Federal appeals court revives lawsuit charging U of Mary Washington failed to address anonymous online harassment of feminist students.
A federal appeals court ruled 2 to 1 on Wednesday that feminist students who sued the University of Mary Washington for failing to protect them from anonymous online harassment were entitled to pursue their lawsuit. The decision reversed a ruling by a lower court to throw out the lawsuit on First Amendment and other grounds. The suit, which says that an insufficient response by the university constituted illegal sex discrimination, could redefine how colleges respond to online threats on their campuses.
If the current ruling stands, some colleges may face pressure to do more than they do now when their students receive anonymous online harassment, a phenomenon common in higher education. The dissenting opinion warns that meeting the standard set by the majority could be difficult for many colleges and universities.
The appeals court ruling was not a final ruling on the case. But the majority decision suggested that the students who sued the university had a legitimate case, and some of the language in the decision suggested that the judges believed the case was strong. The case now goes back to a federal district judge.
At issue in the case is the harassment received in 2014 and 2015 by Feminists United, a campus group affiliated with the Feminist Majority Foundation, after students in the group took public stands on campus issues. First, they spoke out against the idea of bringing fraternities to campus. Then they criticized a sexist chant by members of the rugby team. When the team was suspended by the university, supporters of the team blamed the campus feminists.
Harassment came largely via Yik Yak, a now-defunct social media tool that used geotargeting to allow people on campus to make comments anonymously about others on the campus. In this case, the harassment was not the kind of mocking of feminists that is omnipresent online, but specific threats of violent acts, accompanied by the whereabouts of members of Feminists United, who were identified by name.
Among the comments: "Gonna tie these feminists to the radiator and [g]rape them in the mouth" and "Dandy’s about to kill a bitch … or two" and "Can we euthanize whoever caused this bullshit?" (The [g] before "rape" is believed to refer to gang rape, according to the majority decision.) Other posts on Yik Yak called the campus feminists group "femicunts, feminazis, cunts, bitches, hoes and dikes [sic].”
According to the court's opinion, the students who were harassed complained multiple times to various university administrators, who took what the lawsuit said were only minimal steps to stop the harassment. And the appeals court said the evidence backed the idea in the lawsuit that the university was "deliberately indifferent," or at least that there was enough evidence for the case to proceed to trial.
The university did condemn the harassment and organized forums to listen to the students talk about how the online comments made them feel unsafe. But much of the university's response, according to the court's opinion, was confined to rejecting the students' demand that Yik Yak be blocked on campus. The university said that doing so would violate the First Amendment (Mary Washington is a public university located in Virginia).
The majority decision doesn't say the university had an obligation to block Yik Yak. But it questions the way the university cited the First Amendment, in particular because of the specific violent threats made against specific students.
Says the decision: "First Amendment concerns do not render the university’s response to the sexual harassment and threats legally sufficient for two sound reasons: (1) true threats are not protected speech, and (2) the university had several responsive options that did not present First Amendment concerns."
The university, the decision says, "faces serious difficulties in its effort to convince us that the complaint does not sufficiently allege deliberate indifference." The university never tried to identify the students who were engaged in harassing the campus feminists, didn't speak out forcefully about what was going on and didn't offer much support to the victims of harassment, the decision said. The university might have tried mandatory assemblies on preventing sexual harassment, and university leaders could have made clear their opposition to the kinds of treatment experienced by the students who were harassed, the opinion said.
"UMW’s administrators, however, merely responded with two listening circles, a generic email and by sending a campus police officer with a threatened student on one evening after particularly aggressive and targeted Yaks," the decision says.
Judge Robert B. King wrote the 57-page decision, which was joined by Judge Pamela Harris.
G. Steven Agee filed a dissent in which he warned of the consequences of the decision. He explicitly invited Mary Washington to appeal (which it could do to either the full Fourth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court).
Wrote Agee: "Make no mistake, the majority’s novel and unsupported decision will have a profound effect, particularly on institutions of higher education … Institutions, like the university, will be compelled to venture into an ethereal world of non-university forums at great cost and significant liability, in order to avoid the Catch-22 Title IX liability the majority now proclaims. The university should not hesitate to seek further review."
The Feminist Majority Foundation issued a statement Wednesday praising the decision.
"The Feminist Majority Foundation took on this case to help our affiliate, Feminists United, fight for a safe campus free from online sexual harassment and threats, but we are thrilled that the Fourth Circuit’s ground-breaking decision will benefit students nationwide," the statement said. "Unlike the current Department of Education under Secretary [Betsy] DeVos, the Fourth Circuit is committed to enforcing Title IX [of the Education Amendments of 1972] and protecting students from sex-based discrimination, including when the harassment and threats are made online. The court understands that whether harassment is online or in person, the impact is the same: targeted students are cheated out of a safe learning environment."
