Tag: defend

  • Harvard Faculty Pledge 10% of Salary to Defend Against Trump

    Harvard Faculty Pledge 10% of Salary to Defend Against Trump

    Nearly 100 senior faculty members at Harvard have committed to taking a pay cut to support the institution’s legal defense against the federal government.

    The Trump administration has frozen more than $2 billion in federal funding, threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status and said it would end the institution’s ability to enroll international students.

    Last month, Harvard filed a lawsuit to halt the federal freeze on $2.2 billion in grants after university officials refused to comply with a sweeping list of demands from the government.

    On Friday, President Trump repeated his calls to revoke Harvard’s tax exempt status. “We are going to be taking away Harvard’s Tax Exempt Status. It’s what they deserve!” he said in a post on his social media platform, TruthSocial.

    Harvard president Alan Garber said taking away the institution’s nonprofit tax exemption would be “highly illegal” and that its mission to educate and research would be “severely impaired” if the status were revoked.

    In their pledge, 89 senior faculty signatories said they would take a 10 percent pay cut for up to a year to protect the institution, as well as faculty and students who are more exposed to efforts to shore up costs, including by limiting graduate student enrollment and implementing hiring and salary freezes.

    “The financial costs will not be shared equally among our community. Staff and students in many programs, in particular, are under greater threat than those of us with tenured positions,” the pledge says.

    Ryan Enos, a signatory and professor of government at Harvard, estimated that the donations could amount to more than $2 million.

    The group said it intends to move quickly but has not decided how the salary cuts will be implemented.

    “We envision that faculty who have made the pledge will hold a vote and if the majority agrees that the university is making a good faith effort to use its own resources in support of staff, student, and academic programs, faculty will proceed with their donation.”

    Last week the institution announced changes to its admissions, curriculum and disciplinary procedures after two internal task forces launched last year investigating anti-Muslim bias and antisemitism on campus found the university’s response lacking.

    In response to the efforts, a White House official told CNN, “Harvard’s steps so far to curb antisemitism are ‘positive,’” but “what we’re seeing is not enough, and there’s actually probably going to be additional funding being cut.”

    Source link

  • Historians Defend Smithsonian After Trump’s Order

    Historians Defend Smithsonian After Trump’s Order

    The American Historical Association says that President Trump’s executive order targeting the Smithsonian Institution “egregiously misrepresents the work” of the organization and “completely misconstrues the nature of historical work.”

    In the executive order issued late last week, Trump criticized what he saw as “a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history” that replaces “objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth.”

    The order cites an exhibit at the American Art Museum that examines the “role of sculpture in understanding and constructing the concept of race in the United States,” according to the museum’s website. The order also notes that the “National Museum of African American History and Culture has proclaimed that ‘hard work,’ ‘individualism,’ and ‘the nuclear family’ are aspects of ‘White culture.’”

    The order, titled “Restoring Truth And Sanity To American History,” puts Vice President JD Vance in charge of ensuring that Smithsonian museums, research centers and the National Zoo don’t put on exhibits or programs that “degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race.”

    The AHA defended the work of historians in the statement released Monday, adding that “historians explore the past to understand how our nation has evolved.”

    “Our goal is neither criticism nor celebration; it is to understand—to increase our knowledge of—the past in ways that can help Americans to shape the future,” said the statement, which has been signed by 16 other organizations. “By providing a history with the integrity necessary to enable all Americans to be all they can possibly be, the Smithsonian is fulfilling its duty to all of us.”

    Source link

  • The Coalitions We Need to Defend Open Inquiry (opinion)

    The Coalitions We Need to Defend Open Inquiry (opinion)

    For the last few years, many colleges and universities across the country have experienced firsthand attacks on higher education through state legislation targeting diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Since 2023, about 120 anti-DEI bills have been introduced across 29 states, and 15 of them have become law.

