Texas is About To Make Sex Jokes On Campus A Criminal Offense

The two bills set a definition of sexual harassment that mirrors the Obama administration’sview of Title IX, and incentivize college employees to report anything that the most delicate person on campus might consider sexual harassment.

Judging the legality of speech ‘entirely on subjective listener reaction’

FIRE warned Abbott in a letter last week that “faculty and staff at Texas’s universities could be sent to prison for failing to report speech and conduct that does not even constitute sexual harassment” under the Department of Education’s proposed Title IX regulatory changes.

On Wednesday, FIRE responded to criticism from the bills’ biggest booster, the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault.

The definition bill (SB 212) literally says that “unwelcome, sex based” words constitute harassment if they are “sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive” to interfere with a student’s studies. What is “unwelcome”? Ask the most easily offended person on campus. (Remember the University of Oregon tried to kick out a female student for a sex joke to another female. Only FIRE’s intervention saved her.)

That three-option test in the definition also botches the Supreme Court’s 20-year-old definition of sexual harassment in an educational context, known as Davis. It must be “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” – all three elements – for a school to be on notice.

As FIRE tells the sexual-assault activists, they don’t even have to agree with its interpretation of the Davis standard to recognize the bill’s fundamental problem:

This definition is missing any kind of objective, reasonable person standard, instead conditioning the permissibility of speech (and the requirement to report) entirely on subjective listener reaction. Any definition of sexual harassment that lacks an objective component is unconstitutional.

Don’t take FIRE’s word for it. There is a long list of decisions where courts have found policies unconstitutional because they lacked an objective offensiveness component.

Can you imagine a subject more likely to cause offense than sexuality and gender? That’s FIRE’s question for the activists. “Without an objective requirement, students and faculty are held hostage to the personal feelings and opinions of their accusers, no matter how unusual or even unreasonable.”

Get ready for a flood of ‘unmeritorious’ complaints to the Title IX office

SB 212 is even worse because it includes the threat of firing and criminal penalties when employees fail to report “any and all expression that could conceivably satisfy” the bill’s uselessly broad definition of sexual harassment, FIRE wrote last week:

This in turn will flood institutional Title IX offices with unmeritorious complaints, including instances of speech plainly protected by the First Amendment or institutional promises of freedom of expression. Sifting through this avalanche will squander institutional resources that could be far better devoted to pursuing serious complaints intentionally brought to the attention of Title IX officers.

---

Trump’s 4th of July fireworks display on National Mall confirmed as largest in history

---

Florida man allegedly kills family’s kittens in front of teenage daughter as form of punishment: officials

---

Watch: WNBA Player Ejected After Nearly Taking Off Sophie Cunningham’s Head With Clothesline Maneuver

---

EXCLUSIVE: Teen girls recall Jersey Shore ride malfunction that left them stuck hanging upside down

---

Trump’s White House ballroom foes face ‘very tough argument’ at Supreme Court, legal experts say

---

Fauci in the congressional wringer: a test for Trump’s newly-minted Attorney General

---

Graham replacement hopefuls make final pitches before special election: Iran war, DSA, Flock cams and more

---

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to what the Senate did and didn’t do overnight

---

One year on, US-brokered peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan cements US foothold in the Caucasus

---

Joe Biden’s cancer has spread further, leaving him in ‘very painful’ condition, Hunter reveals

---

Florida business owners allegedly scattered 1,500 mothballs on beach to send endangered birds packing

---

Don Lemon Whines to Judge and Blames Trump in Bid to Get Indictment Thrown Out

---

Cornell bans bear butchering after students carved up creature in dorm kitchen

---

‘DEI queen’: Virginia Dem’s past embrace of far-left prosecutors unearthed

---

Slain California fire captain’s wife admits murder after Mexico capture, serving time for killing first spouse

---

See also  Don Lemon moves to dismiss case over Minnesota church protest on selective and vindictive prosecution claims

And the sexual-assault activists are wrong: The bill literally makes failure to report a Class B misdemeanor, which can earn up to six months in jail.

The second bill (HB 1735) also puts Texas in the awkward position of mirroring a Democratic White House whose actions it frequently went to court to block.

It has the same unconstitutional definition of sexual harassment, but it treats accused students in sexual misconduct proceedings as if they are guilty from the start, denying them fundamental due process. Several courts, including in Texas, have told colleges they must allow cross-examination and live hearings.

FIRE’s letter to Abbott even notes that the bill incentivizes false reporting: It requires colleges to let accusers drop the courses they share with accused students “without academic penalty.” If you’re struggling in class after the traditional “drop period,” you may be tempted to claim that a classmate sexually victimized you in order to get out unscathed academically.

It would be a shame if Gov. Abbott ruined the goodwill he received from protecting free speech on campus by, well, outlawing free speech on campus. Because that’s what these two bills would do.

Story cited here.

Share this article:

Facebook

Twitter