Play Cancellation Violated Rights of Speech, Court Rules : Justices: Panel lets stand a ruling that San Diego community college officials acted illegally in canceling a drama-class production after community protests.

The state Supreme Court, weighing claims of free-speech rights against the power of college administrators, on Wednesday let stand an appellate ruling that officials acted illegally in canceling a drama-class production after community protests over its controversial content.

In a brief order, the justices refused to hear contentions by San Diego community college officials that the decision, issued last May by a state Court of Appeal, improperly deprived administrators of the right to control the school curriculum.

The appeal court held that in canceling the play because of its vulgar language, racial slurs and politically sensitive nature, the administrators violated the First Amendment rights of faculty and students.

The high court’s order, issued over a single dissent from Justice Armand Arabian, allows the appellate ruling to become binding on trial courts throughout the state.

The case arose in 1986 when Alan DiBona, a San Diego Community College District instructor, selected a play titled “Split Second” for production by his drama class at the district’s Educational Cultural Complex.

The play concerns a black New York City police officer who, in the heat of the moment, kills a white car-theft suspect who subjected him to a flurry of racial epithets.

At the time, tensions were high in San Diego over the trial of Sagon Penn, a young black man charged with the murder of a white police officer and attempted murder of another officer. Penn eventually was acquitted of the charges.

After the play was selected, officials received complaints from church leaders and others. ECC President Robert Matthews and another official reviewed the script, noting among other things that there were over 40 vulgar expressions and slurs in its first 11 pages. The administrators canceled the production. DiBona and a student brought suit, contending that their constitutional rights had been violated. The Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 ruling, agreed.

Appellate Justice Howard Weiner, joined by Appellate Justice Don R. Work, noted that DiBona had been given authority to select a play and that administrators had intervened only after a community protest.

There was no “clear and present danger” to the school or community warranting the cancellation, Weiner said. “Rather, school officials were merely concerned with avoiding the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular or unorthodox point of view,” he said.

In dissent, Appellate Justice Richard D. Huffman said the court had improperly barred administrators from exercising their responsibilities. “Academic freedom in the form established by the majority opinion would actually give teachers free rein to cover whatever they want, regardless of content or its potential impact on the school,” he said.

Lois M. Kosch, an attorney for DiBona, called the high court action “outstanding” and rejected the suggestion that it will undermine the authority of college administrators. Officials can still review a proposed production, she said, if they do so independent of community pressure. “It was only after receiving complaints, that the administrators got involved,” Kosch said. “It’s clear they just wanted to avoid controversy--and constitutionally, that’s not permissible.”

Donal M. Hill, deputy county counsel, said he was disappointed. “The issue here was who controls the curriculum--the people appointed to run the school or teachers and students?”

In another action Wednesday, the justices refused to review a Court of Appeal ruling that AIDS victims who sue blood banks for providing them with tainted transfusions are subject to a 1975 state law limiting damages for pain and suffering to $250,000.