Tag: Constitution

  • UC Irvine is crusading over student doormats — and wiping its feet on the Constitution

    UC Irvine is crusading over student doormats — and wiping its feet on the Constitution

    You don’t think much about doormats unless you’re at HomeGoods, but they serve many purposes — a place to wipe your shoes, a way to distinguish otherwise identical-looking apartments, and a vessel for personal expression, whether serious or funny. 

    Graduate student Amelia Roskin-Frazee chose the last of these. Her UC Irvine apartment doormat read, “No Warrant. No Entry.”

    For that alone, UC Irvine is now subjecting Roskin-Frazee and other students to disciplinary proceedings, ordering them to remove personalized doormats or face punishment.

    “Doesn’t UC Irvine have anything better to do than to censor my doormat?” said Roskin-Frazee. “The university should refocus its energy where it belongs: on educating its students.”

    Administrator admits to selective policy enforcement

    The dispute dates back to late 2023, when Roskin-Frazee emailed an administrator to express her concerns about a university policy banning “any signage in windows or on doors facing outside that have words on them.” She (rightly) argued the rule could violate students’ expressive rights and raised concerns about censorship — particularly regarding speech about LGBT issues and sexual assault awareness.

    In response, the coordinator cited an even broader university housing policy that prohibits “[a]ll outward‐facing signs, decorations, and expressions in windows/on doors.” While restricting certain types of signs or flags in windows for fire safety reasons may be reasonable under the First Amendment, this total ban is not narrowly tailored to those specific concerns.

    Worse, the coordinator added that the policy is selectively enforced based on content, explaining that the office probably wouldn’t ask someone to remove a holiday snowflake display but that it has asked “people to take down things like Pride flags, country flags, and advertisements for businesses.” 

    This is classic content discrimination. 

    Back in 2005, Pastor Clyde Reed of Good News Community Church put up a few signs directing people to his Sunday service in Gilbert, Arizona. But the town’s sign code restricted how large signs could be and how long they could stay up depending on what they said. So Reed sued, and 10 years later in the landmark case Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the Supreme Court said that if a law treats speech differently based on its content, it’s probably unconstitutional.

    Free speech means free speech. You don’t get to play favorites based on what the message says. Reed helped remind the country that the First Amendment isn’t just a suggestion. But apparently, UC Irvine never got the memo.

    Students threatened with punishment for doormats

    On April 14, 2025, the same administrator notified Roskin-Frazee that her doormat could violate yet another onerous university policy that says only doormats “without words or images” are allowed — and ordered her to remove it.

    It’s hard to imagine this sort of content discrimination serves a compelling university interest, because it’s not about the actual doormat—it’s about the expression on the doormat. If doormats present a risk to safety in the hallways, for instance, by impeding the ability of emergency services to move in the hallway, shouldn’t any doormat pose that kind of risk? Why does the message on the doormat matter?

    FIRE wrote to the university on April 21 explaining that the UC Irvine cannot “maintain speech-restrictive policies that it enforces only when staff or administrators disapprove of the content or viewpoint of speech,” and urging it to refrain from punishing or threatening to evict Roskin-Frazee from her apartment because of her doormat.

    The university responded to us on April 23, telling us that it was not threatening Roskin-Frazee with eviction. That’s a relief. But our concerns about these policies and their enforcement remain. 

    Flawed policies lead to flawed enforcement

    FIRE wrote to the university again on May 14, taking issue with its broader policies on displays. As we told the university, it “has discretion to impose restrictions on unprotected speech, such as obscenity or images for which the university holds a copyright. But banning any expressive doormat, regardless of whether the doormats pose any safety concerns or otherwise violate university policy or the law, is not a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction of protected speech.”

    Targeting doormats for removal based on their content violates the First Amendment. Period. 

