Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's a case where I fully agree with the Alliance Defense Fund. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the speech code for Los Angeles Community College after a professor there lost it on a student for giving a speech about his views on gay marriage in a speech class. Jonathan Lopez was a student in the speech class and they had to give a speech about an unspecified topic. He chose to give his speech about his Christian faith.
In the middle of the speech, when Lopez mentioned his opposition to gay marriage, Professor John Matteson stopped the speech, called him a "fascist bastard" in front of the class, and refused to let him finish his assignment. He then refused to give Lopez a grade for the assignment, writing "Ask God what your grade is" on the evaluation sheet.
Lopez then went and logged a complaint with the school administration, which did nothing. Matteson, upon finding out that Lopez had filed a complaint against him, threatened to have the student expelled. The college administration, rather than defending the student, told him that he had violated the school's hate speech policy by offending others.
Lopez filed suit with the help of the ADF and the federal judge in the case issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the school's speech code. In their response to the ADF's letter on the matter, the LACC quoted two students from the class who were offended by the speech:
"His speech was not of the informative style that our assignment called for, but rather a preachy, persuasive speech that was completely inappropriate and deeply offensive. I respect his right to freedom of speech, but I also do not believe that our classroom is the proper platform for him to spout his hateful propaganda."The second student said "I don't know what kind of actions can be taken in this situation, but I expect that this student should have to pay some price for preaching hate in the classroom."
The proper response on the part of the school would be to tell those students to grow up and get over it. Other people have a right to hold and express views that you don't like and the fact that you're offended is not a justification for punishing them for their views. That is the very essence of freedom of speech, something they clearly do not understand.
The court seems to understand it far better and rightly ruled that the school's harassment policy was overly broad and unconstitutional.
Moreover, by using subjective words such as "hostile" and "offensive," the Policy is so subjective and broad that it applies to protected speech. In DeJohn, the Third Circuit concluded that such a policy must be invalidated unless it contains "a requirement that the conduct objectively and subjectively creates a hostile environment or substantially interferes with an individual's work." Here, the Policy does not contain both a subjective and objective requirement. To the contrary, the District's website admonishes, "If [you are] unsure if certain comments or behavior are offensive do not do it, do not say it. . . . Ask if something you do or say is being perceived as offensive or unwelcome." Thus, the Policy reaches constitutionally protected speech that is merely offensive to some listeners, such as discussions of religion, homosexual relations and marriage, sexual morality and freedom, polygamy, or even gender politics and policies. Indeed, the LACC's website indicates that sexual harassment can include "sexist statements . . . or degrading attitudes/comments about women or men." This could include an individual's outdated, though protected, opinions on the proper role of the genders. While it may be desirable to promote harmony and civility, these values cannot be enforced at the expense of protected speech under the First Amendment.Thus, the Policy is unconstitutionally overbroad.
I absolutely agree. Does anyone know of a single speech code at any public university that has ever been upheld when challenged in court? I don't know of any. Perhaps the fact that universities always lose such legal battles should convince them to stop trying to censor speech.
Politics
Comments
There, fixed it for y'all.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 17, 2009 9:42 AM
/still baffled why this is a hard concept.
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | July 17, 2009 9:48 AM
Not one of secularism's shining moments. I hope someone has a chat with the professor about how to deal with such situations professionally.
Posted by: Dan L. | July 17, 2009 9:55 AM
Posted by: Taz | July 17, 2009 9:55 AM
While I agree with the court upholding the students right to free speech in this way, I also wonder what would have happened if a student had made statements pro-gay marriage and similarly "completely inappropriate and deeply offensive" to any christians in the class?
Posted by: Zyzle | July 17, 2009 10:03 AM
As much as I loathe and despise wingnuts, evangelicals and all things Republican, if the First Amendment doesn't protect them, how could it have any power to protect me?
Posted by: gary l. day | July 17, 2009 10:12 AM
What is up with the speech codes? Who are these people that support such nonsense? I never experience them in the public square.
