In the United States, freedom of speech is legally protected, but its interpretation varies, especially on college campuses. A prime example is the University of California, which has a unified system across its ten campuses. Their policies include a prohibition against “misgendering” and imply a divergence from biological truths.
The “Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment” policy at UC, available in several languages, defines sexual harassment as any verbal, nonverbal, or physical aggression tied to a person’s gender, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation.
This policy explicitly states that “intentional and repeated use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s gender identity” constitutes harassment. It even defines harassment to include using someone’s “dead name,” which often refers to the name they were given at birth but no longer identify with.
As long as the actions are deemed “unwelcome,” both students and faculty can face disciplinary measures, including expulsion, for violating this policy.
Fortunately, a federal judge has intervened, issuing a preliminary injunction that halts UC’s enforcement of this policy temporarily, following a lawsuit from Defending Education.
In the court documents, the Southern Division of the Central District of California included examples of what UC classifies as harassment. For instance, it described a situation in which a transgender man is repeatedly referred to by his dead name or called “Miss” or “Ms.” in a mocking tone as harassment.
The court noted that UC’s policy infringes on protected speech, referring to previous cases like Bates v. Pakseresht, where coercing adoptive parents to affirm a child’s sexual orientation and gender identity was deemed a violation of free speech rights.
Additionally, in Defending Education v. Olentangy, a similar policy was struck down by the courts. Court documents also mentioned mandatory training for UC students on sexual violence, harassment, discrimination, and prevention.
One scenario formerly included in this training described a transgender student feeling disrespected when a classmate persistently used their previous name and misgendered them. However, the lawsuit indicated that this scenario has since been removed from the training program.
The evidence presented was deemed sufficient for the court to grant the injunction. Nicole Neily, president of Defending Education, expressed gratitude for the court’s stand against the University of California’s “coercive speech policy,” deeming it unconstitutional for public universities to compel student speech.
As of now, UC has not commented on the ruling.
