Doe v. University of Michigan
1989 WL 109367, 721 F.Supp. 852 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public university's anti-harassment policy violates the First Amendment if it is facially overbroad and unconstitutionally vague, sweeping within its scope a substantial amount of protected speech and failing to provide clear notice of what conduct is prohibited.
Facts:
- In response to several racist incidents on campus, including the distribution of a flier declaring 'open season' on Black people, the University of Michigan's Board of Regents adopted a 'Policy on Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment of Students'.
- The Policy prohibited verbal or physical behavior that 'stigmatizes or victimizes' an individual on the basis of protected characteristics such as race, sex, and sexual orientation.
- The prohibited behavior included that which created an 'intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment for educational pursuits'.
- The University later published an interpretive guide which provided examples of sanctionable conduct, including a male student making remarks in class like 'Women just aren’t as good in this field as men' and students telling jokes about gay men and lesbians.
- John Doe, a graduate student in psychology, studied biologically-based differences between sexes and races and feared that classroom discussion of these controversial theories would subject him to discipline under the Policy.
- The University applied the Policy to sanction or threaten to sanction students for speech made in academic settings.
- One student faced a formal hearing for stating in a research class that he believed homosexuality was a disease that could be treated.
- Another student was 'counseled' and made to apologize for reading a homophobic limerick in a class exercise.
Procedural Posture:
- John Doe, a graduate student, filed a lawsuit against the University of Michigan in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
- Doe challenged the constitutionality of the University's 'Policy on Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment', arguing it was facially overbroad and vague in violation of the First Amendment.
- Doe sought a permanent injunction to prevent the university from enforcing the policy.
- The court consolidated the hearing on Doe's motion for a preliminary injunction with a trial on the merits of the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public university's anti-harassment policy, which sanctions speech that 'stigmatizes or victimizes' individuals based on protected characteristics, violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech because it is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague?
Opinions:
Majority - Cohn, District Judge
Yes. The University of Michigan's anti-harassment policy is unconstitutional because it is both overbroad and vague, thereby violating the First Amendment. The court reasoned that the policy was fatally overbroad because it regulated a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech. While a university may regulate unprotected speech like 'fighting words' or incitement, it cannot establish a policy that prohibits speech simply because it is offensive or disagreeable, as this amounts to prescribing orthodoxy in matters of opinion. The policy's prohibition on speech that 'stigmatizes or victimizes' swept in protected academic speech and classroom discussion. The court also found the policy to be unconstitutionally vague because its key terms—'stigmatize' and 'victimize'—are not clearly defined, forcing students to guess at the meaning and scope of the prohibited conduct. This vagueness fails to provide fair notice to students and leads to arbitrary enforcement, chilling the exercise of free speech, which is of paramount importance in a university setting.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational ruling in the area of campus speech codes, establishing a significant precedent that public universities cannot enact anti-harassment policies that are facially overbroad or vague. The decision affirmed that even well-intentioned efforts to foster an inclusive environment cannot suppress constitutionally protected speech, particularly in the academic context where the robust exchange of ideas is essential. It set the stage for subsequent legal challenges to similar university policies across the country, requiring institutions to narrowly tailor their regulations to target only unprotected speech, such as true threats and harassment that is 'so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive' that it denies educational opportunities.
