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

[GrinitchSpinach]

I don't think this has been posted here yet. This story and its legal implications are making a splash in the US right now:

www.portsmouth-dailytimes.com/news/32807/professor-files-suit-against-ssu

Nicholas Meriwether, a philosophy professor, has filed suit against his employer, Shawnee State University in Portsmouth, Ohio. Because of his religious convictions, he feels unable to address a male student as "Miss."

When the student complained (reportedly becoming belligerent and stating "Then I guess that means I can call you a cunt!") the administration advised Meriwether to stop using titles entirely, and instead refer to all students by last name only. Meriwether wanted to retain titles for other students and refer to this student only by last name. The administration initially approved this course but when the student threatened to file a Title IX complaint, the university told Meriwether he must comply with the student's requested title. Meriwether proposed complying in class, but placing a disclaimer on his syllabus to note that he was doing so under compulsion and in conflict with his deeply held convictions. The university said this, too, would violate its non-discrimination policy.

An internal investigation found that Meriwether's "disparate treatment" of the student had created a hostile environment, and he was issued a written warning. He is still employed as a tenured professor.

Now, to me it seems weird that this guy wouldn't just use the title as a courtesy in class, or else switch to first names for everyone. He doesn't seem to have tried very hard to find a solution that wouldn't single this student out. Basically he sounds like kind of an a-hole.

Nevertheless, I think the university took a weird turn when they switched from trying to find a compromise to simply insisting Meriwether use "Miss" for this student and disciplining him when he did not comply (if that is actually how it happened). IANAL but it seems tricky to claim that one's employer can compel speech to which the employee objects strongly, at least in a country where a pharmacist can't be compelled to dispense a prescribed medication against which she has moral objections...

Compelling speech is problematic, no doubt. But, heck, refusing to use last names (or, alternatively, first names) without title throughout class is obnoxious.

So if someone decides that their title is Professor, despite not having any academic qualifications, then should everyone else be forced to use that title?

What about Your Majesty?

I dare say that you can buy a professorship off the internet anyways.

Buy a professorship

Here we go. 55 Euro and it is yours.

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

All I know about this case is the article linked to in the OP.

"Now, to me it seems weird that this guy wouldn't just use the title as a courtesy in class, or else switch to first names for everyone. He doesn't seem to have tried very hard to find a solution that wouldn't single this student out. Basically he sounds like kind of an a-hole."
After the student called him a cunt, it does NOT seem weird to me that the Prof refused to submit by calling the student 'Miss' - because it would be a submission. And why should HE be the one to find a solution, when he wasn't the one who created the problem? He doesn't sound like an arsehole to me, he sounds exasperated.

The choice the professor has been given is either to lie, or to change the way he treats everyone in order to make one student happy.
What if some of the other students don't like being called by their surnames? Or the professor has good reasons for wanting to use titles (eg creates an atmosphere of formality he considers conducive to learning)? He doesn't sound obnoxious to me.

I hope he wins his case. The cunt comment suggests to me that this is not a student in distress. If I was another student in the class, I might be pissed off that the professor was being forced to call me by my surname because of one single student who’s being an asshole.

I agree with TheCountess. He sounds exasperated, as well he might given the current climate in universities.

Also he did offer to use the title as a courtesy in class but with a note on his syllabus that he was doing so under compulsion. That sounds to me like quite a big compromise, but the university rejecting it suggests they are trying to compel not just his speech but his beliefs - it's thoughtcrime, basically.

Because of his religious convictions, he feels unable to address a male student as "Miss."

I think I would need to know more about the professor's religious convictions before judging him; and whether he scrupulously adhered to all aspects of his religion, or was just making a point about this one.

I simply do not understand the basis for the claim - the professor wasn't singling the person out - they were using exactly the same treatment as everyone else - ie. using the title which corresponds with their sex. He offered a compromise (ie. special treatment) - to use the person's name only, and this was rejected, he then even went so far as to comply, but note that it was under duress, and that still wasn't enough for the complainant.

Frankly the person being an arse here is the one not only wanting special treatment, but only the one type of special treatment that means compelling the professor to go against his beliefs.

'
I think I would need to know more about the professor's religious convictions before judging him; and whether he scrupulously adhered to all aspects of his religion, or was just making a point about this one.'

I see your point, but we don't normally approach it like that, do we? We wouldn't for example say to a Muslim prisoner 'bullshit, you've been drinking alcohol for years so you're not getting halal food.'

I agree that the "became belligerent" "called professor a cunt" part rings all kinds of bells.

whether he scrupulously adhered to all aspects of his religion, or was just making a point about this one.

If someone doesn't eat bacon and state it is because of their beliefs, does that make it OK to feed them bacon because they don't follow all aspects of that religion? Which flavour of their religion is a bare minimum for them to be allowed to refuse bacon? Do they have to pray the requisite amount for their beliefs about pig meat to count? Wear articles of religious clothing?

