas perceived as racist, said the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Thursday.

According to court papers in David M. Rodriguez vs. Maricopa County Community College District, beginning in October 2003, math professor Walter Kehowski sent three “racially charged” e-mails over a distribution list maintained by the Tempe, Ariz.-based Maricopa County Community College District.

The first had “Dia de la raza,” or Day of the Race, which is celebrated by some Hispanics instead of Columbus Day, as its subject line and asked, “Why is the district endorsing an explicitly racist event?”

A second e-mail said, “It’s time to acknowledge and celebrate the superiority of Western Civilization.”

A third e-mail included a link to a website maintained by Mr. Kehowski that said the “only immigration reform imperative is preservation of White majority.”

Plaintiffs, who are district Hispanic employees, filed suit against the district, its governing board, its chancellor and the school’s president in November 2004, charging violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits states from denying any person with its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Plaintiffs charged that Mr. Kehowski’s conduct created a “hostile or abusive work environment” that the defendants failed to take appropriate steps to prevent.

A lower court ruling denied summary judgment to the president and chancellor on the constitutional claim, and to the remaining defendants on the constitutional and Title VII claims. The president and chancellor appealed.

“Plaintiffs no doubt feel demeaned by Kehowski’s speech, as his very thesis can be understood to be that they are less than equal,” said a unanimous three-judge 9th Circuit panel that included retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

“But that highlights the problem with plaintiffs’ suit. Their objection to Kehowski’s speech is based entirely on his point of view, and it is axiomatic that the government may not silence speech because the ideas it promotes are thought to be offensive.”

First Amendment principles “must guide our interpretation of the right to be free of purposeful workplace harassment under the Equal Protection Clause…Free speech has been a powerful force for the spread of equality under the law; we must not squelch that freedom because it may also be harnessed by those who promote retrograde or unattractive ways of thought.

“We therefore doubt that a college professor’s expression on a matter of public concern, directed to the college community, could ever constitute unlawful harassment and justify the judicial intervention that plaintiffs seek.”

The opinion concludes that “Those offended by Kehowski’s ideas should engage him in debate or hit the ‘delete’ button when they receive his e-mails. They may not invoke the power of the government to shut him up.”

The case was remanded to the lower court to ensure its rulings on the remaining defendants’ summary judgment motions are consistent with the appellate court’s ruling.