Meriwether v. Shawnee State Opinion

[unname]

US 6th district court ruled in favor of university the Professor who was fired for refusing to use a student’s preferred pronouns. He was denied the compromise of using no pronouns at all rather than calling a male student identifying as female by feminine pronouns. The opinion is the 2nd link below and really worth a read. The court ruled it was a violation of his freedom of speech and an attempt to compel him to speak against his beliefs. It seems like a very important opinion on a broader scale as underscores the importance of these freedoms particularly in a university setting where the free exchange of ideas is paramount to society as a whole.

adfmedia.org/case/meriwether-v-trustees-shawnee-state-university

adflegal.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/Meriwether-v-The-Trustees-Shawnee-State-University-6th-Circuit-Opinion.pdf

Sorry for the typos! They ruled in favor of the Professor.

Great. This is the only fair solution. Call yourself whatever you want. Ask others to do the same. But you don’t get to punish them if they say no.

Sounds like an important step in the direction of freedom of speech and thought.

I think many articles will leave out a few things:

He only called the student “sir” once, the first time he had called on them and first time laying eyes on them and before knowing the preferred pronouns.

The Professor simply refused to use feminine pronouns and instead called the student by their last name.

The student behaved aggressively and even called the Professor a cxxx. This is in US where the word is considered extraordinarily foul by a majority and also retains its connotation as insulting toward women.

The student remained an active, participating and successful member of the class throughout the semester but later complained a second time about lack of pronoun use.

Is this the case where the professor also relied on religious freedom to justify the lack of pronoun use?

And it is a matter of religious freedom. If you believe God made male and female people and did not intend for people to transition, and you believe it’s not a religiously okay thing to do, in the US, where they have the First Amendment, it would be unconstitutional to make you pretend someone had changed sex. As we see here.

@Doubletoilandtrouble

Is this the case where the professor also relied on religious freedom to justify the lack of pronoun use?

That’s the one. That was one part of the argument. He’s a philosophy professor and his other points are fair. It’s compelling speech and advancing a view point with which he does not agree.

He offered to the language they wished with a notation on his syllabus explaining it was university policy. That seems like it would have been ideal for everyone involved but was also rejected.

Professor Meriwether at least had the support of his union. He wouldn't have had that in the UK.

More men need to take a stand on this. It might be cynical of me, but I wonder if the case would have gone the same way if it had been a woman.

I am delighted with the outcome in this specific case.

That said, the notion that no person can be forced to say anything against their religious beliefs could be very problematic in a different context.

For example, some people believe that marriage is a union by God that joins one man with one woman, and can be only that. People who believe that could use the same argument about freedom of speech and religion in order to refuse to a same-sex couple as "married", or to refuse to use the word "husband" or "wife" to refer to either spouse within such a marriage.

I personally believe that there is a huge difference between marriage and sex: marriage is a social construct, and society can therefore choose how to define it. In the UK, we have chosen to redefine marriage as a legal union between two consenting adults, each of whom can be of either sex. I personally happen to think that is a good thing. Whereas, sex is factually observed, not socially constructed. To require any person to state otherwise, or to describe a person as being of a sex that they are not, is to require that person to make a false statement.

I agree @YankeeDad.. framing it as religious freedom and belief is potentially problematic... it is all problematic, because I do not want to restrict the freedoms of people to identify however they like, but compelling me to go along with a fiction crosses the line.

‘That said, the notion that no person can be forced to say anything against their religious beliefs could be very problematic in a different context. For example, some people believe that marriage is a union by God that joins one man with one woman, and can be only that. People who believe that could use the same argument about freedom of speech and religion in order to refuse to a same-sex couple as "married", or to refer to use the word "husband" or "wife" to refer to either spouse within such a marriage.’

Yes, and whether we like it or not, under US law they couldn’t be forced to. If delivering a public service they could be held accountable for refusing to treat a married couple as legally married, but they can’t be forced to reconcile their concept of ‘married’ with that of the law.

Compelled speech is wrong.

I think society should stop conflating religious and legal marriages.
No one should have the right to deny two adults the benefits of a legal marriage.

That's probably a different thread.

@YankeeDad

I am delighted with the outcome in this specific case.

That said, the notion that no person can be forced to say anything against their religious beliefs could be very problematic in a different context.

For example, some people believe that marriage is a union by God that joins one man with one woman, and can be only that. People who believe that could use the same argument about freedom of speech and religion in order to refuse to a same-sex couple as "married", or to refuse to use the word "husband" or "wife" to refer to either spouse within such a marriage.

