UPDATE: The Concho Observer contacted FIRE Oct. 2 regarding this letter, inquiring as to whether or not they received a response by Sept. 30, and if they intended to file suit in this case. A spokesperson said, by telephone, the group had not received a response from the university, adding that they couldn’t comment on possible legal action at this time.
SAN ANGELO — The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a Philadelphia-based First Amendment watchdog group, sent a letter to Angelo State University President Ronnie Hawkins on Sept. 23, calling on university officials to reverse recent LGBT+ policies, according to a news release from the organization.
Free speech is the “lifeblood of academic freedom“…
The communication, transmitted via email, cited the Concho Observer’s original report that was corroborated by other Texas news outlets, and states:
By setting broad-based limits on what faculty members can teach and say in their classrooms and how they teach said subjects, ASU’s purported policy impermissibly infringes on academic freedom. The First Amendment, which applies with full force to public universities like ASU, protects faculty members’ ability to discuss pedagogically-relevant material in their classes.
Free speech is the “lifeblood of academic freedom,” and academic freedom is “a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.”
Higher education depends on “wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth out of a multitude of tongues, rather than through any kind of authoritative selection.”
Apart from its binding constitutional obligations, ASU also states it is “strongly committed to the principles of academic freedom.” Yet ASU’s policy casts a “pall of orthodoxy” by restricting a substantial amount of protected expression by faculty.
If anything in a course’s subject matter can be interpreted to delve into “transgender topics” or “suggest” multiple genders, the responsible professor faces sanction by the university. This broad sweep extends, for example, to courses that discuss recent political trends or elections.
Even teaching about — or including in a syllabus—then-presidential candidate Donald Trump’s widely-discussed “Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you” campaign ad likely violates the new policy. Showing students a picture of Donald Trump hoisting an “LGBT for Trump” flag is similarly barred because of the policy’s ban on “LGBTQ flags.”
The chilling effect of the university’s reported policy is exacerbated by its unwritten nature, as it fails to “give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.”
Key terms such as “transgender topics” and the threshold for “suggest[ing] there are more than two genders” are undefined, leaving faculty unsure which remarks or activities are permissible or lead to disciplinary action.
In response to The Concho Observer’s inquiry, ASU claimed it “fully complies with the letter of the law.” The First Amendment is the first letter of the law, taking precedence over any statutory or executive authority to the contrary—including the unidentified executive orders the university’s statement invokes. ASU’s policy goes far beyond the bounds of the law and any relevant guidance, unacceptably infringing on faculty free speech rights.
FIRE calls on ASU to clarify whether the policy reported on by The Concho Observer is being adopted, and, if so, to immediately abandon these restrictions. We further ask ASU to clarify which federal or state laws or guidance it is basing its policy on.
FIRE would be pleased to assist in the process of policy reform, free of charge and in accordance with our charitable mission. We respectfully request a substantive response to this letter no later than the close of business on September 30, 2025.
Legal Precedents Cited
Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 180 (1972)
In Healy v. James, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public colleges cannot deny recognition to a student group, such as a Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) chapter, solely based on the group’s affiliation with an unpopular national organization or disagreement with its philosophy. The Court affirmed that the First Amendment protects a students’ right to associate on campus, establishing that colleges are not exempt from constitutional guarantees. The burden of proof lies with the college to show a legitimate, non-ideological reason for denying recognition, rather than with the students to prove their entitlement to it.
DeJohn v. Temple Univ., 537 F. 3d 301, 314 (3d. Cir. 2008)
In DeJohn v. Temple University, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Temple University’s sexual harassment policy was unconstitutionally overbroad, violating the First Amendment rights of students by prohibiting constitutionally protected speech. Christian DeJohn, a veteran, sued the university, alleging the it used the policy to punish his pro-military opinions and prevent him from receiving his master’s degree. The ruling affirmed the lower court’s decision and established that the policy was too broad, setting a significant precedent for free speech in higher education.
SEE ALSO: Rosenberger v. Rectors of the Univ. of Virginia., 515 U.S. 819, 836 (1995)
In Rosenberger v. Rector, the Supreme Court ruled that a state university’s refusal to provide funding to a student-run, Christian newspaper violated the students’ First Amendment free speech rights, as the denial was based on the publication’s religious viewpoint. The Court held that the university’s funding program was a designated public forum and, as such, could not discriminate against speech based on its content or viewpoint, even if religious. The University’s use of the Establishment Clause to justify its denial was deemed impermissible, as the funding was distributed neutrally and did not constitute an endorsement of religion.
Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967)
In Keyishian v. Board of Regents, the Supreme Court ruled New York State’s statutes and regulations requiring public employees to take loyalty oaths and certify they were not members of the Communist Party, or had not advocated the overthrow of the government, were unconstitutional.
The Court found these laws unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, infringing on First Amendment rights to academic freedom, speech, and association, and established that mere membership in a subversive organization, without a specific intent to further its unlawful aims, could not be grounds for dismissal from public employment.
F.I.R.E. also cited:
- Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973): a case involving an Oklahoma statute that prohibited certain types of state civil service employees from engaging in a variety of partisan political activities, such as campaigning or soliciting funds for candidates and running for office themselves.
- Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972): The US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an anti-noise ordinance near a school, ruling it was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad given the specific school context, while also affirming the right to protest in public forums.
- Texas A&M Queer Empowerment Council v. Mahomes (2025): a preliminary ruling wherein a federal judge blocked Texas A&M’s ban on drag shows, finding it likely violated the First Amendment’s free-speech protections.
From the FIRE website:
Since its founding more than two decades ago as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, FIRE has become the nation’s leading defender of fundamental rights on college campuses through our unique mix of programming, including student and faculty outreach, public education campaigns, individual case advocacy, and policy reform efforts. In 2022, FIRE changed its name to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and announced an expansion initiative into off-campus free speech advocacy and legal defense.
