Judge Rules Tarrant County College Violated Students’ Free Speech Rights; College Can’t Prevent Students from Expressing Opinions Anywhere on Campus
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Dotty Griffith, public education director, ACLU of Texas; (512) 478-7300 x 106 or (512) 923-1909; [email protected]
FORT WORTH – U. S. District Judge Terry R. Means Monday declared unconstitutional two key provisions of Tarrant County College policies regarding students’ rights to protest on campus.
Download the opinion by Judge Means (PDF)
In response to a civil rights lawsuit brought by two TCC students, Judge Means ruled the school’s attempt to prohibit students from “co-sponsoring” speech activities with off-campus individuals and organizations was unconstitutional, noting that it was so broad it could bar virtually any student speech from campus.
The judge also prohibited TCC from enforcing its provision on so-called “disruptive activities” against plaintiffs, TCC students Clayton Smith and John Schwertz. The College had relied on this provision to deny the students’ request to wear empty holsters on campus or in the classroom to express their support for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC). After an earlier ruling in the same case, Smith and Schwertz were able to wear their empty holsters for a campus protest in November 2009. No disruption occurred.
“We are delighted that the court took such a strong stance in favor of our clients’ rights to express their views anywhere on a college campus,” said Lisa Graybill, legal director of the ACLU of Texas.
“This ruling extends the court’s earlier ruling, which caused the college to do away with its policies restricting student expression to ‘free speech zones’ and requiring an advance permit after Judge Means declared them unconstitutional,” added Karin Cagle, ACLU of Texas cooperating attorney, of Fort Worth. “All TCC students’ constitutional rights have been vindicated.”
“This is a win for the First Amendment,” said Fleming Terrell, ACLU of Texas staff attorney.
Judge Means’ opinion states that “the disruptive activities provision as applied to student SCCC members to prevent them from wearing empty holsters on campus or in the classroom violates such students’ First Amendment right to free speech. Additionally, the co-sponsorship provision is overly broad and thus violates the First Amendment on its face.”
Smith, one of the plaintiffs, thanked the judge for upholding “our right to raise this issue in a meaningful way on the campus so students and professors can better understand our position.”
