A federal judge has issued a temporary injunction preventing the University of California from enforcing specific elements of its transgender harassment policy against members of a conservative education group. The judge believes these members have a strong case that the policy infringes upon their First Amendment rights.
US District Judge Fred W. Slaughter ruled that the university cannot discipline members of Defending Education for using names or pronouns that align with a transgender individual’s sex assigned at birth, as opposed to their gender identity. This decision was reported by the Los Angeles Times.
The ruling does not entirely void UC’s Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment Policy; it only offers protection to the members of Defending Education as their lawsuit against the university progresses.
In his decision, Slaughter noted that Defending Education is likely to succeed on its First Amendment arguments, stating that UC’s policy “compels speech and is viewpoint-based.”
This legal dispute centers around a policy affecting students, faculty, staff, and certain outsiders, which designates the “intentional or repeated use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s gender identity” as potential harassment.
Defending Education filed a lawsuit against UC schools in June, contending that the policy is so extensive that it instills fear in students that they could face repercussions simply for communicating their beliefs about biological sex and gender identity.
The lawsuit also claims that the policy’s reach extends beyond campus interactions to online communications and texts, with university staff obligated to report any suspected infractions.
According to the group, breaches of the policy could result in severe consequences within UC’s disciplinary framework, including potential suspension, expulsion, restrictions on campus participation, or, in some cases, revocation of academic degrees.
“These students want to engage in speech protected by the SVSH Policy, but they harbored legitimate fears that expressing their sincerely held beliefs could lead to penalties,” the group argued in its legal challenge.
Four student members provided declarations to support the challenge, although they are not formally named plaintiffs.
One UCLA senior expressed feeling pressured to “self-censor” due to the conflict between her religious beliefs and the use of pronouns that do not align with someone’s sex assigned at birth, as noted in the complaint.
Another student from UC Irvine, referred to as “Student D,” shared that this issue often arises in class settings, saying, “I frequently find myself in situations with transgender individuals and have to carefully avoid using pronouns or names.”
The President of Defending Education, Nicole Neily, welcomed the injunction, describing it as a victory against a “coercive speech policy.” She asserted it’s unconstitutional for public universities to compel students to speak in certain ways, pledging to uphold this principle in California and beyond.
In contrast, UC argues that the policy is designed to prevent discrimination and harassment rather than infringe upon constitutionally protected speech.
Rachel Zaentz, a university spokesperson, insisted that the rules focus on safeguarding individuals in the university community, not regulating speech that is legally protected. She added that UC is committed to creating a welcoming environment that balances free expression with the rights of all individuals.
Importantly, the injunction does not hinder UC’s ability to enforce its policies against severe gender-based harassment.
Judge Slaughter pointed to a hypothetical scenario of a bully derogatorily calling a boy “little princess” or “baby girl” as behavior the university could regulate without issue.
This ruling is provisional and doesn’t definitively determine the constitutionality of UC’s policy. The federal lawsuit will proceed, continuing to develop the arguments from both sides.
