CASE BRIEF: Iota XI Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University (1991)

Iota XI Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity

v. George Mason University (1991)

Title and citation

Iota XI Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University (1991),
773 F. Supp. 792, 795 (E.D. Va. 1991), aff’d 993 F. 2d 386 (4th Cir. 1993)


Facts

Student leaders implored the dean to sanction Sigma Chi after a student wore blackface and a black wig with curlers, as well as pillow stuffing in the breast and buttocks area, during a spirit week. The student leaders said the display was offensive and promoted racial and sexist stereotypes. The dean prohibited Sigma Chi from holding sports and social events for two years and, during that probationary period, required them to get approval from the university to hold other planned activities. In response, Sigma Chi sued the University, claiming that their free speech rights were being violated by this sanction.


Issues

1. Can a university sanction language for being offensive?


Held

1. No; it is not lawful to punish speech simply because it may be offensive to some people.

Reasoning

The court held that the students' speech or the use of blackface cannot be banned simply because some people find it offensive, especially since GMU did not even have a hate speech code to base their decision on.

Decision

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity.

Significance

This case, with the two preceding cases in 1989 and 1991, set a precedent for universities, that in order to regulate hate speech a code cannot punish protected speech, must be very clear about what is prohibited or punishable, and cannot base punishment on content of speech.

Video: Flag in Pop Culture

Here is a short video compiling 4 references to the flag in pop culture:

CASE BRIEF: UWM Post v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin (1991)

UWM Post v.

Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin (1991)

Title and citation

UWM Post v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin,
774 F. Supp. 1163 (E.D. Wis. 1991)


Facts

This case involved a hate speech code that was intentionally reworked and clarified following the University of Michigan decision - it was clear and narrow, explicitly stating the behaviors and speech that were off-limits as part of the code. Still, a suit was filed against the University within a year of the policy’s inception, by the student newspaper. The newspaper, the UWM Post, argued that the policy was overbroad and vague, which violated their free expression rights. The University rebutted that the policy fell under the umbrella of fighting words, and that the court could narrow it if it was found to be overbroad.


Issues

1. Is the code overbroad or vague?


Held

1. Yes; the code does not fall under the fighting words umbrella, and does not specify whether intent is required in the instance of fighting words.


Reasoning

The court determined that the code was overbroad and vague, and did not fit the requirements of the fighting words doctrine (fighting words being speech that will likely lead to a breach in the peace, not just speech that harms) - the code was also vague because it didn’t clarify whether intent to create a breach of peace would count as fighting words, or if a hostile environment must actual be created by the speech to count as fighting words.


Decision

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the UWM Post.


Significance

Even though the aforementioned code was revamped after the Michigan decision, it was still too broad and too vague to be constitutionally protected. This demonstrates just how specific and definitive these codes must be in order to hold up to court scrutiny.

Question on the Quad Poll!

We asked 50 random students at the University of Maine in Orono, ME this question:

"Do you think it should be illegal to burn an American flag?"

22 students responded yes, it should be illegal.

28 students responded no, it should not be illegal.

Video: Question on the Quad!

We asked students at the University of Maine if they think that it should be illegal to burn an American flag. Here are some responses:

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.

First Amendment in Action

This seemingly humorous article from December illustrates just how far the First Amendment reaches in terms of protecting the speech rights of citizens:

Pa. Judge: Cursing at Toilet Not Illegal

Click the link above to be taken directly to the article.