Commentary By
Nicole Russell is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Her work has appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, National Review, Politico, The Washington Times, The American Spectator, and Parents Magazine.
The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled recently in favor of philosophy professor Nicholas Meriwether’s First Amendment rights at Shawnee State University and rightly so.
The appellate court also reversed a lower court’s dismissal of his lawsuit against university officials.
Shawnee officials had punished Meriwether because he refused to accede to a biologically male student’s demand to be referred to as a woman, complete with a female name and feminine pronouns, in accordance with the Portsmouth, Ohio, school’s policy, announced in 2016.
First They Came For… | Frontpagemag
frontpagemag.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from frontpagemag.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Sixth Circuit Free Speech Ruling Stems Tide of Cancel Culture
newsweek.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from newsweek.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
by Carlito Pablo on April 8th, 2021 at 9:23 AM 1 of 1 2 of 1
A U.S. court has sided with a university professor who refused to use the preferred pronouns of a transgender student.
The Shawnee State University in Ohio disciplined Nicholas Meriwether, a professor of philosophy, triggering a legal battle.
Citing his religious beliefs, Meriwhether he did not follow the institution’s policy for university personnel to use pronouns that reflect a student’s claimed gender identity.
Throughout the semester, the professor used the person’s last name to refer to the student, who identifies as a woman.
Meriwether was disciplined and sued Shawnee State, claiming the university violated his freedom of speech and expression.
Ann Rostow: Slip Slidin’ Away
By Ann Rostow–
The
New York Times, recently called attention to the Roberts Court’s significant shift in favor of Christian litigants. A report on the subject, “The Roberts Court and the Transformation of Constitutional Protections for Religion: A Statistical Portrait,” was just published by Lee Epstein and Eric A. Posner, and although mine is a lazy approach, I can explain it most clearly by simply regurgitating the official abstract:
“The Roberts Court has ruled in favor of religious organizations far more frequently than its predecessors over 81% of the time, compared to about 50% for all previous eras since 1953. In most of these cases, the winning religion was a mainstream Christian organization, whereas in the past pro-religion outcomes more frequently favored minority or marginal religious organizations. A statistical analysis suggests that this transformation is largely the result of changes in the Court’s personnel: a majorit