    These proposed bills and enacted legislation have largely been met with silence from university leaders. But over the past month, as attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion policies rose to the federal level via multiple executive orders and a Dear Colleague letter from the Department of Education, a broad coalition—professional associations in higher education, labor organizations, civil rights groups and elected officials—has filed numerous federal lawsuits challenging their constitutionality, including at least four suits involving educational organizations as plaintiffs. By taking legal action and securing a preliminary injunction against two of the executive orders, these coalitions are breaking the silence of recent years to send a clear message about the legality and harmful consequences of these policy changes for higher education and society.

    As scholars who examine how the law shapes educational policy and organizations, we have closely studied the consequences of anti-DEI bills on faculty members who engage in the very topics implicated by these laws. We’ve learned that these bills restrict research and teaching protected by academic freedom before they’re even enacted. Unintentionally or not, silence from institutional leaders contributes to the suppression.

    To counter this climate of suppression and protect the robust exchange of ideas and open inquiry, we must embrace coalitions like the ones behind the federal lawsuits and urge higher education leaders to unite and speak out to uphold institutional missions and safeguard our democracy.

    Why Silence Does Not Work—and Makes Matters Worse

    In our recently published study, we interviewed 32 faculty members whose research or teaching focused on race at two public institutions in different Republican-controlled states with proposed anti-DEI, anti–critical race theory and anti-tenure bills. Even before these bills took effect—and despite exemptions for research and teaching—we found that many faculty members pre-emptively altered their work in response to the external interference.

    Some removed diversity-related course readings or avoided certain terms like “intersectionality” in their teaching. Others, like Kourtney, a Black tenured faculty member, hesitated to share their research publicly, fearing harassment if it got into the wrong hands. Kourtney described how previously she would disseminate her research widely to make an impact. But now, out of fear, she was more reserved and cautious when sharing her work as to not get “on the radar [of] anyone that could potentially try to stop” her research.

    We also learned that the actions—or lack thereof—of university leaders shaped faculty members’ responses. University leaders’ silence amplified the pressures proposed legislation created. Danielle, a Black tenured faculty member, explained how silence from institutional leaders made “everything harder” and “sent a really loud and clear message” of “not supporting me.” The “glaring silence,” as participants called it, from senior leaders and college deans heightened uncertainty and anxiety, leaving many faculty members feeling isolated and solely responsible for protecting their rights under academic freedom.

    Yet not all university leaders were silent. Some faculty members in our study had supportive college deans and department chairs who conveyed affirmative internal messages. These participants reported that such messages helped them feel supported, empowered and confident in continuing their teaching and research without compromise. Wilson and Michelle both expressed that messages from their deans, messages that emphasized valuing faculty expertise and a commitment to scholarship addressing inequities, made them “feel at the college level like you’re protected” and reinforced their belief in “having academic freedom to be able to teach.”

    It is understandable that leaders hesitate to speak out, given the risk of losing state funding or their jobs. In fact, many faculty members we spoke to, like Megan, understood the challenging circumstances and empathized with their college deans. Megan recalled her college dean saying, “We don’t agree with [the bill], but let’s wait it out. Trying to … draw attention will be worse. Let’s keep our head down.” However, their silence also created a critical void. Cruz, a Latino tenured faculty member, explained how “not saying anything is just as bad, because then the only conclusion that the faculty take … is ‘we’re on our own out here.’”

    As a result, many faculty members of color undertook additional administrative work and legislative advocacy efforts as private citizens to be able to carry on with their research and teaching, making it increasingly difficult for them to advance their careers. Cruz shared how all this additional work and advocacy was “time that they’re not doing scholarship, that they’re not writing grants, that they’re not updating their classes.” For some, the frustration and exhaustion became so overwhelming that they chose to leave their institutions, or higher education entirely.

    Why Coalitions Are Needed to Break the Silence

    Our findings also revealed that support from coalitions of civil rights groups, advocacy organizations and professional associations like the American Association of University Professors helped some faculty members to resist the pressure to change their teaching or research. These groups organized teach-ins virtually or on campus, provided legislative analysis via one-pagers and facilitated legislative organizing efforts.

