Litigation Case Summaries
Chicago State University
Citrus College
Iowa State University
Ohio University
CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY (Chicago, Illinois)
PHILLIP BEVERLY and ROBERT BIONAZ v. CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, WAYNE D. WATSON, PATRICK CAGE, and JANELLE CARTER
Chicago State University (CSU) professors Phillip Beverly and Robert Bionaz are contributing bloggers for CSU Faculty Voice, a blog authored by CSU faculty members that is often highly critical of the CSU administration’s perceived corruption and incompetence. Among other things, CSU Faculty Voice was launched in part because of previous unsuccessful efforts by the university to censor the student newspaper for publishing articles critical of the
administration and illegal efforts by CSU to improperly withhold public records under the state’s Freedom of Information Act. Just as in these previous cases, Chicago State
administrators repeatedly have endeavored to shut down the Faculty Voice.
In November 2013, CSU sent a demand letter to Professor Beverly, threatening legal action if the blog wasn’t shut down. After Beverly refused, CSU retained outside counsel to pursue unfounded claims of trademark infringement against the authors. FIRE refuted these claims in a letter to CSU administrators, but the university’s attempts to silence the Faculty Voice continued. CSU then quickly authored and adopted a broad “cyberbullying policy” and are now attempting to use it to silence the Faculty Voice.
PLAINTIFFS: Phillip Beverly and Robert Bionaz, professors
DEFENDANTS: Chicago State University Board of Trustees; Wayne D. Watson, President;
Patrick Cage, Vice President of Labor and Legal Affairs and General Counsel; Janelle Carter, Associate General Counsel
COURT: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
POLICY CHALLENGED: Cyberbullying Policy (prohibiting “intentional and repeated
harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and electronic devices”); Computer Usage Policy (prohibiting “any communication which tends to embarrass or humiliate any member of the community”).
CONTACT:
CITRUS COLLEGE (Glendora, California)
VINCENZO SINAPI-RIDDLE v. CITRUS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, DR. GERALDINE PERRI, ARVID SPOR, MARTHA MCDONALD, ADRIENNE THOMPSON, and DOE DEFENDANT 1
On September 17, 2013—Constitution Day—Citrus College (Glendora, California) student Vinny Sinapi-Riddle was threatened with removal from campus by an administrator for
asking a fellow student to sign a petition protesting NSA surveillance of American citizens. His crime? Riddle was petitioning outside of the college’s tiny “free speech area.” Sinapi-Riddle is president of the Citrus College chapter of Young Americans for Liberty and is
passionate about his political beliefs, but he has curtailed his expressive conduct on campus in light of this incident and Citrus College’s speech-repressive policies.
Amazingly, this is the second time FIRE has coordinated a lawsuit against Citrus College’s “free speech area.” In 2003, the college agreed to abandon its free speech zone as part of a court-approved settlement following a First Amendment lawsuit filed by a student.
In addition to challenging Citrus College’s “free speech area,” which comprises just 1.37% of campus, Sinapi-Riddle is challenging two other policies: (1) the college’s “verbal harassment policy,” which prohibits a wide range of speech protected by the First Amendment, including “inappropriate or offensive remarks”; and (2) the college’s elaborate permitting requirements for student group speech, which require student groups wishing to express themselves on campus to wait two weeks and obtain the permission of four separate college entities prior to doing so.
PLAINTIFF: Vinny Sinapi-Riddle, student
DEFENDANTS: Citrus Community College District; Dr. Geraldine Perri, Superintendent
and President of Citrus Community College District; Arvid Spor, Vice President of Student Services; Martha McDonald, Interim Dean of Students; Adrienne Thompson, Director of Student Life and Leadership; Doe Defendant 1, campus administrator
COURT: United States District Court for the Central District of California
POLICIES CHALLENGED: “Free Speech Area”; Verbal Harassment Policy; “Approval of
Club Activities” policy
CONTACT:
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY (Ames, Iowa)
PAUL GERLICH and ERIN FURLEIGH v. STEVEN LEATH, WARREN MADDEN, THOMAS HILL, and LEESHA ZIMMERMAN
Iowa State University (ISU) students Paul Gerlich and Erin Furleigh are members of the university’s student chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML ISU). In 2012, NORML ISU received university approval for a group t-shirt that featured ISU mascot Cy the Cardinal’s head in place of the “O” in NORML. Following criticism from members of the public and state officials, the university not only rescinded approval for the t-shirt, but it adopted and enforced new regulations specifically designed to restrict NORML ISU’s ability to engage in political advocacy.
In both 2013 and 2014, the university rejected other t-shirt designs, including one that simply said “NORML ISU Supports Legalizing Marijuana” under the hastily-drawn policy that broadly prohibits student groups from associating the ISU name with promoting “dangerous, illegal or unhealthy products, actions or behaviors” and “drugs and drug paraphernalia that are illegal or unhealthful.” This pretextual justification conflicts with how ISU treats other student groups and demonstrates that ISU’s new policy violates the First Amendment by confusing political advocacy with illegal conduct.
Backed by FIRE and represented by Davis Wright Tremaine, Gerlich and Furleigh filed suit on July 1, 2014 to vindicate both their First Amendment rights and those of their fellow students.
PLAINTIFFS: Paul Gerlich and Erin Furleigh, students
DEFENDANTS: Steven Leath, President of Iowa State University; Warren Madden, Senior
Vice-President, Division of Business & Financial Affairs; Thomas Hill, Senior Vice President for Student Affairs; Leesha Zimmerman, Program Director of the Trademark Licensing Office
COURT: United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa
POLICY CHALLENGED: Section 6(e) of the Trademark Licensing Policy (prohibits using
ISU marks in association with any message that promotes “dangerous, illegal or unhealthy products, actions or behaviors”)
CONTACT:
OHIO UNIVERSITY (Athens, Ohio)
ISAAC SMITH v. RODERICK J. MCDAVIS, JENNY HALL-JONES, and MARTHA COMPTON
Ohio University (OU) student Isaac Smith is a member of Students Defending Students (SDS), a student organization that provides free assistance to students accused of campus
misconduct. Smith and his fellow SDS members were ordered by OU administrators not to wear an SDS t-shirt featuring the phrase “We get you off for free”—a long-running SDS joke, dating back to the 1970s—claiming that the slogan “objectified women” and “promoted prostitution.” Fearing disciplinary action, Smith and his fellow SDS members complied with the order.
Smith’s concern about enforcement is well-founded, given OU’s vague and overly broad speech codes. Ohio University’s Student Code of Conduct forbids any “act that degrades, demeans, or disgraces” another student, rendering a vast amount of speech protected by the First Amendment off-limits and subject to punishment. The Code also prohibits “taking any reckless, but not accidental, action from which mental or bodily harm could result to another person”—but fails to define the terms “reckless” and “mental harm.”
Backed by FIRE and represented by Davis Wright Tremaine, Smith filed suit on July 1, 2014, to vindicate both his First Amendment rights and those of his fellow students.
PLAINTIFF: Isaac Smith, student
DEFENDANTS: Roderick J. McDavis, President; Jenny Hall-Jones, Associate Vice
President for Student Affairs & Dean of Students; Martha Compton, Director of the Office for Community Standards and Student Responsibility
COURT: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
POLICIES CHALLENGED: Student Code of Conduct Section A-4(f) (prohibiting any “any
act which demeans, degrades, disgraces any person”); Section A-4(c) (prohibiting “taking any reckless, but not accidental, action from which mental or bodily harm could result to another person”); Student Code of Conduct Section B-4 (requiring students to obey any “legitimate directive” by a university official)
CONTACT: