In 2016, Shawnee State University announced a ban pertaining to gender identity discriminations, requiring professors and university employees to respect student’s gender identity to show respect and awareness to the transgender population. Professor Nicholas Meriwether saw this requirement troubling since he is a devout Christian who actively “rejects the idea that people can have a different gender identity than the one assigned to them at birth”. Meriwether has been a professor at Shawnee State University in Ohio for 25 years and is a contributing member of the philosophy department. Meriwether brought this to the attention of his department chair as he was concerned about his First Amendment rights regarding his religious faith. Meriwether tried to explain how he cannot comply with the university’s ban to limit gender identity discriminations on the premise that it goes against his religion.
Meriwether brought his concerns to the federal court that he is being coerced to forcibly reject his religious beliefs when the department chair exhausted a sense of belligerence when stating “adherents to the Christian religion are primarily motivated out of fear” in addition to “the Christian doctrines regarding hell are harmful and should not be taught” insinuating that the teachings of Christianity are dangerous and harmful to the morality of students in higher education.
The igniting issue took place in January of 2018 when Meriwether addressed a transgender woman in his class as “sir” based on physical appearance. To protect the identity of the student, Doe, confronted Meriwether after class to make him aware of proper pronoun usage that should be used appropriately under school policy. In response to the ban that was set in place Meriwether received a disciplinary warning; moving forward, Meriwether addressed Doe by last name but he still improperly addressed Doe as “sir” on accident. When these accidents occurred more disciplinary warnings were added to Meriwether’s file which could lead to him losing his job with no financial compensation. Meriwether tried to solve the issue by proposing an ultimatum with the circumstances that he will abide by referring to Doe by her proper pronouns if he was permitted to include a section on his syllabus that set forth his religious views. The university concluded that failure to recognize a students proper pronouns even when students are made aware of Meriwether’s religious faith, is in violation of the anti-discriminatory ban and will not be tolerated. The issue at hand questions the constitutionality of the limitations set by Shawnee State University that are infringing against Meriwether’s First Amendment right to freely exercise religion.
Meriwether’s case reached the United States District Court in 2019 and it was concluded that Shawnee State University was not in violation of Meriwether’s First Amendment rights and failure to comply with university standards does not violate the constitution or protected speech, but rather “ Getting students’ pronouns and titles right is a narrow issue that is part of a professor’s job description, not a matter of free speech”. Unsatisfied with the decision, Meriwether appealed to the U.S Court of Appeals of the Sixth Circuit on March 26.
The U.S Court of Appeals of the Sixth Circuit unanimously sided with Meriwether under the precedent that if professors were not protected by their First Amendment right to free speech then in a public setting there would be an establishment of religious beliefs, specifically in this case. As previously mentioned, Shawnee State is a public university meaning that they have to abide by the Constitution; on the other hand, private universities can limit speech and religious exercise or establishment. With this in mind, the decision upheld by the Court of Appeals is sufficient based on the public sphere of the university and the restrictions placed on Meriwether’s religious beliefs could impose an unconstitutional establishment on university grounds.
The Supreme Court case Bob Jones University v. United States (1982) concluded that the IRS was correct by denying them a tax exemption due to the fact that the university promoted racial segregation amongst students. Bob Jones is a private, conservative Christian university who actively believes that segregation between students is a part of their religious belief. The denial of the tax exemption limits religious exercise by advancing religious views that conform to the majority. Since Bob Jones University is a private institution, they should have received a tax exemption. Bob Jones University v. United States in comparison to Meriwether’s case addresses issues of free exercise where the religious minority is supposed to be protected by the tyranny of the democratic majority.
In addition, Widmar v. Vincent is centered on the issue of free speech concerning religious topics on public grounds at a university. The University of Missouri denied a student group the access to university building’s as their meetings would serve as a place for students to participate in prayer and biblical teachings. The Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the University of Missouri to violate the student’s First Amendment rights because the university already opened its facilities as an open forum so they could not discriminate based on religious content. Since the University of Missouri is public and cannot impede on the rights granted by the First Amendment.
Although Meriwether’s speech addressing proper pronoun usage is not in a traditional open forum, his accommodation by calling Doe by her last name should be accepted by Shawnee State University. In addition the Court of Appeals made the appropriate decision by explaining how they disagreed with how the District Court came to agree that professors are not protected by the First Amendment at anytime in the classroom. Meriwether has the constitutional right to freedom of speech and religious exercise while being employed at Shawnee State University. Meriwether’s constitutional rights permit him to express his religious views on his syllabus and approach the university with the accommodation of calling Doe by her last name.
3 comments:
In class, we often discuss how, while the First Amendment does protect individuals' rights to freely exercise their religion, there needs to be some sort of limit to this in order to maintain peace, justice, societal order, and prevent anarchy. In this situation, taking on the responsibility of a professor includes taking on the responsibility of ensuring a safe and healthy environment for students in which backgrounds and identifiers do not get in the way of their learning. In this situation, the professor's religious beliefs create an unhealthy and unsafe environment in which the student's learning would almost certainly be inhibited. Therefore, because this professor is violating the safety and order within his classroom, I do believe his views should be restricted. While he is entitled to hold and voice any religious beliefs he may have, he should probably think of entering another profession in which these beliefs do not disrupt peace and safety.
I find myself agreeing with Sofia’s comment. Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs under the First Amendment, but that does not permit a person from creating a hostile, uncomfortable environment for others, especially if in their profession is one of service. The professor can believe whatever he wants, but his beliefs should not impede on the ability of a student to learn in a healthy environment.
I disagree with the author's opinion in this case. I believe that because the university is public, Shawnee State has the right to prioritize the student's pronouns over the professor's religion to avoid the establishment of religion in any classroom. I agree with the comments posted by Sofia and Andrea that an element of the professor's job description is to create a safe learning environment for students. Furthermore, I believe Shawnee State has the right to require professors to acknowledge and respect students' pronouns since the university itself is not religiously-affiliated.
Post a Comment