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...

Where does the law say you have the right to be referred to by the title you want?

In the US, the legal right to paperwork as the opposite sex is determined on a state-by-state or even municipality-by-municipality basis.

In the UK you have the legal right to use any name you choose. Titles are only a social convention. Anyone can choose to go by any title, with the obvious exception of titles that require a particular job, qualification or position eg Professor, Reverend, Duke, etc.

Anyone can choose to be called Miss. As a married woman I can choose to be called Miss. My DH is a big hairy bloke and can also choose to be called Miss if he so wishes. Nobody, regardless of their religion, has the right to dictate what name you choose to call yourself.

Hmmm lewis I think yr talking shite.

Which laws are you talking about Lewis? Are you in the UK?

Which law compels people to refer to another person as Mr, Miss, Mrs etc?

And which law allows people to present as the opposite sex? What does "present as the opposite sex" even mean? Does it mean that if a man who identifies as a woman is caught in a string vest and a pair of budgie smugglers, then he will be jailed or something? By West Yorkshire Police presumably.

Lewismam

That's an interesting position - 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?

I trust that this professor is getting a garage or rape and death threats? I imagine he will be fired too?

No? Why ever not?!?

You can't make other people call you by your preferred title. I am Dr and married and like being called Ms rather than Mrs, but I can't stop people calling me Mrs or even Miss (as sometimes happens) if they want.
It feels rude but I don't have any legal redress against them.

"Nobody, regardless of their religion, has the right to dictate what name you choose to call yourself".

And equally you do not have the right in law to compel someone to use your chosen title.

Also, if no one has the right to tell me what to call myself, does that then mean I have the right to dictate how others address me?

Social titles aren’t part of your name. They aren’t used for identity purposes. Check your passport, there’s no Miss or Mr in there. Your social title is merely a convention and as such you are free to use any social title you choose. I can be a Mr if I like. Or a Mrs even if I’m not married. Nobody has the right to tell me what I may call myself - I have the legal right to call myself whatever I like.

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

Because, everyone, this situation occurred in the US, it's a US federal lawsuit, & the US Constitution enshrines freedom to practice religion without interference as a fundamental right. And it's not Christian beliefs specifically that are protected by the US Constitution, it's the right of individuals to practice any religion.

True, the belief system known as trans ideology or transgenderism has much in common with a religious belief system. But transgenderism is not (yet) officially recognized as a religion in the US, so a person's right to believe in & practice it is not protected by the First Amendment the way religion is.

That's not to say transgender people don't have rights in the US. Transgender people have all the same civil rights as everyone else in the US. And that's saying a lot, because people in the US have the most extensive rights ever granted by any government anywhere - except, of course, the right to free medical care, housing, lifetime welfare & so on. But hey, that's OK, because we have the right to bear arms, so we can all shoot ourselves when we get sick, become impoverished or lose our homes. Just kidding.

However, in the US transgender people don't have special or additional rights that the rest of us don't have, which is what TRAs - & the student in this case, Alena Bruening - are seeking. (And contrary to what everyone keeps claiming, the Trump admin isn't attempting to roll back or deny civil rights for trans people, nor are they planning to erase or "define trans people out of existence.")

Thanks for the info, Veg.

Interesting.

And equally you do not have the right in law to compel someone to use your chosen title.
No you can’t make someone use your chosen title. However if they’re purposely calling you a different title for discriminatory reasons then you potentially have a case against them. Gender is a protected characteristic.

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

Again, I'm speaking solely of the US, where I am & where this situation occurred & the lawsuit has been filed:

Anyone in the US is to free to go anywhere they want with their own belief system in tow, no matter how daft that belief system may be. But no one is allowed to demand that other people accept, honor, respect, kowtow to or adhere to their belief system in part or whole. And no one can demand that others shut up & pretend to respect their belief system to make the believers happy, give them validation, protect them from offense - or to foster social harmony or preserve community relations more generally. In the US, we can even ridicule, disrespect & speak the unpleasant truth about religious figures, which the ECHR has recently ruled is not allowed in the EU, at least not when it comes to Mohammed.

Gender identity is not a protected characteristic in the USA. Sex is.

At least in the Title IX legislation that applies to universities receiving federal funding.

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.

Are you in the UK, Lewis?

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

This is hard work tonight.

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

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.

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)

OT but lydiamajora that is a spectacular username!

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.

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.