I personally believe that there is a huge difference between marriage and sex: marriage is a social construct, and society can therefore choose how to define it. In the UK, we have chosen to redefine marriage as a legal union between two consenting adults, each of whom can be of either sex. I personally happen to think that is a good thing. Whereas, sex is factually observed, not socially constructed. To require any person to state otherwise, or to describe a person as being of a sex that they are not, is to require that person to make a false statement.

I suppose this is the difference between restricted speech and compelled speech. Most people recognise and accept that it not appropriate to discuss certain things at work. For example, I am quite happy to never talk about religion with work colleagues. On the whole I don't think it would be professional of me to share what I think about religion and I do not feel that not speaking about it restricts my freedom of speech.

But with gender ideology, I am being compelled to engage with an ideological position which I fundamentally think is wrong. To be compelled to share "my pronouns" or refer to someone who I perceive to be male as she/her or to have to start using "neo pronouns" (which I would never get right anyway) would make me feel very uncomfortable and is compelled speech. I could cope with reaching a compromise where I didn't refer to a person by use of pronouns at all but it seems that this wasn't even an option in this case.

@unname

This is all very strange to me because I cannot imagine failing to call someone whatever they want to be called.

Do you mean that if a natal male asked you to refer them as a woman, you would be comfortable doing that? I know that when faced with this scenario, I do use their preferred names and pronouns but I do feel that I am being compelled to go along with the fiction, against my better judgement.

‘This is all very strange to me because I cannot imagine failing to call someone whatever they want to be called.’

Pronouns aren’t names. They express the way I see you. And if I see you as a male (because you are one) then I am entitled to express my interpretation (not yours) of what you are.

Just as I am not entitled to demand you say I am a rocket ship, or the Empire State Building.

ChateauMargaux,

Do you mean that if a natal male asked you to refer them as a woman, you would be comfortable doing that? I know that when faced with this scenario, I do use their preferred names and pronouns but I do feel that I am being compelled to go along with the fiction, against my better judgement.

Yes, I would/do without much trouble or concern. Maybe it depends on the situation since my experience is very limited anyway. It certainly doesn't change my knowledge that the person in front of me was born male and transitioned or is choosing to live presenting as a woman. I also don't have any illusion that they really know what it's like to be a woman. But I am ok with them wanting to live this way provided it doesn't take away the rights or safety of women and girls.

I am also aware that everyone knows women and transwomen are not the same, trans people included. For example, transwomen are not thinking "Hooray for us!" when a natal woman is put in a position of power previously denied to women, only when it's a transwoman.

@unname

This is all very strange to me because I cannot imagine failing to call someone whatever they want to be called.

How would you feel if a person identified as a cat ? I ask as one of the universities had that as an example of preferred pronouns, for those who see themselves as cat gender. The correct pronouns are nya and nyan.

@tabbycatstripy

‘This is all very strange to me because I cannot imagine failing to call someone whatever they want to be called.’

Pronouns aren’t names. They express the way I see you. And if I see you as a male (because you are one) then I am entitled to express my interpretation (not yours) of what you are.

Just as I am not entitled to demand you say I am a rocket ship, or the Empire State Building.

This is actually my point. I will call a transwoman "she" with no hesitation if that's what they want. I still support your right to refuse to do that and I really appreciate the outcome of this case.

Although for me pronouns are not meant to "express the way I see you."; but "express what these words actually mean". Still, I will call you "he" or "she" if that is what you prefer just because I personally don't mind.

Fair enough. I would generally do it as well. But I reserve the right not to, and to make the decision about when/why based on my own criteria.

How would you feel if a person identified as a cat ? I ask as one of the universities had that as an example of preferred pronouns, for those who see themselves as cat gender. The correct pronouns are nya and nyan.

I would lobby to have them removed on the grounds that cats are notoriously poorly behaved and not allowed to enroll in University.

I truly feel for anyone having to deal with this kind of insanity.

Bristol University wrote cat gender as part of their pronouns guidance. Apparently Nya/Nyan means meow. Though I’m not sure if an actual cat would get it. Our cat only says meow, particularly when he wants food. So I don’t think Bristol accept cats as students.

Anyway I was only wondering if you’d call someone their preferred cat pronouns if they told you they identified as cat gender.

‘I would lobby to have them removed on the grounds that cats are notoriously poorly behaved and not allowed to enroll in University.’

I saw on Libs of Tik Tok that a member of staff in one school in the US put puppy pads in a kids’ bathroom for the children who now identify as ‘furries’.

And I believe it.