We wouldn't for example say to a Muslim prisoner 'bullshit, you've been drinking alcohol for years so you're not getting halal food.'

That's true. In general terms, though, I would feel more sympathy for a devout person who was being asked to do something which conflicted with their religion, than I would for someone who flagrantly disregarded most tenets of their faith.

But Countess, what if a woman objects to the sexist ‚Miss‘? It is not like he‘d Have had to give up a universally welcome type of greeting.

I do understand if he became stubborn due to the unacceptable behavior, and, as I said, compelled speech is always a problem, just sayin I find it hard to believe that surenames or first names only would be less welcome by the students than ‚Miss‘.

Religion has no place in the classroom - education should be secular unless it’s specifically a faith school. The professor should behave professionally and leave his religion at the classroom door.

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. You can’t identify as a professor, priest, vicar or any other job title.

But why should one belief system (Christianity) be less important than another belief system (the idea that you can change sex)?

Why shouldn't the transgender student leave their own belief system at the classroom door?

Having read everything I can about this case, I've found that most press reports of this saga leave out some key facts. And all ignore & fail to address the proverbial elephant in the room entirely.

The elephant, of course, is how the student in this case - whose preferred name is Alena Bruening - looks in terms of sex characteristics & presents in terms of gender expression, & by what name Bruening is listed in the class roster & registration materials the professor was provided with when the term started.

My guess is that in the professor's eyes, Alena Bruening looks like a bloke, & that even if he presents as female or trans, he does so more like Jess Bradley than Blaire White. I also have a hunch the initial registration records for the class did not list Bruening as Alena. But these are just conjectures. I tried to find pictures of Bruening, but there are none to be found anywhere online, not even on Facebook.

I also think it might be a mistake to see this case solely or primarily through the lens of employment law because the lawsuit might frame it as more than a conflict between employee vs. employer. My hunch is that the suit alleges that Shawnee State University - an Ohio state-operated institution funded by local, state & federal tax revenues - is not simply the professor's employer here, it's an arm of the government.

As such, it could be argued, the university unconstitutionally interfered with the professor's First Amendment rights (to free speech & free practice of religion) when it ordered him to call a student he perceives to be male "Miss," "ma'am" & "she/her" & then sanctioned him for failing to do so. In the US, few things are as sacrosanct & ironclad as the Constitution's dictate that the rights & freedoms established in the First Amendment cannot ever be interfered with or limited by any government body except in very rare circumstances determined by the US Supreme Court.

But the points I made in the last paragraph, too, are just conjectures. I won't know for sure what this case is really about until I locate & read the lawsuit itself, as opposed to just press reports.

Imo transgender isn’t a belief system. They don’t “believe” they’ve changed sex. They have actual paperwork and have gone through whatever concrete procedures our society has decided are required for that change to take place. To refuse to respect that makes a mockery of society which has decided that such a change is permissible, legal and possible.

Christians may disagree with changing gender but that view is at odds with the rest of society and its laws. The law must take precedence over any particular individual’s beliefs. And the law says that people are allowed to change gender.

Imo transgender isn’t a belief system. They don’t “believe” they’ve changed sex.

But they do. They haven't actually changed sex. They may, as you say, have changed their sex legally, but that would be a legal fiction with no bearing on material reality. A company can be legally considered a person - that doesn't mean that that company is a person.

The belief that human beings can change sex is just that, a belief. The belief that there are gendered souls or essences which can somehow be placed in the wrongly-sexed body is a metaphysical belief comparable to religion.

This isn't about the legal change. It is highly unlikely the student has been through the administrative change.
It absolutely is a belief system because they don't believe they have CHANGED sex, they believe they ARE the opposite sex and that they were wrongly assigned at birth.

No, that’s not true. People cannot change sex. Gender dysphoria can be allieviated by presenting as the opposite sex, but no sex change actually happens. forcing people to lie is never a good idea & only ends badly.

Article 9 of the Human Rights Act enshrines the right to freedom of religion and belief. And also the right to manifest your beliefs.

To refuse to respect that makes a mockery of society since the right to freedom of religion and belief is enshrined in law.

Transgender people may disagree with the right to freedom of religion but that view is at odds with the rest of society and its laws. The law must take precedence over any particular individual’s beliefs. And the law says that people are allowed to practise their religion.

Regardless, our legal system permits people to present as the opposite sex and assume the appropriate title. People have a legal right to do so regardless of how any particular individual feels about it. Refusing to acknowledge that is basically refusing to acknowledge the laws of the society in which you live. Individuals should not be allowed to deny people their legal rights just because they personally believe those people shouldn’t have those rights.

Yes the law says that people are allowed to practise their religion but that shouldn’t extend to denying someone else their legal rights just because your religion thinks they shouldn’t have those rights.