Although courts repeatedly and correctly slap down college administrators acting as speech police, administrators will continue stifling speech until the administrators themselves are punished.
Still, the courts do what they can, as evidenced by a Thursday decision by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In Meriwether v. Hartop, a three-judge panel unanimously ruled in favor of a veteran professor’s First Amendment speech and religious rights against the administrators who disciplined him for refusing to adopt their ideology. In the course of a star chamber disciplinary “process,” administrators allegedly expressed open, repeated hostility against religion in general and Christianity in particular. As in other cases at the appellate and Supreme Court levels, the school’s abuse of academic freedom, free speech, and free religious exercise was appalling. Enough so, indeed, that a sane society would demand the administrators be removed from their posts.
The case involves Nicholas Meriwether, a philosophy professor for 25 years at Shawnee State University, an Ohio public college. A devout Christian, Meriwether balked when a biologically male student (who also reportedly remains male by appearance) demanded to be referred to by Meriwether with feminine pronouns. Meriwether’s traditionalist faith teaches that “God created human beings as either male or female … from the moment of conception, and that [this sex] cannot be changed.”
Meriwether’s department head dismissed his concerns, repeatedly denigrated Christianity, and said that the mere “presence of religion in higher education is counterproductive.” Meriwether tried to accommodate Doe by just using the Doe’s name, not the pronoun, during class discussions. The college dean, to whom the dispute was taken, originally accepted this compromise but then changed her mind, insisting that the professor refer to Doe using a feminine pronoun.
“Trying to find common ground,” wrote the judges, “Meriwether asked whether the university’s policy would allow him to use students’ preferred pronouns but place a disclaimer in his syllabus ‘noting that he was doing so under compulsion and setting forth his personal and religious beliefs about gender identity.’ Dean Milliken rejected this option out of hand.”
Meanwhile, though, Doe continued attending class. Doe’s active participation was welcomed by the professor (still using Doe’s last name only), who, based on the final work product, awarded Doe a “high grade.” In sum, Meriwether did nothing to deny Doe any educational opportunity, and not even Doe accused him of any other type of mistreatment.
Nonetheless, in a sham “investigation” that consisted of interviews of Meriwether, Doe, and two other “transgender” students, but which allowed Meriwether no chance to request witnesses of his own, a committee determined that the professor had created a “hostile environment” by refusing to use the pronouns. Upon further review, the committee realized the absurdity of that charge as a legal claim in those circumstances, so it replaced it with a charge of “differential treatment.” Later, in court, the school did a double-reverse and again resurrected the “hostile environment” charge. In sum, it couldn’t even scrape together a consistent standard for applying its own rules. The school was determined, however, to find something, anything, for which to punish Meriwether.
Result: The college put a “written warning” in the professor’s file, noting that one more violation could mean suspension without pay or outright termination. When the Shawnee State faculty union filed a grievance on his behalf because it violated his academic freedom and First Amendment rights, the provost (and later acting president) of the school “openly laughed” at the idea of a religious liberty claim and “was so hostile that the union representative ‘was not able to present the grievance.’”
This is outrageous. Shawnee State isn’t merely stifling speech and religious expression; it is mandating speech (the pronouns) against the religious beliefs of the speaker.
The 6th Circuit ruled decisively in Meriwether’s favor. “Public universities do not have a license to act as a classroom thought police,” wrote the judges. Indeed, “in the college classroom,” there is an even greater “need for the free exchange of ideas” than in other settings. Furthermore, “the First Amendment interests are especially strong here because Meriwether’s speech also relates to his core religious and philosophical beliefs.” Worse, the infringement of his religious beliefs isn’t a peripheral issue because “officials at Shawnee State exhibited hostility to” those beliefs, not just a lack of concern about them.
At worst, Doe’s feelings and “dignity” were bothered by Meriwether. Feelings and dignity pale in comparison to Meriwether’s livelihood and to his constitutional and natural rights. All courts, across the land, should emulate the 6th Circuit: They should vindicate those rights and come down as hard as the law allows on the schools and officials who violate them.