    Eliot, a white tenured faculty member, described how these coalitions helped foster “some unity,” making “a real difference psychologically” by ensuring members no longer felt isolated but instead felt that “we’re in this together.” By building collective capacity, these coalitions empowered faculty members to defend academic freedom and push back against a climate of suppression—particularly as most participants in our study received little to no guidance or support from university leaders.

    Now, faculty members across the country—many of whom are only beginning to face these challenges—find themselves overwhelmed with uncertainty and fear, pressured to pre-emptively censor their work. However, we’re starting to see the emergence of the coalitions needed to disrupt this climate of suppression.

    The recent lawsuits mark an important step in the defense of robust expression of ideas and open inquiry, but they are just the beginning. Effectively challenging this suppression requires a united front of policy and advocacy organizations, civil rights groups, unions, professional associations, and institutional leaders. Leaders are better positioned to advocate for higher education and respond to emerging threats when working within a coalition, such as Education for All, which has been providing training sessions and strategic guidance to help institutions safeguard their student success programs.

    These coalitions provide crucial support on the ground to help faculty members, administrators and students continue their work while the legal battles unfold. And they can help break institutional silence by offering timely, research-driven guidance on state legislation, executive orders and other emerging state and federal threats—many of which pressure education professionals to unnecessarily restrict or abandon core principles and programs in higher education.

    Jackie Pedota, Ph.D., is a postdoctoral associate at the University of Texas at Austin. Her research examines topics within higher education at the intersection of race, power and organizational change, revealing how organizational dynamics and sociopolitical contexts perpetuate inequities for minoritized campus communities.

    Liliana M. Garces, J.D., Ed.D., is the Ken McIntyre Professor for Excellence in School Leadership at the University of Texas at Austin. Her research examines how law and education policy interact to shape access and opportunity in higher education.

    Source link

  • Free speech advocates rally to support FIRE’s federal appeal to defend advocacy in public parks

    Free speech advocates rally to support FIRE’s federal appeal to defend advocacy in public parks

    Protesting in public parks is as American as apple pie. It’s at the heart of our First Amendment — and one of our nation’s most time-honored principles. That right does not disappear merely because a private entity operates the public park on the government’s behalf. 

    That’s why FIRE and the Law and Religion Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law are appealing a district court ruling that weakens this First Amendment right. And we are proud to be backed by a broad coalition of prominent organizations as “friends of the court.” 

    Here’s what happened. Several years ago, animal welfare advocates Daraius Dubash and Dr. Faraz Harsini took to Houston’s largest public park to raise awareness about the harms of industrialized farming. For Dubash, this activism is rooted in his Vedantic Hindu faith, which compels him to promote the teaching of ahimsa, or nonviolence. To communicate their message, Dubash and Harsini serve as co-organizers for an international nonprofit animal-rights group. Their signature event involves volunteers showing muted documentary footage of farming practices to passersby, while others remain available to answer questions.

    Dubash and Harsini’s right to peacefully advocate on this issue in a public park is beyond dispute. But on three separate occasions, the public park’s private management ordered them to leave. The fourth time, park management had Houston police arrest Dubash for criminal trespass and banned them both from showing their video footage in the park in the future. Why? Because the park’s private managers and city police deemed their message “offensive.”

    With the help of FIRE and the Law and Religion Clinic, Dubash and Harsini filed suit in 2023 against the City of Houston, the park management corporation, its then-president, and the arresting officers. But in September, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed their claims, ruling that none of the defendants were responsible for violating Dubash and Harsini’s constitutional rights in a public park. 

    We disagree. 

    FIRE and the Clinic appealed to the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the ruling effectively lets the government bypass the First Amendment by delegating the management of public spaces to private organizations. And the court’s limited interpretation of governmental liability would make it nearly impossible for anyone to challenge violation of their constitutional rights by municipalities or law enforcement. 

    Last week, 12 prominent organizations from across the ideological spectrum filed nine amicus curiae briefs in support of Dubash and Harsini:

     The ACLU of Texas argues the park management company was acting as a state actor and public-private partnerships “cannot serve as an end run around the First Amendment.” The brief also argues the district court erred by failing to hold the arresting officers accountable based on their “mistaken belief” that the park was private. As the brief explains, probable-cause findings must be based on “objective facts and circumstances rather than subjective beliefs.”