It's been twenty years since I've been in an academic environment so I have no context for this issue. Are there really a predominant set of loonies that provide the political capital necessary to suppress speech? I understand their arguments for such codes, I just have a hard time accepting that enough people would support their absurdities, especially at secular colleges.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 17, 2009 10:17 AM
If the speech was not what was required for the assignment then it should have been dealt with that way. He may say what he wants. Just don't expect a good grade for biased preachy crap.
The teacher was deeply unprofessional by the sound of it.
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 17, 2009 10:18 AM
I hope someone has a chat with the professor about how to deal with such situations professionally.
Yeah, the time-honored "professional" response would have been to quietly drop the kid's grade with no explanation that would allow anyone to prove discrimination. Professors of all persuasions have probably done this throughout the entire history of academic institutions.
OTOH, if the student had indeed said something hateful and clearly false, or inappropriate, the prof would have been right -- "speech code" or no -- to tell him to give his talk about something else. Even when a prof assigns students to talk or write about "anything you want," it is normally understood that there are some minimum standards of appropriateness and respect; and a student will be in some way punished for flouting those standards. And this, in fact, is really not a bad thing, since part of a college education includes presenting your case, knowledge or arguments to others in a way that educates and persuades them, and respects norms of acceptable conduct and discourse.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 17, 2009 10:19 AM
Terrific. I am ready to give my speech now. It's subject is the incalculably wide gulf between the words of many KKKristian ministers and adherents, plus those of the religiozealot legislators throughout Murka.
Posted by: democommie | July 17, 2009 10:32 AM
Actually, most professors I know (the ones I respect at least) would use such an opportunity to challenge those ideas without name-calling in a manner which is condusive to learning. No one learned anything from the childish response of this professor, except that he was no more mature than the student.
Posted by: Anna | July 17, 2009 10:41 AM
Me @ 10:
...plus those of the religiozealot legislators throughout Murka AND their own actions.
Damn, I hate it when I do that.
Posted by: democommie | July 17, 2009 10:46 AM
The prof, pointing out the hypocrisy of the student's position, calmly at the end of the speech, by pointing out examples in scripture supporting openness and caring for all gods children. (Barf here.) Or, failing that, pointing out the very well written, recent Iowa court decision on gay marriage, would have done far more to educate the class than this ridiculous tantrum.
Posted by: MikeMa | July 17, 2009 10:57 AM
Devil's advocate... this is a community college. Suppose a math professor decided that rather than stick to his schedule and discuss integral calculus, he was going to preach the Holy Gospel instead.
Surely this would be unconstitutional because his subject matter was inappropriate to the class, and espoused a narrow religious viewpoint? The math professor is obligated not to have his classroom used to proselytize.
How is this substantially different than the case in point? The student was espousing a narrow religious viewpoint during a presentation that, according to the professor, was inappropriate to the class.
Surely the professor had an obligation not to have his classroom used as a platform for proselytism? And who better to determine whether the student's speech was appropriate or not than the professor?
It matters not whether there was a speech code or not in this case. The professor was protecting his pupils from an inappropriate religious presentation in a public school.
As an aside, since when do students have full free speech rights? Certainly not in grade school or junior high? Is it age dependent? What if the student in this case was a precocious 17 year old?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 17, 2009 11:10 AM
Slightly tangentially: I am getting rather tired of the word "offensive". Too often, it seems to be used to reduce serious questions about the truth or falsity of speech, or the morality of what is being advocated, to a complaint about breach of etiquette or "hurt feelings". Within a personal relationship, politeness, feelings and offense are legitimate concerns. But in the wider world? Not so much.
