Young America’s Foundation and Defending Education filed federal lawsuits challenging policies at the University of Minnesota and University of California that they say threaten students with discipline for gender-critical speech.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Two public university systems are facing federal lawsuits over policies that conservative student groups say restrict criticism of gender ideology and force students to avoid speech that could be treated as harassment or discrimination.
Young America’s Foundation and Defending Education filed separate lawsuits on the same day against the University of Minnesota and the University of California, according to a Just the News report. The groups argue that campus sexual harassment and anti-discrimination rules operate as speech codes that can punish students for using biologically accurate pronouns, referring to someone by a pre-transition name or inviting speakers who reject transgender ideology.
The lawsuits come after the Supreme Court declined to review an appeals court ruling that allowed school districts to restrict speech from students who oppose gender ideology. The new cases ask lower federal courts to protect college students’ ability to express beliefs about sex, women’s sports, bathrooms and related issues without facing discrimination investigations.
The University of Minnesota lawsuit was filed by Young America’s Foundation on behalf of members at four campuses, including the Twin Cities flagship campus. The group is represented by the Southeastern Legal Foundation.
Kim Hermann, president of Southeastern Legal Foundation, said YAF members believe they must self-censor to avoid punishment.
YAF members “have to walk on eggshells while engaging with these topics, making sure to not voice opinions different from that of the school” on issues such as males who identify as women competing in women’s sports, Hermann said.
Defending Education filed its lawsuit against the University of California on behalf of members at UC campuses. The group says UC requires students to complete anti-discrimination training that expressly bars certain speech, including intentionally using a person’s pre-transition name or biologically accurate pronouns. It also challenges broader provisions that prohibit “jokes” deemed “unwelcome” by people who do not identify with their sex.
Both lawsuits were filed the day before the Juneteenth federal holiday. A media contact for the Southeastern Legal Foundation told Just the News that the timing was “pure coincidence.” Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not answer questions about whether the filings were coordinated.
The YAF lawsuit marks another First Amendment conflict between the organization and the University of Minnesota. In earlier litigation, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed YAF’s viewpoint discrimination claims after the university placed a Ben Shapiro event in a smaller and less convenient venue than events featuring other controversial speakers, including Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and the president of Somalia.
Recent appellate decisions have favored some challenges to policies restricting gender-critical speech. In 2021, the 6th Circuit ruled for a public university professor’s right to avoid using preferred names and pronouns. Last fall, the same court protected K-12 students’ right to use “commonplace use of biological pronouns”.
Also last fall, the 8th Circuit blocked an Iowa school district policy that treated “intentional and/or persistent refusal” to “respect” another student’s gender identity as bullying or harassment punishable by suspension or expulsion. The University of Minnesota falls under the 8th Circuit.
The University of California falls under the 9th Circuit, which last year blocked an Oregon adoption requirement that required applicants to affirm the gender identity of “hypothetical adopted children” to participate in the program.
Campus rules involving offensive jokes have also drawn scrutiny in the 9th Circuit region. The University of Oregon backed off discipline against a student over a sex joke after criticism from a free speech watchdog. The same watchdog previously flagged a California State University campus for a joke ban resembling parts of UC’s current policy.
YAF’s complaint against the University of Minnesota names nearly 20 defendants in their official capacities, including university President Rebecca Cunningham, the Board of Regents and multiple equity, diversity, Title IX and student conduct officials at system and campus levels.
The lawsuit argues that the university is imposing restrictions similar to provisions courts blocked in the Biden administration’s Title IX rewrite. YAF says those rules would have restricted students from expressing support for women’s sports and women’s private spaces while compelling the use of preferred pronouns.
The Minnesota system has four policies at issue, including two sexual harassment rules, a preferred pronoun rule and a discrimination rule. YAF says those policies restrict what students and invited “guests” can say about gender identity.
According to the lawsuit, YAF members fear that stating broadly held beliefs, including that sex is immutable or that males should not use female bathrooms, could result in reports and discipline. The students also say they fear punishment for hosting YAF-coordinated speakers such as detransitioner Chloe Cole.
The complaint says YAF members feel pressured to use preferred pronouns in daily interactions with students and professors and in certain classes, including foreign language courses. The suit argues that such rules create a false consensus on disputed topics “instead of cultivating debate.”
YAF also alleges that students at the Twin Cities and Duluth campuses were unwillingly required to share their own preferred pronouns “in the classroom setting, on official and unofficial University forms, and as part of a graded class exercise” to avoid discipline. The complaint mentions religion once, saying compelled preferred pronoun usage violates Catholic teaching.
The lawsuit claims the sexual harassment and discrimination policies violate the First and 14th amendments because the rules are so vague that students must “guess at their meaning.” It also argues that all four policies discriminate based on viewpoint and that the pronoun policy unlawfully compels speech.
YAF is seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of the challenged policies, along with nominal damages and attorney’s fees.
Defending Education’s University of California lawsuit names system and campus officials in their official capacities, including Gov. Gavin Newsom in his role as an ex officio regent.
The group argues that UC’s sexual violence and sexual harassment policy goes beyond the Supreme Court’s standard for actionable harassment in schools. The lawsuit says UC punishes students for “unwelcome […] sex-based conduct” that is “offensive” and “sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive” enough to interfere with education.
The Supreme Court standard, known as Davis, defines peer-on-peer harassment as conduct that is “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive,” requiring all three elements. Defending Education argues UC’s policy improperly substitutes “or” for “and.”
The lawsuit says the growth of policies requiring students to affirm gender ideology has chilled controversial speech on campus. It cites this year’s Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression survey of student attitudes on free speech, which found that three-fourths of students lean toward banning speakers from campus who believe “[t]ransgender people have a mental disorder.” Three UC campuses received FIRE’s lowest free speech ratings this year.
UC’s revised sexual harassment policy took effect this year. Defending Education says the rule applies to protected speech and even nonverbal conduct, including “aggression, intimidation, or hostility” based on gender identity. The policy also prohibits “derogatory names or slurs” and a broader category of “other offensive terms.”
The lawsuit specifically challenges the policy’s 14th frequently asked question, which prohibits “intentional or repeated” deadnaming and unwanted use of biologically accurate pronouns.
Defending Education says the policy can reach speech in any UC program and even “off-campus and unrelated to a UC program or activity” if there are “continuing adverse effects on” students or a “hostile environment.” The complaint says the rules also cover speech through “other devices or forms of contact.”
The lawsuit further says students may file anonymous complaints, while many employees, including resident assistants, graduate teaching assistants and student employees, must report cases in which they learn a student “may” have been misgendered, deadnamed or otherwise offended based on gender identity.
Four anonymous students cited in the UC lawsuit say their gender-critical speech has been chilled. One student said she “occasionally slipped up,” drawing whispers and “dirty looks” after using the wrong pronouns for a transgender student in class. At a social event, she said she was frozen out of a conversation until she apologized for unintentionally misgendering another student.
Defending Education is seeking injunctions against UC’s hostile-environment provision, FAQ No. 14 and related policies. The group also asks the court to block enforcement against off-campus speech unrelated to school activities and to stop UC from compelling students to affirm gender identity or punishing them for using biologically accurate pronouns.
Original article
Comments