“There is a Passion natural to the Mind of man, especially a free Man, which renders him impatient of Restraint.” — George Mason

“If I were king, I would not allow people to go around burning the American flag. However, we have a First Amendment which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged — and it is addressed in particular to speech critical of the government. That was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress.” — Justice Antonin Scalia

* * *

We are both third-year law students at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University and we recently experienced speech suppression by university officials that completely goes against the spirit of the two figures our school represents. We objected to the idea of men in women’s restrooms — and vice versa. Fortunately, after we filed a lawsuit with the help of Alliance Defending Freedom, our school quickly reversed course and has revised the policy used against us.

We are both part of a “Scalia Law ‘25” GroupMe discussion board for students in our graduating class, and late last September, a fellow third-year law student notified the group that he had been chosen as the official law school student representative for the Graduate and Professional Studies Assembly (GAPSA). He noted that GAPSA reports to the GMU administration, promised to do his best to advocate for all law students, and informed us that he had already shared some “concerns.”

One of the “concerns” he shared with GAPSA was a proposal to add feminine hygiene products to all restrooms “regardless of gender marker.” This, of course, implies a belief that one’s sense of “gender identity” is subjective, meaning that men could access women’s restrooms. We were immediately concerned for our personal safety and found that this proposal conflicted with our religious beliefs. The proposal put forward by the other student had the opposite effect of his promise to alleviate our concerns and advocate for us.

At the end of his post, the student asked if there was anything we would like to address. We voiced our opinions, highlighting our privacy and safety concerns with his proposal. Other students agreed by “liking” our posts. We also pointed out that conservative students have just as much of a right to be represented as everyone else. Despite soliciting our concerns and promising to represent all students to GAPSA, this student responded by mocking our opinions, condescending that it wasn’t any of our “business what gender someone identifies with.” While he mocked our beliefs, we respectfully responded that, as women, it is absolutely our business if men have access to our restrooms.

Two weeks later, the university’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion slapped us with no-contact orders prohibiting us from having any communication with the student.

We weren’t notified that the student had complained to the DEI Office, nor were we warned that we could potentially receive no-contact orders. Under GMU’s Title IX policy at that time, the orders applied both on- and off-campus and remained in place until the DEI Office — in its sole discretion — rescinded them.

When we expressed our concerns with school officials, they tried to shrug it off by saying the orders were not “disciplinary” and were reciprocal, meaning the other student has no-contact orders with us. When we raised the issue that these orders suppressed our free speech, the school told us we’re allowed to have our opinions; the no-contact orders are a result of the “effect” of our speech.

They tried to convince us that there’s a difference — but if we must tiptoe around sharing our opinions because others may disagree, that chills our speech and violates our constitutional rights. With those orders, we faced expulsion from the school if the student alleged a violation of the orders. There are even state bar exams that ask if we have faced any sort of disciplinary action while at school.

As such, we decided to file a lawsuit against the school, and GMU did the right thing and settled the case with us. Officials lifted the no-contact orders, ensured that these kinds of orders would not be used to suppress speech — now giving our school one of the best policies in the country. We also received financial compensation.

Universities and law schools should be vibrant centers in the marketplace of ideas. GMU is right to change its policy to uphold the vision of its namesake that respects the rights of all students.

* * *

Selene Cerankosky and Maria Arcara are third-year law students at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Menu

We Took A Stand For Biological Truth At Our University — And Won