    Young America’s Foundation, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, and Advancing American Freedom explain that Houston cannot bypass its duty to protect free speech in its public spaces by granting oversight authority to a private third party. The brief also emphasizes the sweeping implications of the district court’s decision, including in the academic context where state universities are increasingly attempting to evade First Amendment protections by outsourcing park management to nominally private entities like student governments.

    Liberty Justice Center argues the district court’s decision “blurs the line between state and private actors,” allowing Houston to “contract out of its constitutional obligations.” We could not agree more.

     The Center for American Liberty, in a brief submitted through Reeves Law LLC, argues that maintaining a public park is a traditional and exclusive government function, with public parks serving “as public forums for the expression of speech,” whether or not they are managed by a private entity.

     The National Press Photographers Association, in a brief submitted through the First Amendment Clinic at Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, explains how the district court’s ruling “threatens the sanctity of the spaces where speech is deserving of the highest protection.”

     Law Enforcement Action Partnership and the National Police Accountability Project explain that accountability for law enforcement officers and municipalities is crucial to preserving public confidence in the police and the government, and that failing to hold police officers accountable “undermines public trust in law enforcement.” The brief also argues that municipalities should know their police officers “need training and guidance to appropriately respond” to peaceful expressive activity, and failing to provide that training is sufficient to establish municipal liability.

    Protect the First Foundation, in a brief submitted through the Religious Freedom Clinic at Harvard Law School and Schaerr Jaffe LLP, highlights that Dubash was motivated to proselytize nonviolence by his deeply held religious beliefs, and describes the long history and tradition of public proselytization, from the persecution of religious minorities in the colonies through the legal protections established by First Amendment jurisprudence.

    The Hindu American Foundation, in a brief submitted through Jackson Walker LLP, explains that Dubash’s religious motivation to advocate for nonviolence towards animals is consistent with Hindu teachings. The brief also argues that his “arrest, detention, and the ongoing prohibition on his method of proselytizing” do not pass constitutional muster.

    The American Hindu Coalition, in a brief submitted through the Free Exercise Clinic at Yale Law School, emphasizes the history of public parks and streets as centers of religious activity, how marginalized faiths rely on these spaces to exercise their faith, and that Dubash’s activism is rooted in his religious beliefs.

    Our clients and their counsel are grateful for the support of this impressive and diverse amicus coalition. This case will play a critical role in protecting the rights of other protesters and religious minorities to engage in protected expression as guaranteed under the First Amendment.

    Source link

  • The government wants to financially bludgeon those seeking to defend constitutional rights

    The government wants to financially bludgeon those seeking to defend constitutional rights

    A new White House directive to heads of executive departments and agencies threatens to make it prohibitively expensive for Americans to defend the Constitution in court. The memo “directs” the departments and agencies to “demand” that courts make those seeking injunctions against federal actions “cover the costs … incurred if the Government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined.”

    The move could not be more transparent in attempting to scare off potential litigants challenging executive orders or other federal actions of questionable constitutionality.

    The White House deems this necessary because “activist organizations” are supposedly “inserting themselves into the executive policy making process” and have “obtained sweeping injunctions.” The administration claims Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates security bonds for all preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders to protect against the prospect of a later judicial ruling that the defendant was improperly enjoined.

    But this is misleading. That literal reading of the rule may make sense in the mine-run of private disputes, like claims in commercial contexts. But courts have long recognized exceptions for public-interest litigation, especially when it comes to those seeking to protect constitutional rights. In other words, “activist groups” like FIRE and the clients we proudly defend.

    Our free speech protections safeguard us from government incursion, they do not extend “rights” — that is, protection — to government actors.

    It’s bad enough Rule 65 already exempts “the United States, its officers, and its agencies” from the bond requirement if they win a preliminary injunction, and that the feds also avoid the obligation the Civil Rights Act imposes on state actors to pay attorney fees if a party sues to correct a constitutional violation and wins. But to insist on payment by a party challenging the constitutionality of government action — after that party has shown likelihood of succeeding on the claim, as is required for a preliminary injunction — clearly seeks to buck the case law on public interest litigation. In the name of disincentivizing challenges to constitutionally suspect federal action, no less. 

