CASE BRIEF: DOE v. MICHIGAN

CASE BRIEF: DOE v. MICHIGAN (1989)


Title and citation

Doe v. Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich 1989)


Facts

In 1989, the plaintiff Doe filed suit against the University of Michigan, claiming that their year-old hate speech code was unconstitutional because it violated free speech rights of students. As a teaching assistant who talked about potentially sensitive subjects he wanted to have the speech code dismantled before he could be charged with violating it.

Issues

1. Is a campus speech code constitutional?

2. Can a university regulate obscenity?


Held

1. Yes; the university can have policies to protect against harassment, discrimination, threats, and assault as long as they are specific and do not extend to censoring speech based on opinion or arbitrary reasoning.

2. Yes; as long as the university specifically defines "obscenity" and offers specific parameters, giving the faculty and staff fair warning of what is punishable under the policy.


Reasoning

The court stated that the code was overbroad and vague, so that officials could pick and choose which speech to prosecute and sanction those who used speech they did not like. The judge recognized the University’s right to have policies on discrimination, harassment, threats, and assault but that that did not extend to censoring speech that the University simply did not agree with or that did not fit into their desired message or found it offensive. The court found that the University must also give fair warning as to what is prohibited under the policy and what is protected. The University cannot regulate “obscenity” without going on to define what qualifies as “obscene” within the policy. If the policy does not offer parameters, then the students and faculty cannot be expected to abide by it because they have no way of understanding which behaviors and speech are prohibited and therefore punishable.


Decision

The court ruled in favor of Doe.


Significance

The ruling in this case sets a precedent for requirements of speech codes on campuses, maintaining that all provisions must be specifically outined and defined and that students and faculty must be given fair warning of what is considered punishable.