Can university compel professor to use student's requested title? Ohio lawsuit

Coyoacan

It" does sound like six of one and half a dozen of the other. But the teacher sounds rather obnoxious."

Really?
I thought the one calling the other a cunt was the obnoxious one.

I think it's just the style of this particular prof. The law suit talks about how he uses the Socratic method in his classes which is about 'thoughtful dialogue' involving lots of questioning. I can see that a certain amount of formality could be helpful. Apparently the trans individual was an engaged contributor and performed very well in the course so there were probably multiple occasions when they were both referred to or addressed.

Interesting. In my time in the US it was first names all the way. But we were all grad or post grad students, so maybe that‘s why?

I think so.
When I was at Oxford the only tutor I had who used to use titles was American.
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes I think the British system is badly in need of restoring a bit of formality between students and staff.

I also wondered. Particularly from US unis I am used to first names between students and professors.

It's a strange case. In the UK, academics address their students by their first name, and vice versa. Are there really places in the US where it's normal to address students as Miss, Mr etc?

Lewis, gender reassignment, not gender, is the protected characteristic and it means being protected from discrimination based on your gender reassignment, which is very different from the right of compelling speech.

Lewis my friend.

Gender and gender reassignment are not the same thing.

The Equality Act (2010) identifies 9 protected characteristics. Sex is one of those, and gender reassignment is another. So gender IS a protected characteristic for trans people.

You’re allowed to assume any social title you want, regardless of your gender identity. Honorific titles are different - you can’t just assume those. You can’t force anyone to use your chosen title but I’d regard it as discriminatory if their refusal to use your chosen title was because you’re trans.

I think this will make a good test case for the ADF. The professor is an evangelical Presbyterian, involved in his church and because part of his academic specialism is focused on religion and ethics he belongs to several academic groups focused on Christianity and Philosophy. He also objected to transgenderism prior to this incident so I think it will be easy to show he has a serious issue with the ideology and that it does conflict with his religious beliefs, plus there is some evidence that university administrators had an issue with his religious beliefs.

I used to work for a university in Canada and the scenario is quite familiar to me, not the trans aspect so much but the challenge of managing conflict between a difficult, demanding student from a protected group and a professor who feels his autonomy and principles are under threat. Having seen these things play out I can easily believe that everyone involved was at least somewhatunreasonable. The only thing that surprises me about the case is that the union was not more active in supporting the professor. Usually any hint of administration getting involved in teaching related issues is pushed back very hard indeed, especially for tenured professors.

Picking up comments made here, this professor liked his classroom to be formal and felt that that was appropriate for his classes (ethics and philosophy including courses about religion). So he addressed his students formally as 'Sir' and 'Ma'am' and using their title and last name. He wanted to call this student 'Sir' and 'Mr X' the same as all his other male students, and said his beliefs meant he couldn't call them 'Ma'am' and 'Miss X'. He offered the compromise of just calling this student 'X' or of complying but with the caveat that he wanted it to be known he was complying under pressure but neither were accepted.

I think it was not at all unreasonable for him to say that no he really didn't want to call all of his students by surname alone as that does create a different atmosphere, and the principle of accommodating individual students with different treatment is not a new one (it's used for students with disabilities all the time).

Here is a link to the lawsuit:

www.adfmedia.org/files/MeriwetherComplaint.pdf

Obviously it was written by his lawyers who are sympathetic to his cause, and the university will have a different story to tell, but while he may have been conservative and difficult it sounds likely that the students was pretty challenging and aggressive and the administration were themselves quite hostile to the professor and very dismissive of his beliefs.

GrinitchSpinach - Why, thank you!

It seems to me that human beings are very prone to identifying themselves as that which they are not - see also "Nice Guys" - and to take everyone at their word would be ridiculous.

And, indeed, people respond with ridicule to the Rachel Dolezals and the Emile Ratelbands of the world. It is strange how identifying oneself into womanhood seems to be the exception, despite the fact that sex is far more distinct as a category than race or age.

Also it’s accepted in our society that people can identify as male/female, but you can’t identify as a doctor if you don’t hold the appropriate qualifications.

For the sake of argument:

Surely 'identifying' as a doctor is more valid than identifying as the opposite sex. Doctor is an honorific, a social construct, whereas your sex is an intrinsic part of your nature and can be judged more obviously by others than whether you are a doctor.