    And that’s just wrong — the government should not be in the business of financially punishing those who seek to vindicate their constitutional rights, or of erecting extra barriers to being able to do so. 

    FIRE made the same point in our recent friend-of-the-court brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in U.S. News v. Chiu. In that case, San Francisco’s city attorney took issue with U.S. News’ annual hospital rankings and launched a “false advertising” investigation that included subpoenas demanding, among other things, that the publisher disclose its ranking methodology and supporting documents. 

    So U.S. News challenged the subpoenas in court as retaliation against its protected speech. But the city attorney sought to dismiss the case as a meritless “strategic lawsuit against public participation” (SLAPP) under California’s anti-SLAPP law and sought attorney fees, as the statute allows for prevailing defendants. Troublingly, the court bought it, dismissing the case and ordering U.S. News to pay. 

    Just one problem: Anti-SLAPP laws protect defendants from frivolous lawsuits alleging defamation or similar claims that are designed not necessarily to prevail, but to silence or punish the exercise of free speech rights. And state actors operating in official roles do not exercise free speech rights at all, but rather, government powers, as the Sixth Circuit recently reaffirmed. Our free speech protections safeguard us from government incursion, they do not extend “rights” — that is, protection — to government actors, which is who wield the powers from which protection is needed. Exactly like those the city attorney wielded in subpoenaing U.S. News.

    That’s why, when U.S. News appealed, FIRE’s  brief argued the district court was wrong to award fees in granting the city attorney’s anti-SLAPP motion. Giving government officials anti-SLAPP protection serves only to chill people from challenging unconstitutional and illegal government actions, thus threatening the very rights that anti-SLAPP laws seek to protect. 

    The White House’s new directive suffers from the same chilling problem. If agencies insist that courts make people put up or shut up by having to cover potentially ruinous federal governmental costs if they preliminarily succeed in challenging unconstitutional behavior, then naturally fewer plaintiffs (and organizations that represent them) will be willing and able to vindicate First Amendment rights in court. 

    That would leave all of us less free. 

    Source link

  • Love, loyalty, and liberty: ASU alumni unite to defend free speech

    Love, loyalty, and liberty: ASU alumni unite to defend free speech

    Late last year, a group of Arizona State University alumni gathered on the rooftop of the Canopy Hotel — high enough to see the headlights snake through the city of Tempe, but low enough to feel the pounding bass line of Mill Avenue’s nightlife. 

    Though the setting was casual, the conversation was anything but. A simple question had brought them together: What obligations do alumni have to their alma mater? 

    For most graduates, the answer is simple. Come back for Homecoming, buy the sweatshirt, scribble a check when the fundraising office calls. Thanks for your generosity! Click. 

    But for the assembled Sun Devils — spanning the classes of ’85 to ’24 — their connection to ASU is more than rah–rah nostalgia. They feel a duty to protect what made the university worth attending in the first place. 

    And so, that evening, they formed ASU Alumni for Free Speech. Their mission? “To promote and strengthen free expression, academic freedom, and viewpoint diversity, both on campus and throughout the global ASU community.” 

    The group’s inaugural chairman is Joe Pitts, ASU class of ’23 — whose beard, broad shoulders, and sage intellect belie his youth. For him, alumni should be more than mere spectators or “walking check books,” as he puts it, “endlessly giving and expecting little in return.” Instead, they should be invested stakeholders. 

    Pitts says it’s now fashionable to view a college diploma as little more than a fancy receipt. People think, I paid my tuition, endured the required courses, and behold: I’m credentialed! A neat little market transaction — no lingering ties, no ongoing investment.

    But this mindset, Pitts argues, is both morally bankrupt and pragmatically wrong-headed. As a practical matter, he says, “the value of your degree is tied to the reputation of your school — if your alma mater improves over time, your degree becomes more prestigious. If it declines, so does the respect it commands.” 

