Court Grants Motion In Favor Of Student Called "Fascist Bastard" By Professor At L.A. City College For Christian Beliefs

The Alliance Defense Fund reports that "a federal court Monday granted a motion filed by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom to halt enforcement of a Los Angeles City College District policy that violates student free speech rights. The court’s order, which halts the policy while a student’s lawsuit against the district moves forward, also requires the removal of all of the policy’s language on district Web sites because the court determined that ADF attorneys are likely to succeed in their argument that the policy is unconstitutional... In February, ADF attorneys filed suit against LACCD officials after a professor censored and threatened to expel student Jonathan Lopez following a speech he gave about his Christian faith during an open-ended assignment in a public speaking class. On Nov. 24, 2008, professor John Matteson interrupted and ended Lopez’s presentation mid-speech, calling him a 'fascist bastard' in front of the class for speaking about his faith, which included reading the dictionary definition of marriage and reciting two Bible verses. Refusing to grade the assigned speech, Matteson wrote on Lopez’s speech evaluation form, 'Ask God what your grade is.' One week later, after seeing Lopez talking to the college’s dean of academic affairs, Matteson told Lopez that he would make sure he’d be expelled from school. The order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Lopez v. Candaele applies to the school’s speech policy that ADF attorneys argued allows similar types of abuses. "

The policy in question is the School District's Sexual Harrassment Policy which states: "Sexual harassment is defined as: Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, visual or physical conduct of a sexual nature, made by someone from or in the workplace or in the educational setting, under any of the following conditions: . . .(3) The conduct has the purpose or effect of having a negative impact upon the individual’s work or academic performance, or of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work or educational environment.” The court enjoined the school from enforcing or publicizing the purported existence of the policy during the court proceedings. The court reasoned that the policy prohibits a substantial amount of protected free speech as it prohibits speech regardless of whether the speech actually has any effect. The district court said that the policy is unconstitutional because it prohibits speech based solely on the motive of the speaker. Furthemore, the terms such as “hostile” and “offensive” are so subjective and broad that it applies to protected speech. The lower court stated that the policy reaches constitutionally protected speech that is merely offensive to some, such as speech concerning religion, homosexuality, marriage, sexual morality and freedom, polygamy, or even gender politics and policies. The school’s website indicates that sexual harassment can include “sexist statements . . . or degrading attitudes/comments about women or men," but this could prohibit protected opinions on proper gender roles.

The court indicated the student's claims are "likely to succeed on the merits."
Tweet