So if you're a stupid asshole or bigot about some topic, go ahead and offend me: I'll just offend you right back -- as the cherry on top of showing why you are *wrong*. Of course, I hung out on Usenet for 15 years, so maybe I grew a thick skin.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 17, 2009 11:17 AM
Gingerbaker stated:
I don't believe the prof has constitutional powers to deny the religious freedom and speech rights of the student (remember - the prof is the government). The prof has the power to define the parameters of the speech and if the student's gone off on a tangent, grade or stop accordingly if the student is failing to meet those standards (e.g., making absolute claims without the proper validation). But it's my understanding that the prof rebutted the student with his own religious objection, which the prof has no power to do given he's the government. The prof doesn't have delegated powers to endorse any religious position.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 17, 2009 11:17 AM
All other points aside, the professor should have been fired for calling a student a "fascist bastard", in front of the class. What does that teach but arrogant intolerance?
Posted by: Rodney | July 17, 2009 11:30 AM
Gingerbaker -
How is this substantially different than the case in point?
Quite simple really, the student is a student, not an agent of the state. This isn't even questionable - courts have repeatedly clarified this very point and rightly so. Students have ever right to espouse their views, as long as doing so fits within the parameters of a particular assignment. And while the latter is certainly questionable in this case, that is not how the instructor framed it.
Worse, the fucking moron called this student a fascist - not only that, but in front of the fucking class. As far as I'm concerned, the son of a bitch should be fired, or at the very least disciplined. This is absolutely unacceptable behavior for a fucking college instructor.
As an aside, since when do students have full free speech rights? Certainly not in grade school or junior high?
Actually, while the restrictions are somewhat wider ranging than for those of adults, the courts have been pretty damned clear that that is only a matter of degree - that primary schools aren't allowed to restrict speech a whole lot more than the rest of society is.
What if the student in this case was a precocious 17 year old?
Someone with firmer understanding of the law may correct me, but I don't believe that this speech could be legally restricted in primary school either. But even given that it could be, this wasn't primary school - this was college. It is abysmally fucking stupid to try to seriously curtail speech on the collegiate level. Let bigoted fucking morons have their say and let them deal with the consequences of having done so. Which aside from not making a lot of friends, in this case it could and should have led to a low or even failing grade, because it apparently didn't fit the parameters of the assignment.
Kids at this age (much earlier really) should be learning that while there are no legal consequences for most speech, there are still consequences. Consequences that range from pissing people off to the point that they refuse to associate with you, to the point where they rip your bullshit to shreds publicly. And of course it is important to learn that legal on their part or not, there is also the potential that someone's going to decide to kick your fucking ass for being a fucking priggish bigot.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 17, 2009 11:40 AM
Michael
I agree that the prof may have said some things he should not have said. But, that may be after the fact.
The Prof is not the only government - the school is also the government. The Prof is responsible for the speech which takes place in his classroom, and can not, I would think, be allowed to give the imprimatur of the government to unconstitutional speech. Exaggerated point: the Prof allows twelve students in a row to give proselytizing speeches without stepping in.
Suppose the math Prof asks a student to derive the factors of an equation, and the student stands up and says to answer that, he will now proceed to share the Good News about the Gospel. If the Prof allows that to happen, how is that different from the Prof himself speaking about the Gospel instead of speaking about math?
There are time and place exceptions to protected speech. Arguably, the student in the actual case (or the fellow spreading the Good News) had every right to express his religious views on campus to anybody, but only during the correct time and place.
Neither of these students, evidently, would be honoring that time and place exception by giving an inappropriately narrow religious speech in a class not devoted to such a subject.
So, I would argue that the student's free speech rights are not absolute, and that a case might be made that the Professor in the actual case had a first amendment obligation to stop the inappropriate religious speech of the student, as surely as he himself could not deliver such an inappropriate speech.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 17, 2009 11:47 AM
Gingerbaker, keep in mind that it's not the student who is an agent of the state. If the professor made a speech like that, it's tantamount to the government promoting religion. The student's opinion clearly is only his own, however, so there's no establishment clause violation.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | July 17, 2009 11:52 AM
How did he frame it? I confess I may have made a mistake here incorrectly ascribing a student's statement as being that of the Professor:
I apologize that I don't have the time to read the document Ed provided - must run, but IF the Prof indeed HAD made the case on First Amendment grounds based on inappropriate religious content.....