    And in the cutthroat world of status-signaling and social capital that matters — a lot. 

    ASU alumni have already petitioned the Arizona Board of Regents, urging them to adopt a policy of institutional neutrality, which would prevent the university from taking positions on current political issues and weighing in on the cause-du-jour.

    As a moral matter, “spending four years (or even more) at a university inevitably shapes you in some way,” Pitts says. “And in most cases, it’s for the better — even if we don’t exactly realize it at the time.” Think about it: how many unexpected friendships or serendipitous moments of clarity, insight, rebellion, and revelation do we owe our alma mater? 

    To discard that connection the moment you graduate — to treat it like an expired gym membership — isn’t just ungrateful. It’s a rejection of one’s own formation.

    But beyond these considerations, Pitts insists that what united them on the Canopy Hotel rooftop last year was — love, actually. Not the saccharine, Hallmark kind or the fleeting thrill of a Tinder rendezvous, but the sort of love that drives men to build cathedrals and forge legacies.

    Echoing St. Thomas Aquinas, Pitts says, “We love ASU, and to love is to will the good of the other — not to sit idly by.” And what is the good? It’s a campus where students unapologetically speak their minds; where professors dare to probe the perilous and the provocative; where administrators resist the temptation to do their best Big Brother impression! 

    Fortunately for ASU Alumni for Free Speech, their alma mater is already a national leader when it comes to free speech on campus — though, as Pitts notes, that’s “a damn low bar.”

    ASU ranks 14 out of 251 schools in FIRE’s 2025 College Free Speech Rankings, and has maintained a “green light” rating from FIRE since 2011, meaning its official policies don’t seriously imperil free expression. In 2018, ASU adopted the Chicago principles, committing to the “free, robust, and uninhibited sharing of ideas” on campus.

    The university didn’t stop there. This spring, ASU will launch a Center for Free Speech alongside an annual Free Speech Forum. 

    But despite these credentials, the specter of censorship still lingers at ASU, and the numbers tell the tale:

    • 68% of ASU students believe shouting down a speaker is at least rarely acceptable.
    • 35% believe violence can sometimes be justified to silence speech.
    • 37% self-censor at least once or twice a month. 
    • Over one-third of surveyed ASU faculty admit to self-censorship in their writing.

    And so — like the cavalry cresting the hill — ASU Alumni for Free Speech arrives just in time.

    “When controversy inevitably arises on a campus of 100,000 students,” Pitts argues, “the defense of free expression shouldn’t be left solely to outside organizations or political bodies. Instead, those speaking up should be people who genuinely care about ASU and have its best interests at heart.”

    ASU Alumni for Free Speech aims to be that voice. “In the long run, we want to have a seat at the table,” Pitts explains. “We want to build relationships not just with the ASU administration but also with the Arizona Board of Regents.”

    Along with FIRE, ASU alumni have already petitioned the Arizona Board of Regents, urging them to adopt a policy of institutional neutrality, which would prevent the university from taking positions on current political issues and weighing in on the cause-du-jour.

    SIGN THE PETITION TO ADOPT INSTITUTIONAL NEUTRALITY!

    Pitts and the rest of ASU Alumni for Free Speech are tired of playing cheerleader. They’re here to ensure that ASU flourishes not just today, but for every Sun Devil yet to step onto Palm Walk for the first time.

    “Sometimes that may look like applause,” Pitts says. “Other times, that may look like criticism.” 

    In either case, he insists, it’s an act of love.

    If you’re ready to join ASU Alumni for Free Speech, or if you’re interested in forming a free speech alumni alliance at your alma mater, contact Bobby Ramkissoon at bobby.ramkissoon@thefire.org. We’ll connect you with like-minded alumni and offer guidance on how to effectively protect free speech and academic freedom for all. 

