George Mason University Settles Lawsuit, Upholds Free Speech Amid Controversy Over Restroom Policy

Two law students from George Mason University (GMU) achieved a significant legal victory on Friday, winning a lawsuit after facing no-contact orders from school officials for criticizing a proposal to provide feminine hygiene products in men’s restrooms. The case underscores the ongoing debates surrounding free speech on college campuses and the tensions that can arise from gender policies.

The Background of the Controversy

Selene Cerankosky and Maria Arcara, both third-year students at Antonin Scalia Law School, found themselves at the center of a legal dispute with GMU when their comments in an online class chat sparked backlash from university authorities. In September, they participated in a discussion about a fellow student’s suggestion to install tampons in men’s restrooms. Cerankosky raised concerns about the implications of such a policy, contending that it could lead to men being allowed in women’s private spaces, which she deemed unacceptable.

Legal Action and University Response

The conservative law firm Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) took action on behalf of the students, filing a federal lawsuit against GMU. They argued that the university had enforced its Title IX and Office of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion policies improperly, violating the students’ rights to free speech. ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer commented on the importance of maintaining open dialogue in educational institutions, stating, “Universities—especially law schools—should be places of debate and discussion. GMU has shown its commitment to this ideal with the settlement it reached with Selene and Maria.”

The Students’ Perspectives

During the online discussion, Cerankosky articulated her stance by suggesting that allowing biological females into male restrooms under the guise of ‘trans men’ could lead to a situation where women would feel unsafe. She emphasized that women have the right to feel secure in spaces where they disrobe, an assertion she felt was vital in light of changing gender policies.

Arcara, who supported Cerankosky’s perspective, expressed her own concerns about privacy and safety if she were to encounter a biological man in the restroom during vulnerable moments. Their comments attracted scrutiny, leading to GMU’s decision to impose no-contact orders without prior explanation.

The Outcome of the Lawsuit

The lawsuit culminated in a settlement that awarded the students $15,000 in damages and attorney fees. Importantly, GMU agreed to revise its policy on no-contact orders, ensuring they will not be used to suppress or coerce free speech. This outcome reflects a growing awareness within higher education regarding the need to balance policy enforcement with the preservation of students’ rights to express their opinions freely.

GMU’s Official Statement

In light of the settlement, a GMU spokesperson issued a statement affirming the university’s commitment to improving processes related to no-contact orders. They declared, “George Mason University is pleased to have resolved Cerankosky et al v. Washington et al. The resolution will result in an improved process at George Mason for determining how and when no-contact orders are issued as supportive measures in the Title IX Process.” According to the spokesperson, these changes will introduce clearer criteria for when to issue no-contact orders and provide opportunities for recipients to appeal such decisions.

Looking Ahead: A Shift in Policy and Practice

As GMU moves forward, the university aims to maintain a commitment to free expression while ensuring a supportive educational environment. The updates to their policies reflect an effort to promote open dialogue among students and respect for differing opinions. This case highlights the need for institutions to navigate complex social issues while protecting the rights of all students.

Ultimately, the resolution reached between GMU and the students symbolizes a step toward more robust discussions about free speech and safety on campus. As universities navigate similar issues, the lessons learned from this case may influence how they approach complaints and policies in the future.