Best,
GB
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 17, 2009 12:00 PM
@Gingerbaker:
The teacher is a government employee, the student is not
The teacher is in a position of power, the student is not.
The teacher in your example deviates from what is supposed to be done in the class while the student had the explicit order to write/give a speech about a subject chosen by said student.
Posted by: Who Cares | July 17, 2009 12:15 PM
Gingerbaker the difference between the math student and this case is that this teacher invited the students to give a speech on the subject of their choice. When he did he opened up a limited public forum. Within that context the government must remain neutral with regard to religious content.
The math student on the other hand was disrupting class by ignoring the assignment. The teach is obliged to stop him, whether he's spouting his religious views, telling jokes, or singing the Star Spangled Banner.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 17, 2009 12:16 PM
The fact of the matter is that college is the worst place on the planet to try to curtail free speech. Colleges are supposed to be places of higher learning. How can students expect to learn if any speech that offends them is prohibited? Do college students get the vapors and pass out when informed of an opinion contrary to their own? Is this preparing them for life in the real world?
If the speech was not of the type required by the assignment then the correct response is to give the student a lousy grade, not to interrupt them and refuse to grade them.
Posted by: Tom | July 17, 2009 12:18 PM
Ginger, I think your math class example misses a critical point - this was a speech class in which the student was invited to speak on a subject of his own choosing. In a math class, the prof could rightly stop the student from preaching because it was detracting from time dedicated to math. In this case, though, the time was already dedicated to listening to the student - stopping him from selecting his own topic and speaking on it would seem to clearly be censorship.
The prof surely missed a golden opportunity. Leading an in-class critique in the right directions could have made the student look quite foolish without giving him any grounds for legal complaint.
Posted by: BobApril | July 17, 2009 12:22 PM
Gingerbaker -
The teacher didn't say anything about the speech's validity within the parameters of the assignment, or as an establishment clause violation - he interupted the speech, called the student a fascist and accused him of hate speech.
I could even see the instructor interrupting and telling the student that he needed to sit down and allow students who had actually followed the directions of the assignment to give their speeches. I see no reason for a instructor to tolerate or allow a presentation to be finished, when the student didn't follow directions. I can also see him giving the student a failing grade for failing to carry out the assignment - I would probably do that myself, even if I happened to agree with the content. But the instructor did neither of those things.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 17, 2009 12:27 PM
I'm less troubled by the professor's initial outburst (which was almost certainly inappropriate, though in fairness we don't know what this guy was saying in his speech... if he was graphically describing the Hell-centric punishments he felt were reserved for gay people, it would probably have been appropriate to stop the speech) but what really troubles me is the response of both the professor and the school in the aftermath.
The professor's "Ask God what your grade is", while hilarious, is just not something a professor can get away with. Worse yet is his retaliatory attempt to get the student expelled after he complained. That's unconscionable.
And then the school bent over backwards to side with the professor, rather than trying to strike a balance. That was also inappropriate.
If we imagine an alternate scenario where the professor made the same outburst, gave the student a poor grade, then the student complained and after a proper investigation the school found his complaint was groundless, then I wouldn't have a major problem with any of that. Yeah, it's not good policy to call a student a "fascist" (and anyway, what does fascism have to do with it?) but professors are people to and a single emotional outburst in the face of some pretty repugnant speech is understandable.
The professor's and school's actions after the fact are not understandable. What were they thinking?!
Posted by: James Sweet | July 17, 2009 12:39 PM
There is much more to a speech class presentation other than simply the topic. A speech class includes presentation and really that is the most important part of any speech in a speech class. Students are being taught how to speak in front of people not how to give warm and fuzzy speeches that make everyone happy.
