For many students, college offers an opportunity to learn and experience new things. With a variety of campus clubs and organizations, students have the ability to explore new avenues and form their individual passions and ideals. Religion is one area of campus life that students may be exposed to for the first time while at college and it is not uncommon for students to encounter people on campus speaking about their beliefs. Chike Uzuegbunam, a former student at Georgia Gwinnett College (GGC), was silenced twice in 2016 while attempting to share his Christian faith with other students. First, officials of the college told Chike he must reserve a campus “speech zone” to speak in public. After Chike reserved a “speech zone,” he was still told by campus police that he must stop sharing his faith because of complaints. Chike was threatened with expulsion if he did not cease speaking and comply with officers.
Not long after, Chike and Joseph Bradford (who was hesitant to share his faith because of college policies) sued the university for violating their constitutional rights under the first and fourteenth amendments. With the assistance of AllianceDefending Freedom, Chike and Bradford sought an injunction preventing the enforcement of the policies and requested nominaldamages for the violation of their rights. While this case was pending, the college revised its speech policies and filed a motion to dismiss the suit as moot. In the context of the law, moot refers to a case that has no open legal question or has been resolved because of some occurrence. Because the college had changed its policies to be constitutional, the motion was granted by district court and was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On January 12th, this case was heard by the supreme court to decide the legal doctrine of mootness, which limits the on-going jurisdiction of federal courts to hear cases and to decide if pursuing nominal damages can avoid mootness.
Michael and Jonathan Whitehead, a father-son religious liberty attorney team from Kansas City, discussan interesting aspect of the case when Michael says, “The government never disputed that Chike and Joseph’s rights were violated. But the state claims it should be able to avoid all accountability for these violations if it changes its policy after the lawsuit is filed.” Jonathan also brings up an important point saying, “That would permit the same or a future government official to restore the old policy as soon as the lawsuit is over.” If revising policy is all that must be done to moot a case, there would be nothing stopping those sued over unconstitutional policies from terminating policy prematurely and not addressing the violation of rights. I argue this grants too much control to large entities and should be of concern to individuals. Because of this loophole, the individual’s American rights are not protected. The loophole ultimately acts like an “insurance policy” to colleges and other organizations: they can continue to have unconstitutional policies, and then if questioned in court, can merely change the policies, have the case dismissed, and dodge any severe legal consequence.
Similar to this idea is the case Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, where the Whiteheads were counsel of record. Here, the supreme court ruled that “voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not moot a case unless ‘subsequent events make it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.’” Using the Trinity case as precedent, GGC should not be able to moot the case. Because there is not clear evidence that the wrongful behavior will not occur again, the trial for nominal damages should continue with GGC being held accountable for violating the rights of Chike and Bradford.
I firmly believe that pursuing nominal damages in a suit is enough to avoid mootness. I also believe that a change in policy should not moot a case where a party’s rights have been violated. While debates over mootness may not appear important to the common person, they hold the government accountable – serving as proof that rights were harmed. This case is an important example of protection of the First and Fourteenth amendment rights on college campuses. While colleges and universities may be large and powerful, it is important that the law prevents them from avoiding consequences when they violate the rights of individuals. It is also important that students are not intimidated and will follow the example of Chike and Bradford and know their freedoms to practice speech and religion. When these freedoms are violated, students should stand firm in pursuing justice and protecting their rights. College campuses are great for students to expand their beliefs and to interact with others who have differing beliefs, but they need to remain an area where this can freely occur. After hearing about Chike and Bradford’s experience, what do you think about religion on college campuses? Do you think you are able to freely exercise your religion on your campus? Do you think the college revising its policy should be enough to moot the case and avoid the lawsuit?
7 comments:
Jared, I agree with your assessment of this case. College is meant to be a place that converges the diverse backgrounds of their students and religion plays a massive role in that area. The change in policy loophole seems like a "band-aid" effect in that they changed policy to quickly stop the bleeding of this controversy but did not really address the real problem at hand. I am interested to see what the college's original policy was and what changes they made to it to make the case qualified as moot. Regardless, institutional accountability is essential to fostering a healthy and effective college campus and this case shows that importance.
Jared – I think you have picked a very interesting situation to analyze, and I agree with how you have indicated that a quick policy change should not invalidate an individual’s or group’s loss of rights and suffering. As most individual’s first time away from family, college is an opportunity for self-discovery and belief exploration without the influence of friends and family. When a group stands up to an institution that has violated their First Amendment rights, changes must be made. Americans should not have to rely on a court to oversee change, but it should not require a lawsuit for a First Amendment rights to be taken seriously. As we have learned, precedent is set by court decisions, and the trial should take place regardless of the institution’s changes made after filing.
I believe it is important to highlight the students themselves, that not only were they told not to speak but were threatened with expulsion which is reason enough to pursue an injunction against the school. By filing for nominal damages, these individuals want to be recognized for the damage the school had caused them. If damages were paid it would legally recognize that these men’s rights were violated. I agree that the school is actively avoiding doing so by going back and forth with policy. This case is about accountability and as Jared pointed out avoiding reoccurrence. As much as constituents must keep local and state governments in check to protect their rights, students have the same liberty and obligation to do so with their administration.
Jared, I agree with your stance made in the last paragraph. The point made by Jonathan that old policies would most likely be restored after the lawsuit was over was what made me believe that this case was not a moot case. Clearly the school had issues with policies limiting student's First Amendment rights before (exhibited by Charlie) but the school did nothing to change their policies back then. It was not until Chike brought this case to court that the school pleaded that they wanted to change their policies; this shows that their claim to "change their policy" was most likely insincere and just for show. In college, students come from all different backgrounds and it is essential that there is diversity on campus. GGC does not embrace this diversity and that needs to change.
Jared, I think your argument sheds great light on what is allowed to slip under the rug when a single person stands their ground against a powerful institution like a university.College is a notorious place for young people to come into their own and search for their identity, a college stepping on that chance, while toeing the line of unconstitutionality, should not be something a student should have to deal with. Threatening with expulsion, while to the school may be a way to prevent further future potential headaches on tender religious matters, is not the slippery-slope preventer it is made out to be. The students were right to stand their ground.
Jared, I think your argument is important because it shows you the loophole that is in place for when a person stands against a powerful institution. I think it was great when you said " If revising policy is all that must be done to moot a case, there would be nothing stopping those sued over unconstitutional policies from terminating policy prematurely and not addressing the violation of rights. I argue this grants too much control to large entities and should be of concern to individuals. Because of this loophole, the individual’s American rights are not protected." I think this case is important in protecting students first and fourteenth amendment rights on college campuses. I believe college is a time for students to be able to express themselves and figure out who they are. For a college to violate students rights, threaten them to explosion, and then when students act they just change the policy and think everything okay is unacceptable. I believe in today's society it is essential that students come from different backgrounds and cultures and their is a lot of diversity on campus.
Post a Comment