Federal court strikes down University of Houston’s speech policy

HOUSTON  – Censorship efforts by the University of Houston took another body blow on Thursday, March 13, 2003, when a federal court struck down the university’s unconstitutionally restrictive speech policy.  The ruling favors the Pro-Life Cougars, a student group whose speech administrators have tried to squash. 

Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr., writing for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, slammed the door on the first version of the university’s anti-free speech policy when he wrote that "the uncontroverted evidence compels the conclusion that both the (U)niversity, and in particular Butler Plaza, are public fora designated for student speech."

The ruling declares that this first version of the university’s anti-free speech policy is clearly unconstitutional.  A ruling on a second version of the speech policy is pending.  The Pro-Life Cougars are represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a national legal non-profit organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona, serving people of faith. 

"This court keeps showing the university the road map to a constitutional speech policy, but it seems to prefer to censor and to silence politically incorrect groups like the Pro-Life Cougars.  The university simply doesn’t get it," said Benjamin W. Bull, the lead attorney on the case and chief counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.  "The judge held that the university is a public forum for communicative activities for students, and the university cannot, ban, censor, quash, or brush aside politically incorrect speech it finds inconvenient." 

The judge has not yet ruled on the second version of the university’s speech policy.  However, the judge wrote that the first policy, which he struck down, "may be recalled with fondness for its ‘liberality,’" when compared to the second policy.

Bull said students favoring politically incorrect speech at the University of Houston should be encouraged.  "The judge said that the first policy is unconstitutional, and yet it’s better than the second policy on which he has yet to rule.  The Pro-Life Cougars and other undesired politically correct groups will soon enjoy their full panoply of speech rights."