Posted by: Tom | July 17, 2009 12:41 PM
Ginger Baker,
What limitations to free speech do you perceive to exist in the US? The Constitution and the courts have been clear that only threats of violence and defamation are illegal. The recent Supreme Court decision on 'Bong hits for Jesus' limits the free speech of high scool students, but this particular bigot was not in high school. But I feel compelled to say I hate the 'Bong hits' decision and find it completely inconsistent with the 1st Amendment.
Posted by: Schmeer | July 17, 2009 1:20 PM
Tom -
I agree with you, but with the caveat that there are also different kinds of speeches/presentations. There are objective presentations of information that is backed by the best evidence the presenter can find and there are subjective, persuasive presentations which, while they should still provide evidence to back the position, are not simply a presentation of information. Now it is hard to judge what happened here, not knowing what the student said - it could be that he did objectively frame his presentation, using evidence that he believes to be true. But if he framed it subjectively and persuasively, then his presentation was not within the parameters of the assignment. And if that is the case, then it would be entirely reasonable to give him a failing grade (as a student, I always hope that instructors will grade more graciously if I fuck up, but I also tend to be the type who would not be nearly that gracious in an instructors shoes).
Posted by: DuWayne | July 17, 2009 1:25 PM
I'm back..( and my name is Gingerbaker, BTW - one word as I am definitely not the talented drummer, who must be sick and tired of all the near Google hits he must be seeing!)
There are a ton of restrictions on 1st amendment free speech rights in the U.S. see here:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fas.org%2Firp%2Fcrs%2F95-815.pdf&ei=UMNgSuKFNdWelAeRlNzdCQ&rct=j&q=exceptions+to+free+speech&usg=AFQjCNGK7WUArSzZVmiTUkG6pZPSmswGGQ&sig2=XRmP4JokMU3D8dvJTadWuA
Categories of limitations include:
Obscenity
Child Pornography
Content-Based Restrictions
Prior Restraint
Commercial Speech
Defamation
Speech Harmful to Children
Children’s First Amendment Rights
Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions
Incidental Restrictions
Symbolic Speech
Compelled Speech
Radio and Television
Freedom of Speech and Government Funding
Free Speech Rights of Government Employees and Government Contractors
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 17, 2009 2:39 PM
This, mindless, "politicl correctness" as exhibited by the professor,..& his supporters, has brought the "Western World", to the edge of a new "Dark Age", marked by a mindless "conformity", where by any "questioning of the "accepted "orthodoxie", is shouted down, by schrill screams of "Hate Speach",..at best,..or "Criminal Prosecution", at worst,.. There are "Powerfull", forces forces, at work, behind the scenes, that are pushing this evil "Agenda",..
Posted by: Nordicelt | July 17, 2009 3:38 PM
@Nordicelt
What did the English language ever do to you? It would be nice if you leave some quotation marks for the rest of us.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 17, 2009 4:08 PM
Wow, bad "spelling" and rather "liberal use" of "parenthesis"...You're "more" of a "fucking loon" than I am "Nordicelt." The "funny" thing is, that "I" actually "tend to" "agree" with "your" underlying "premise" - "though I wouldn't call" it "evile..."
Posted by: DuWayne | July 17, 2009 4:09 PM
If that is an accurate statement, then what the teacher should have done is remain silent, then grade the student as an F, and explain why, possibly even using it as an example of what not to do for the rest of the class.
Interrupting the student, not letting him finish the assignment, then refusing to supply a grade at all is the wrong way to handle it (even though I have to say his 'ask God what your grade is' is quite witty). The subsequent threats of expulsion because of making a complaint is also mishandling it, and, whilst the school did follow their 'hate speech' policy, the courts got it right in saying that the policy is too broad.
Gingerbaker, whilst Prof. Matteson is 'responsible' for speech in the classroom, the assignment was that the student could speak on any topic they liked - so it is clear he is allowing the students to express their own personal opinions. In your maths example, the Prof would be perfectly entitled to step in and interrupt the student, because the student would be entirely disregarding the assignment. This is not the case here. Here, the student was attempting to complete the assignment, but, if the quote I gave above from the other student is accurate, just not doing it very well.
