The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday comes from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech….” The freedom of speech has been under attack in the United States for some time. It started with the condemnation of “politically incorrect speech” and continued to the silencing of former President Donald Trump and his supporters. There are few victories for free speech, but one took place recently.
According to Sarah Parshall Perry at
The Daily Signal, a professor of philosophy won his suit against Shawnee
State University. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Court ruled that Professor Nicholas Meriwether could not be forced to say
something that he did not believe. In his case, the university tried to force the
professor to use the “preferred pronouns” used by a transgender student, and
the court said no way. The court also ruled that the professor’s suit could go
forward for the university’s violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment
rights.
The decision by the Sixth Court “is
the first of its kind, and establishes a needed boundary against American
culture’s new, brutish sexual orthodoxy. It said loud and clear that people in
academia cannot be forced to say things that they do not believe.
Perry gave some background for the
suit. In 2016, the leadership at Shawnee State University sent an email to its
faculty members, which directed them to use the students’ preferred pronouns
when referring to them. Meriwether, as a devout Christian, went immediately to
his department chair, Jennifer Pauley, to voice his concerns about the policy.
Pauley was dismissive of his concerns and then became hostile to him.
Knowing Meriwether had successfully taught
courses on Christian thought for decades, Pauley claimed Christians are “primarily
motivated out of fear” and “should be banned from teaching courses regarding
that religion.” In her view, even the “presence of religion in higher education
is counterproductive.”
Meriwether was told that even if a
professor had moral or religious objections to the use of preferred pronouns,
the policy would still apply.
In January 2018, Meriwether
responded to a question from a male student in a political philosophy class by
saying, “Yes, sir.” The student later approached the professor, “stated that he
was transgender, and demanded that the professor refer to him as a woman, with
feminine titles and pronouns. Meriwether politely refused to use the
student-preferred pronouns and offered to use the student’s last name or any
other name chosen by the student. The student filed a complaint against the
professor, which started a formal investigation at the Title IX office of the
university.
Meriwether again offered various
compromises in an attempt to protect his rights of conscience while being
respectful to the transgender student, but the university rejected any
arrangement other than the use of preferred pronouns or the elimination of
sex-based pronouns altogether (a virtual impossibility in a scholastic setting).
When Meriwether refused to conform,
the university charged him formally with a violation of Title IX with the claim
“he [had] effectively created a hostile environment” for the student. A written
warning was put in Meriwether’s personnel file with the threat of “further corrective
actions” if he did not conform to the groupthink of the university.
The note and the threat were enough
to move Meriwether to legal action, and he sued the Ohio university “for
violation of free speech and religious liberty under the First Amendment” as
well as “violation of his due process and equal protection rights” under the
Fourteenth Amendment.
Meriwether’s lawsuit was thrown out by
U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott on February 12, 2020. In addition, the judge “held
that a professor’s speech in the classroom is never protected by the First
Amendment.” From there, Meriwether appealed to the Sixth Court in Meriwether
v. Hartop et al. The judges recognize the attempt to stamp out debate and
open dialogue by the university’s speech policy. Judge Amul Thapar wrote the
opinion and was joined by Judge Joan Larsen and Senior Judge David McKeague.
The opinion starts as follows:
Traditionally, American universities have been
beacons of intellectual diversity and academic freedom. They have prided
themselves on being forums where controversial ideas are discussed and debated.
And they have tried not to stifle debate by picking sides. But Shawnee State
chose a different route: It punished a professor for his speech on a hotly
contested issue. And it did so despite the constitutional protections afforded
by the First Amendment.
The district court dismissed the professor’s
free-speech and free-exercise claims. We see things differently and reverse.
The judge continued by clarifying “that
the Supreme Court has recognized that the government may not compel a speaker
to affirm a belief with which the speaker disagrees.” In addition, … “courts
have recognized that the free speech clause of the Constitution applies at
public universities and that ‘professors do not shed their constitutional
rights to freedom of speech or expression at the [university] gate.”
Perry summarized the decision to say
that “professors at public universities retain First Amendment protections at
least when engaged in core academic functions, such as teaching and
scholarship.” Her reason is that classrooms at colleges and universities are
different than other work settings because the students need to be able too
freely exchange ideas.
On the topic of titles and pronouns,
the judge wrote that Meriwether did not agree with or want to communicate the
message of the student and the university: “People can have a gender identity
inconsistent with their sex at birth.”
… Meriwether took a side in that debate.
Through his continued refusal to address Doe as a woman, he advanced a
viewpoint on gender identity …
Shawnee State allegedly flouted [a] core
principle of the First Amendment. Taking the allegations as true, and against “leftist
groupthink” in academia.
According to the judge, people can think
what they want about their own gender, but they do not have the right to force
other people to recognize their non-reality. The judge confirmed that there is
a difference between truth and opinion. The professor stood for truth, while
the student and university tried to force him to acknowledge an opinion as
truth. In doing so, they infringed upon the professor’s freedom of speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment