> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • The Evolution of Race in Admissions
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
Illustration showing an all-seeing "Big Brother" eye spying into a classroom.

Do Professors Have a Right to Mistreat Students?

Conservative courts are establishing a dangerous new precedent to discriminate and abuse.

Golden Cosmos for The Chronicle
The Review | Opinion
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print
By  Andrew Koppelman
December 9, 2022

The federal courts are creating a new constitutional right: Public-college teachers can now impose their religious beliefs on students. Only two such cases have been decided thus far, but their rulings come from high federal courts, one from the U.S. Supreme Court and the other from a federal court of appeals. Their similarity of approach, and their resemblance to other extravagant recent treatments of religious liberty by the justices, is grounds for alarm.

Nicholas Meriwether, who teaches philosophy at Shawnee State University, in Ohio, and routinely addresses students as “Mr.” or “Ms.,” refused to address a transgender woman by the pronouns or honorifc she uses.

We’re sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from c950.chronicle.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.

Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

The federal courts are creating a new constitutional right: Public-college teachers can now impose their religious beliefs on students. Only two such cases have been decided thus far, but their rulings come from high federal courts, one from the U.S. Supreme Court and the other from a federal court of appeals. Their similarity of approach, and their resemblance to other extravagant recent treatments of religious liberty by the justices, is grounds for alarm.

Nicholas Meriwether, who teaches philosophy at Shawnee State University, in Ohio, and routinely addresses students as “Mr.” or “Ms.,” refused to address a transgender woman by the pronouns or honorifc she uses. Meriwether explained that he was not willing “to communicate a university-mandated ideological message regarding gender identity” that conflicted with his Christian beliefs. When he sued the university for violating his rights to free speech and equal protection, a district court found that the student “dreaded participating in plaintiff’s class but felt compelled to do so because plaintiff graded students on participation.” The college had tried to accommodate Meriwether by proposing that he refer to all students by first or last names only, without using gendered titles for any of them. That would have treated everyone equally, and it would not have required him to say anything he did not believe.

Meriwether refused, declaring that titles “foster an atmosphere of seriousness and mutual respect that is befitting the college classroom.” Instead, he proposed using the last name, without a gendered honorific, for the transgender student only. Of course, “seriousness and mutual respect” would have then been unavailable to her, and her alone. She would be conspicuously singled out, treated worse than all other students.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in an opinion written by the Trump appointee Amul Thapar, declared that teachers’ academic freedom “covers all classroom speech related to matters of public concern, whether that speech is germane to the contents of the lecture or not.” Meriwether “advanced a viewpoint on gender identity.” Moreover, “the First Amendment interests are especially strong here because Meriwether’s speech also relates to his core religious and philosophical beliefs.”

Racism and sexism are also matters of public concern, and they have sometimes had religious justifications. Suppose a teacher thought it appropriate to address only the Black students by their first names, a demeaning treatment that was once common, to signify their subordinated status. Does Judge Thapar think that prohibiting that would cast “a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom,” as he wrote in Meriwether v. Hartop, and “transform institutions of higher learning into ‘enclaves of totalitarianism’”?

ADVERTISEMENT

In the second case, Joseph Kennedy, a high-school football coach, insisted on publicly praying on the 50-yard line after games, “allowing” students to join him. The coach has unlimited discretion to decide who plays. Students who don’t play won’t get football scholarships. The school district tried to find an accommodation, but Kennedy refused to so much as speak to the administration about that and was suspended. Kennedy sued, claiming to be a victim of religious discrimination. The trial judge in Joseph A. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District wrote: “Players (sometimes via parents) reported feeling compelled to join Kennedy in prayer to stay connected with the team or ensure playing time, and there is no evidence of athletes praying in Kennedy’s absence.” Kennedy never asked to pray alone. He later said that the reason he was litigating was for the sake of “helping these kids be better people.”

This is bad news for public universities that want to protect their students from racial slurs, religious coercion, and other forms of harassment.

Kennedy appealed, and the case went to the Supreme Court, which, in an opinion by Neil Gorsuch (another Trump appointee), ignored the pressure on students and declared that the coach’s prayer was private and had to be permitted.

In both Meriwether and Kennedy, the judge and the justice refused to acknowledge the harm to students. Thapar argued that because the transgender student got a good grade, the university had not justified its actions against Meriwether. That this student endured enormous stress, and that other students may not be able to handle such stress so well, is given zero weight. Gorsuch seized on the university’s concession that there was “no evidence that students” were “directly coerced to pray with Kennedy.”

Both Thapar’s and Gorsuch’s opinions disable the state from protecting students. Both say that the state has acted arbitrarily unless the harm has already happened, and the state can prove it in court. But this misapprehends the whole notion of risk. The Kennedy decision hamstrings colleges that seek to prevent this kind of intimidation. It requires testimony in open court from students courageous enough to face retaliation in their communities. Families who complain about establishment-clause violations already face stigma, loss of jobs, and even violence. (I explain this weird new right to mistreat students in more detail in a forthcoming law-review article.)

The classic liberal answer to the problem of religious diversity is to create a private sphere where citizens are free to worship in ways that other citizens find repugnant. But in America, where the Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, religious people may not demand a right to invade and direct the public sphere, to alter the delivery of state functions in order to force their views upon nonadherents. Here, as elsewhere, the Supreme Court is distorting settled law in order to guarantee that religious people win every claim they bring to court.

ADVERTISEMENT

This is bad news for public colleges — at least, those that want to protect their students from racial slurs, religious coercion, and other forms of harassment. In Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, the states where Sixth Circuit precedent is binding, it is uncertain whether a university may constrain a faculty member in any way that would (as the Meriwether ruling put it) “alter the pedagogical environment in his classroom.” Teachers have a right to communicate what they believe to be true. They should not have a right to mistreat their students.

Correction (Dec. 9, 2022, 5:26 p.m.): This article mistakenly referred to the court in which Judge Amul Thapar issued a ruling in Meriwether v. Hartop as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. It is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The article has been updated to reflect that correction.
A version of this article appeared in the January 6, 2023, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Academic FreedomGenderLaw & Policy
Andrew Koppelman
Andrew Koppelman is a professor at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin