Two Trump judges, joined by a GWB judge, rule that a college violated a professor's free speech and free exercise rights by punishing him for refusing to use a trans student's preferred pronouns. They say the policy "stifles a professor’s viewpoint on a matter of public import."
https://twitter.com/fedjudges/status/1375513617529860099
It was inevitable that Trump judges would carve a "misgendering students" exception into Garcetti. The real question is: where's the line? The logic of today's opinion would seem to imperil all manner of non-discrimination rules at public schools, not just pronoun policies.
Can a white professor who repeatedly uses the n-word in class while expressing his views that Black people are intellectually inferior be punished under the 6th Circuit logic? I'd think not—racial equality is also "a hotly contested matter of public concern"! Really, what isn't?
A better balance of interests here might be: a professor can express their views, but cannot impose those views on students in a degrading way.
But the 6th Circuit says: No, rejecting a trans student's identity is merely an expression of opinion on a "matter of public concern"!
But the 6th Circuit says: No, rejecting a trans student's identity is merely an expression of opinion on a "matter of public concern"!
Anyway, it certainly seems like public school policies against hostile environments and racial harassment are on thin ice under the 6th Circuit's reasoning, and since Thapar and Larsen are two of the more moderate Trump judges, it's chilling to consider what's coming next.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
