The court concluded that the classroom examples promoted the valid educational objective of explaining concepts related to the course and that the university's sexual harassment policy was unconstitutional because it failed to provide Silva with adequate notice that the conduct was prohibited and was not reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical aims. However, the court failed to determine whether the sexual illustrations and the class context created a hostile academic environment for the students. This case can be considered a benchmark from which to differentiate constitutionally protected faculty speech that is the product of an audacious pedagogical approach from unprotected speech that truly harasses and injures students. Footnotes