    The university’s policies on outward-facing displays are similarly flawed. Why would an outward-facing display in an apartment pose a different safety or fire risk than an inward-facing display? Delineating between displays like signs or posters based on whether or not they’re visible from the outside, as opposed to whether or not they pose fire or safety risks, is a restriction on student expression, plain and simple.  

    Chancellor Howard Gillman knows this better than most. After all, he wrote his doctoral thesis on constitutional ideology. This isn’t hard. UC Irvine must reform its policies to align with the First Amendment. 

    Source link

  • Supreme Court Must Not Undermine Public Education in Religious Charter Case – The 74

    Supreme Court Must Not Undermine Public Education in Religious Charter Case – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Last week, the Supreme Court held oral arguments in a case that could undermine public education across America. The question the court is looking to answer is whether a religious institution may run a publicly funded charter school — a move that would threaten not only the separation of church and state, but the right of every student to access free, high-quality learning.

    In 2023, Oklahoma’s Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, an action that would make it the nation’s first-ever religious charter school. It would be governed by Catholic religious doctrine in its syllabus, operations and employment practices. It would use taxpayer dollars to pay for religious instruction. And it could turn away students and staff if their faith or identity conflict with Catholic beliefs. 

    Here’s the issue: Charter schools were created to be public schools. They are open to all students, from every background, tradition and faith community. They are publicly funded and tuition-free. And they are secular. 

    That’s not an arbitrary distinction – it’s a constitutional one, grounded in the law and embedded in charter schools’ very design. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause bars the government from promoting or endorsing any religion through public spaces or institutions. This foundational rule has ensured that students of all backgrounds can access public schools. It does not stifle religious expression — the Constitution fully protects this freedom, and religious education is available in other venues. Personally, I was, in fact, educated at Jesuit Catholic schools for my entire academic career. 

    Parochial education has long been an accepted and important part of the education ecosystem, serving a variety of students and often filling an important need. Religiously affiliated schools have a long history of educating and caring for children who are new to this country and underserved, and supporting families who are overlooked. But promoting the exclusive teachings of a specific religion with public funds in a public school violates a clear constitutional principle. 

    The issue isn’t only a legal matter; it’s about the character of public education itself. Muddying the boundary between public and religious institutions would undercut a fundamental commitment made by the nation’s public charter schools: that they are accessible to every student. It would undermine legal protections that keep public services available to the public. 

    Rather than creating more opportunities for America’s students, it would constrict opportunities for a high-quality education, especially in states that are hostile toward charters or alternative public school models. Legislative bodies could seek to eliminate funding for all unique school types if the court decision forced them to fund religious schools operating with public dollars. This would curtail or dismantle strong independent schools, 30-year-old public charter schools and schools with unique programs designed for special populations.

    As executive director of the DC Charter School Alliance, and a long-time public charter school advocate, I’ve seen the importance of public charter schools firsthand. Here in the District of Columbia, charter schools serve nearly half of the public school students in the city. Outstanding educators from all walks of life teach a wide range of subjects with enthusiasm and expertise to prepare young people for success. Our students bring to the classroom an incredible range of experiences, including faith traditions. And every student, family and faculty member is welcome. D.C.’s charter schools reflect a core American value: the promise of a high-quality public education for all. 

    The justices of the Supreme Court face a clear and critical choice: They can bolster that promise, or they can tear it down. If the court allows a religious school to operate with public funds, there is no doubt that it will open the floodgates to other proposals across the country. Taxpayers could be forced to foot the bill for countless new and converted schools, draining resources from an already financially strapped education system. True public charter schools — the ones committed to high standards, positive results and opportunity for all — could bear the cost. And the students who rely on them could suffer. 

    Public education is one of America’s most vital institutions. It offers all children, no matter their background or beliefs, access to free, high-quality learning. Charter schools play an essential role in making that promise real. But allowing a religious school to operate with public funds turns public education into something much more restrictive, dismantling its very foundation.

    The court must reaffirm this indisputable truth: Public schools should remain public — and open to all. 


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link