Free Speech on Campus
Professor Lee Epstein and Chancellor Andrew D. Martin
Political Science 334
Spring 2023
Group 4. The Pronoun Controversy
(Led by Gavin McGimpsey)
Case-Controversy
(Excerpted, adopted, and adapted from the Harvard Law Review, nbcnews, and The Guardian)
In 2016, Shawnee State University (a public school in Ohio) informed its faculty that its non-discrimination policy required all professors to refer to students using pronouns that “reflect[] a student’s self-asserted gender identity.”
But in 2018, when a transgender student, Jane Doe, asked her philosophy professor, Nicholas Meriwether, to refer to her with “she/her” pronouns, Meriwether declined Doe’s request. Meriwether, an evangelical Christian, claimed that compliance with the school’s pronoun policy would force him to violate his religious belief that gender is fixed at conception.
For the rest of the semester, Meriwether addressed all other students with the honorifics “Ms.” or “Mr.,” which he did to “foster[] an atmosphere of seriousness and mutual respect,” but referred to Doe by only her last name.
In reponse, Doe complained she suffered disparate treatment — that referring to Doe alone by last name only was not “in line with [Meriwether’s] practice of addressing other female members in the class.” The school’s investigation concluded that Meriwether’s refusal to recognize Doe’s gender identity created a discriminatory and hostile learning environment in violation of federal law.*
Meriwether was issued a written warning instructing him to use trans students’ requested pronouns “to avoid further corrective actions.” Meriwether challenged the university’s disciplinary action. He alleged that it violated his First Amendment right to free speech, among other claims.
Shawnee State eventually paid Meriwether $400,000 to settle the dispute. The University explained that settling was an “economic decision,” “adamantly deny[ing] that anyone at Shawnee State deprived Dr Meriwether of his free speech rights.“ It added: “Over the course of this lawsuit, it became clear that the case was being used to advance divisive social and political agendas at a cost to the university and its students. That cost is better spent on fulfilling Shawnee State’s mission of service to our students, families and community.”
*The federal law is Title IX:, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” For the purpose of your presentation, there’s no need to consider the details of Title IX other than its suggestion that universities have an interest in preventing discrimination.
To Help You Prepare Your Class Presentation:
Review the in-class material and readings on compelled speech and on student speech.
Review the in-class material on government employees/academic freedom; and read this excerpt of Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006).
Your Presentation Should:
Briefly summarize the case-controversy.
Applying the tools we considered in class, defend the position that public universities don’t interfere with the free speech rights of instructors when they require instructors to use pronouns that “reflect[] a student’s self-asserted gender identity.”
Applying the tools we considered in class, defend the position that public universities interfere with the free speech rights of instructors when they require instructors to use pronouns that “reflect[] a student’s self-asserted gender identity.”
Explain which position you think is stronger.
This case-controversy focuses on instructors. What about students? Suppose a public university required students to use pronouns that reflect their classmates “self-asserted gender identity.” Would such a policy interfere with free speech?