If you want to say that being a doctor should have objective standards of achievement behind it, what about identifying as a princess and using 'her highness'? What if everyone else identifies them as royal? Do I have to bow and call Charlie Wales 'your royal highness' just because most people do so?

I suspect this professor is being a dick, but I'm not sure people should have to accept other's titles, just because they say so.

Since I brought up the Masterpiece cake case in this thread about a case in US court, I should mention that the Masterpiece ruling was a very narrow one that left unresolved some of the major issues it raised.

In case anyone's interested, a very similar case might also be headed to the US Supreme Court. The plaintiff's attorneys in this case recently said, “Freedom of speech has always included the freedom not to speak the government’s message. This case can clarify whether speech is truly free if it is government mandated.”

www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/masterpiece-cakeshop-round-two-may-be-headed-to-the-supreme-court

Just to reiterate: the hypotheses I've posted are just conjecture. I won't know what this Ohio/US case is really about till I locate & read through the filings submitted to the court.

Also, I found it interesting that the trustees of Shawnee State & a lot of administrators have been named individually as defendants in this case, though I don't know what that signifies.

Interestingly & I think significantly, this lawsuit has been filed on behalf of the professor by the Christian judicial activist group, Alliance for Defending Freedom, which was also involved in the Masterpiece Bakery lawsuit, the one where the Christian baker in Colorado refused to make a cake for a gay couple's wedding on grounds of religious freedom & freedom of speech/expression. The ADF is very conservative & adamantly against homosexuality (though not necessarily against homosexuals), so I find them unpleasant & disagree with their political agenda. But when it comes to the First Amendment, they're pretty good. I think they'd defend my free speech rights even if they abhor what I say.

While most of us think the Masterpiece case was one that pitted a gay couple against a Christian baker, in fact the lawsuit that made it to the Supreme Court, & made all the headlines, was filed by the baker/y against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC). After the baker told the gay couple he could not make them the bespoke wedding cake they requested because he's a conservative Christian who thinks gay marriage is wrong, the couple lodged an anti-discrimination complaint against him & the bakery with the CCRC, which ridiculed & showed bias against the baker & his beliefs in its hearings, & finally ruled to censure the baker/y & impose fines. In turn, the baker sued the CCRC - & the reason that suit went all the way to the US Supreme Court was because the central question it raised was whether the CCRC, as a governmental body, had interfered with the baker's First Amendment rights.

The success of the suit in the Colorado baker/y case is one of the reasons I suspect the ADF in this new case about the professor & trans student in Ohio might try a similar approach. If they can convincingly argue that Shawnee State University is an arm of the government, based on the fact that it's an Ohio state-chartered & operated institution funded by local, state & federal taxes, then this literally becomes "a federal case" like the Masterpiece suit. If the court were to see Shawnee State as a government body, then no matter what kind of employee contract Shawnee has with its employees, the court would have to rule that per the US Constitution the uni cannot require the professor to utter speech & show respect for beliefs that conflict with his religious convictions.

So, would you say that those who actively helped escaped slaves evade capture, despite the fact that said slaves were legally the property of their masters, were in the wrong? I mean, if your personal opinions have no bearing on the law or anything...

(Note: specifically using a charged example to make my point clearly, not actually comparing this professor's situation with slavery)

LewisMam Sounds like you don't understand much about US, UK or EU law. Nor much about what constitutes a belief system, how honorifics & titles work, or geography & jurisdictions, either.

As the thread heading clearly states, we're talking about an Ohio lawsuit. Ohio is a state in the USA. The case was filed in US district court. So the laws it pertains to are Ohio state & US federal laws.

Lewismam, you seem to be arguing that civil disobedience is always morally wrong. Do you seriously believe this?

Are you in the UK, Lewis?

Gender is not a protected characteristic in the UK. Sex is.

This is hard work tonight.

do you believe it is never right to refuse to comply with laws you find morally or ethically objectionable? Is legality what determines goodness/correctness?
Your personal opinion is irrelevant. You’ve chosen to be part of this society so you should abide by our laws. You’re free to disagree with laws and campaign to change them but you’re not free to just ignore and disobey them. If we all went around only obeying the laws we personally agree with it would be anarchy.