The university issued this statement: "The University of Mary Washington has just received notice of the ruling, and, with the help of the [Virginia] Attorney General’s Office, will be thoroughly reviewing the majority and dissenting opinions before determining how best to proceed. The university remains committed to the safety and well-being of its students."
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which advocates for free expression in higher education, backed the university in the appeals case and issued an analysis highly critical of the majority decision.
FIRE argued that the speech in question was protected. "Ultimately, it is almost impossible to conceive of this case being resolved without addressing this enormous elephant in the room; if the speech was constitutionally protected, and was not harassment, then the question of substantial control is irrelevant," FIRE said.
FIRE also warned of the "far-reaching implications for universities’ obligation to monitor and address the off-campus, online speech of … students."
Read more by
Topics
College Pages
Inside Higher Ed Careers
Browse Faculty Jobs
Browse Administrative Jobs
Browse Executive Administration Jobs
You may also be interested in...
Today’s News from Inside Higher Ed
Inside Higher Ed’s Quick Takes
Popular Right Now
Study documents economic gains from liberal arts education
NYU social work school admits to institutional racism in wake of student email
Judge says that U of Texas at Austin can't revoke former student's Ph.D. on its own, outside court o
The far-reaching effects of how campuses treat senior faculty of color (opinion)
Opposition hardens against one college seeking to merge and another planning to close
Colleges need to rethink strategic planning (opinion)
A decade after recession, colleges take divergent hiring paths
Sign Up / Sign In
With your existing account from...
{* loginWidget *}With a traditional account...
{* #signInForm *} {* signInEmailAddress *} {* currentPassword *} {* /signInForm *}Newsletter enrollment
Existing account found
We have found an existing account for the email address.
Please sign in to update your newsletter preferences.
{* /signInForm *}Newsletter opt-out
Edit your newsletter preferences
Account Info
Sign In
Welcome back, {* welcomeName *}!
{* loginWidget *}Sign In
Welcome Back
Account Deactivated
Your account has been deactivated.
Account Reactivation Failed
Sorry, we could not verify that email address.
Email Verification Required
You must verify your email address before signing in. Check your email for your verification email, or enter your email address in the form below to resend the email.
{* #resendVerificationForm *} {* signInEmailAddress *}Almost Done
Please confirm the information below before signing in.
{* #socialRegistrationForm *} {* firstName *} {* lastName *} {* displayName *} {* emailAddress *} {* optInIHE *} {* optIn3rdParty *} {* agreeToTerms *}Almost Done
Please confirm the information below before signing in. Already have an account? Sign In.
{* #registrationForm *} {* firstName *} {* lastName *} {* displayName *} {* emailAddress *} {* newPassword *} {* newPasswordConfirm *} {* optInIHE *} {* optIn3rdParty *} {* agreeToTerms *}Thank You for Registering
We have sent a confirmation email to {* emailAddressData *}. Please check your email and click on the link to verify your email address.
Create New Password
We'll send you a link to create a new password.
{* #forgotPasswordForm *} {* signInEmailAddress *}Create New Password
We've sent an email with instructions to create a new password. Your existing password has not been changed.
Create New Password
This email address was registered with a social account. We've sent an email with instructions to create a new password, which can be used in addition to your linked social providers.
{| current_emailAddress |}
{| foundExistingAccountText |} {| current_emailAddress |}.
{| existing_displayName |} - {| existing_provider |} : {| existing_siteName |} {| existing_createdDate |}
{| existing_provider_emailAddress |}
Sign In to Complete Account Merge
Resend Verification Email
Sorry, we could not verify that email address. Enter your email below, and we'll send you another email.
{* #resendVerificationForm *} {* signInEmailAddress *}Change Password
Create New Password
We didn't recognize that password reset code. Enter your email below, and we'll send you another email.
{* #resetPasswordForm *} {* signInEmailAddress *}Create New Password
We've sent you an email with instructions to create a new password. Your existing password has not been changed.
Edit Your Account
Profile Photo
Linked Accounts
Link Your Accounts
This allows you to sign in to your account using that provider in the future.
Password
Deactivate Account
Change Password
Deactivate Your Account
Are you sure you want to deactivate your account? You will no longer have access to your profile.
{* deactivateAccountForm *} {* /deactivateAccountForm *}
Expand commentsHide comments — Join the conversation!