    Source link

  • Ohio Northern sues professor for having the audacity to defend his rights in court

    Ohio Northern sues professor for having the audacity to defend his rights in court

    Following Professor Scott Gerber’s vocal opposition to his school’s diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, Ohio Northern University ordered campus police to yank him out of class and march him to the dean, who demanded Gerber’s immediate resignation. A judge decried the school’s apparent “callous disregard for due process,” but because Gerber had the courage to fight back in court, ONU took things even further — filing a federal lawsuit to shut him up.

    But Gerber is not having it. A longtime critic of ONU’s initiatives around DEI, Gerber’s objections made him a target of administrators, who launched an investigation into him in January 2023. From then until his sudden termination, ONU outright refused to disclose the specific accusations against him. When the school finally told Gerber he lacked “collegiality,” FIRE explained to ONU that this charge looked a lot like retaliation for his views on DEI, which would be a stark violation of the university’s commitment to academic freedom. We called on ONU in March, and again in May, to provide Gerber with the specifics of its collegiality concerns, to no avail. 

    Out of work and still wondering what he did wrong, Gerber took ONU to court. His complaint centered on the university’s failure to provide him with the specific grounds for dismissal. This fundamental principle of due process protects the right of the accused to defend themselves. After all, if you don’t know what you’re accused of doing, it’s impossible to prove your innocence. Universities provide due process to ensure accurate disciplinary determinations, especially when a tenured professor’s livelihood hangs in the balance. That’s why an Ohio state court allowed Gerber’s breach of contract claim to proceed, criticizing ONU’s “troubling . . . lack of any detailed determination” of how its allegations “affected his fitness as a faculty member.” 

    That case is now headed to trial. 

    Professor suspended for reasons unknown — even to him 

    News

    Why did Ohio Northern University suspend professor Scott Gerber? We have no idea, and neither does he.


    Read More

    But for defending his rights in state court, ONU sued Gerber in federal court on Jan. 20, claiming Gerber’s “perverted” lawsuit is apparently an “attempt to accomplish . . . personal vendettas” and “unleashing political retribution” against ONU — notwithstanding the state court holding Gerber’s claims warranted proceeding to a jury. ONU’s suit claims Gerber’s “true goal is to manufacture outrage, to influence political retribution, and to extract vengeance against” ONU. According to the lawsuit, Gerber’s attempt to hold the university to its own policies is an unlawful “abuse of process.” 

    Disturbingly, the crux of ONU’s complaint rests on Gerber’s protected speech. The university faults Gerber for expressing accurate information about his ordeal in the Wall Street Journal and through a press release published by his attorneys at America First Legal, maligned by ONU as a “manufactured narrative” designed to “manufacture outrage.” Yet Gerber and America First Legal cite the university’s own words and policies to make his case, which a state court has allowed to proceed by rejecting ONU’s efforts to dismiss his claims.

    The irony of ONU refusing to provide Gerber with the bare minimum of process before summarily terminating him, then launching a whole federal lawsuit instead to get him to stop fighting, is palpable.

    ONU’s suit is a classic example of abusing the legal system to silence your critics. Such a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP, is a tactic that seeks solely to impose punishing litigation costs on their targets. The lawsuit is the punishment. Gerber must now bear the burden of defending this meritless suit while he prepares for trial in state court.

    Why ‘SLAPP’ lawsuits chill free speech and threaten the First Amendment

    Issue Pages

    You can’t use the legal system to punish people for speech you don’t like.


    Read More

    On a larger note, if nonprofits like FIRE cannot convey truthful information about the cases we litigate without incurring a separate lawsuit, that will imperil a wide array of civil rights advocacy. Defending against an onerous SLAPP puts further strain on the already limited resources dedicated to protecting civil liberties.

    Terminated professors must turn to courts to vindicate their rights as the option of last resort, and the First Amendment protects their right to do so. When universities seek in turn to use courts to bully professors into submission, judges must firmly reject these thinly veiled attempts to achieve censorship by lawsuit. 

    We’ll keep our readers updated. 

    FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members — no matter their views — at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If you’re a faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533). If you’re a college journalist facing censorship or a media law question, call the Student Press Freedom Initiative 24-hour hotline at 717-734-SPFI (7734).