Ever heard the phrase, 'I disagree with what you say, but defend to the death your right to say it'? This is a prime example of that - the underlying principle of free speech means that, whilst many people, including Prof. Matteson, might find this student's views abhorrent, he has no right to stifle those views, if, as seems to be the case, he specifically asked the student to speak on a subject of the student's choosing.
Posted by: Smidgy | July 17, 2009 4:18 PM
Whoo! For fun, google Nordicelt.
Posted by: Stu | July 17, 2009 5:26 PM
Don't listen to Stu, googling that sick fucker will likely just make you cranky - in a weep for the human race, sort of fashion.
Nordicelt makes mroberts seem a sort of warm, fuzzy Karl Marx wannabe...
Posted by: DuWayne | July 17, 2009 5:35 PM
Great job on this one Ed. Reminds me of why I read you even though I disagree at times:
You tell it like it is and are usually very consistent.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 17, 2009 6:25 PM
DuWayne,
I've had this conversation with my 4th and 5th grade students, when we talk about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They can voice their own opinions, they can not disrupt class or bully other students including name calling.
It is part of my job to teach student to make good arguments based on facts not emotions. I will sometimes misstate facts or direct them to websites with incorrect information about concepts we have already learned. I expect them to argue back with facts and not back down. By the end of they year they feel pretty confident.
Posted by: Kimberly | July 17, 2009 7:36 PM
I agree the professor went overboard (mostly with the facist remark) and the university was probably being silly to back him without question. I'd reserve judgement on the rest without knowing a lot more.
It's quite possible the professor and several students are openly gay and a student decided to use his assignment to show Christian love and tell the professor/students of the hellfire that awaited them and all their degenerate kind. It's possible the prof didn't stop him until the third or fourth time he used the word "faggot". Did I sleep through the anti-gay crowd becoming a bastion of restraint and logic?
Have a student toss some racial slurs into a paper or speech. The remainder of his time at that university would be measured in milliseconds.The fact it was the ADF that fought this rather than the ACLU further reinforces my doubt.
I wonder, had the presentation been titled "On and why they are inferior." we'd be having this discussion at all.
Posted by: JThompson | July 18, 2009 2:00 AM
Bah. Epic fail on my part for forgetting html in that last line.
It should've read "On (Insert racial slur) and why they are inferior."
And yeah, the ADF are a great defender of civil liberties.
Posted by: JThompson | July 18, 2009 2:04 AM
Granted. That would mean that the proper course of action on the part of the professor would have been to allow the student to finish offending everyone in the room and then to use an objective measure to grade for completion of the assignment. If it truly is the case that the student had missed the goals of the assignment, then the grade would have reflected that.
The classroom is not the proper platform for a student to preach hate, and neither is it the proper platform for professors to exercise his authority to censor a student. It is also not correct for an academic institution to stifle offensive discussion; if it were, we would still think the Sun orbited the Earth.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | July 19, 2009 12:49 AM
Zyzle: While I agree with the court upholding the students right to free speech in this way, I also wonder what would have happened if a student had made statements pro-gay marriage and similarly "completely inappropriate and deeply offensive" to any christians in the class?
Same thing, most likely. Scandal and lawsuits are big business and it IS Los Angeles after all. ;) Easily offended and litigious seem to go hand in hand.
It's a speech class. If the broadest application of the First Amendment doesn't apply there, something's seriously amiss.
Posted by: Rox1SMF | July 19, 2009 5:17 AM
Let me guess - this post is actually a role reversal of something that really happened? A pro gay marriage speech and a rightwing nutbar professor?
Posted by: Paul Murray | July 20, 2009 12:11 AM
The college was really screwed here, admitting the prof went overboard would not have relieved them of their liability for his conduct and probably lead to a nice employment lawsuit on top of it (this was CA after all). Easier to try to bully the student and hope he doesn't find someone to sponsor a lawsuit.
Posted by: Mu | July 20, 2009 12:17 PM