New court decision reinforces need for speech policy changes at five colleges, universities

ADF sends follow-up letters noting new 3rd Circuit ruling to schools in three states

Thursday, Aug 26, 2010

What’s at Stake on the University Campus?

·   Whether students with beliefs that don’t agree with the prevailing orthodoxy of university elites will be free to participate in the campus marketplace of ideas without fear of punishment because of unconstitutional policies.

·   Whether the campus is to be open to free speech and lively debate or shut down by campus officials with the unlimited power to silence “unapproved” opinions.

·   Whether public universities will continue to enforce broad prohibitions on student speech merely because some might be “offended” by another’s ideas.

·   Whether the many universities under Third Circuit jurisdiction will continue to defy these decisions by refusing to alter their unconstitutional policies.

COLUMBIA, Tenn. — A new ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has prompted the Alliance Defense Fund to send follow-up letters to five colleges and universities that it contacted in April about their problematic “speech codes.”

The new ruling struck down as unconstitutional a university’s regulations against “offensive” or “unauthorized” speech. It also said a rule against conduct that causes “emotional distress” or “mental harm” is too vague and therefore unconstitutional. The policies are similar to those at the Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey universities and colleges which ADF contacted earlier this year. The follow-up letters from ADF emphasize the need to modify those policies in light of the new ruling, which reinforces existing precedent explained in the original ADF letters.

“Christian students shouldn’t have to fear censorship by university officials simply for expressing their beliefs,” said ADF Legal Counsel Casey Mattox. “Even before this new ruling, the 3rd Circuit determined that the kinds of ‘speech codes’ we see at these schools are unconstitutional primarily because they give officials an easy-to-abuse enforcement mechanism to punish any speech that they may decide is ‘offensive.’ The new ruling simply reinforces that these policies need to be revised to respect student free speech rights that are protected by the First Amendment.”

ADF together with Randall Wenger, Leonard Brown, and Demetrios Stratis--three of more than 1,800 attorneys in the ADF alliance--sent follow-up letters this week to Rutgers University, Delaware State University, Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, and Westmoreland County Community College. Since April, when ADF sent its original letters, all of the universities have stated that they intend to modify their policies, but ADF has not yet received final revisions from the schools even though the school year is about to begin.

Some of the policies that are open to abuse include Cheyney University’s prohibition on “written words” or images that any listener can claim are “offensive” on the basis of gender, family status, marital status, religion, and other bases. Cheyney also prohibits “religiously offensive” or “annoying” e-mails. Both policies are unconstitutional, as a student who simply claims to be offended by someone else’s religious speech can have that person punished--even expelled--for their alleged offense.

The new ruling from the 3rd Circuit came in the case McCauley v. University of the Virgin Islands.

Other campus policies: Delaware State | Cheyney U. of PA | Indiana U. of PA | Westmoreland County CC
Flier: “What’s at Stake? Free Speech on Campus”
ADF University Project website

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

www.adfmedia.org | twitter.com/adfmedia