    Source link

  • FIRE to defend veteran pollster J. Ann Selzer in Trump lawsuit over outlier election poll

    FIRE to defend veteran pollster J. Ann Selzer in Trump lawsuit over outlier election poll

    DES MOINES, Iowa, Jan. 7, 2025 — The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression announced today it will defend veteran Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer pro bono against a lawsuit from President-elect Donald Trump that threatens Americans’ First Amendment right to speak on core political issues.

    “Punishing someone for their political prediction is about as unconstitutional as it gets,” said FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere. “This is America. No one should be afraid to predict the outcome of an election. Whether it’s from a pollster, or you, or me, such political expression is fully and unequivocally protected by the First Amendment.”

    EXPLAINER: FIGHTING TRUMP’S LAWSUIT IS FIRST AMENDMENT 101

    Trump’s lawsuit stems from a poll Selzer published before the 2024 presidential election that predicted Vice President Kamala Harris leading by three points in Iowa. The lawsuit, brought under Iowa’s Consumer Fraud Act, is meritless and violates long-standing constitutional principles.

    The claim distorts the purpose of consumer fraud laws, which target sellers who make false statements to get you to buy merchandise. 

    “Consumer fraud laws are about the scam artist who rolls back the odometer on a used car, not a newspaper pollster or TV meteorologist who misses a forecast,” said FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick.

    Trump’s suit seeks damages and a court order barring the newspaper from publishing any future “deceptive polls” that might “poison the electorate.” But Selzer and The Des Moines Register were completely transparent about how the poll was conducted. Selzer and the newspaper released the demographic breakdowns showing the results of the telephone survey and the weighting system. Selzer also released an analysis of how her methods might have contributed to missing the mark. 

    “I’ve spent my career researching what the people of Iowa are thinking about politics and leading issues of the day,” Selzer said. “My final poll of the 2024 general election missed the mark. The response to a mismatch between my final poll and the decisions Iowa voters made should be thoughtful analysis and introspection. I should be devoting my time to that and not to a vengeful lawsuit from someone with enormous power and assets.”

    Selzer’s Iowa polls have long enjoyed “gold standard” status among pollsters. She correctly predicted Trump’s win in Iowa in 2016 and 2020 using the same methodology in her 2024 poll.

    COURTESY PHOTOS OF J. ANN SELZER FOR MEDIA USE

    “Donald Trump is abusing the legal system to punish speech he dislikes,” said FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh. “If you have to pay lawyers and spend time in court to defend your free speech, then you don’t have free speech.”

    America already rejected its experiment with making the government the arbiter of truth. President John Adams used the Sedition Act of 1798 to imprison political rivals for “false” political statements. Trump’s lawsuit is just a new spin on the same theory long rejected under the First Amendment.

    The lawsuit fits the very definition of a “SLAPP” suit — a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Such tactical claims are filed purely for the purpose of harassing and imposing punishing litigation costs on perceived opponents, not because they have any merit or stand any chance of success. In other words, the lawsuit is the punishment. As Trump once colorfully put it after losing a lawsuit: “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.”

    By providing pro bono support, FIRE is helping to remove the punishment-by-process incentive of SLAPP suits — just as we’ve done when a wealthy Idaho landowner sued over criticism of his planned airstrip, when a Pennsylvania lawmaker sued a graduate student for “racketeering,” and when an education center threatened to sue a small, autistic-led, nonprofit organization for criticizing the center’s use of electric shocks.

    “Pollsters don’t always get it right,” said Fitzpatrick. “When the Chicago Tribune published its famously incorrect ‘Dewey Defeats Truman’ headline, it was because the polls were off. Truman didn’t sue the newspaper. He laughed — his victory was enough. That’s how you handle missed predictions in a free society.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE defends free speech for all Americans, regardless of political ideology. We’ll defend your rights whether you’re a student barred from wearing a “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirt, a professor censored under Florida’s STOP WOKE Act, or a mother arrested for criticizing your city’s mayor. If it’s protected, we’ll defend it. No throat-clearing, no apologies.

    CONTACT:

    Daniel Burnett, Senior Director of Communications, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

    Source link