“Ask God what your grade is.” These are among the words found on a teacher evaluation form stuffed in Jonathan Lopez’ backpack last November following his in-class presentation on God and miracles. Lopez filed a lawsuit against Professor John Matteson and other Los Angeles City College administrators in the Central District Court of California on February 11, including a scanned copy of the evaluation form, which also stated that “prostyelitizing [sic] is inappropriate to public school.”
In the suit, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which is defending the student, argues that actions by LACC officials have “chilled Mr. Lopez’ speech, damaged his reputation, and irreparably injured his constitutional rights to free speech and equal protection of law,” not only as a result of Professor Matteson’s actions, but by the continued enforcement of the school’s sexual harassment speech restrictions. The ADF submitted a series of complaints against Matteson, alleging that
According to the LACC student code of conduct, “As members of the College community, students should be encouraged to develop the capacity for critical judgment; to engage in sustained and independent search for truth; and to exercise their rights to free inquiry and free speech in a responsible, nonviolent manner.”• Matteson called Lopez a “fascist b—d” after the student described marriage as between a man and woman and read two Bible verses during his speech,
• the professor later threatened Lopez’ expulsion after reporting the incident to Dean of Academic Affairs Allison Jones, and
• Matteson continues to refuse to grade the assignment.
This appeal to free inquiry and free speech apparently does not apply to those voicing traditional marriage viewpoints. Jones wrote in a December 4th letter to ADF’s David Hacker that “Regardless of other students’ reactions to Mr. Lopez’ speech, Mr. Matteson will still be disciplined.
“First amendment rights will not be violated as evidenced by the fact that even though many of the students were offended by Mr. Lopez’ speech, no action will be taken against any of them for expressing their opinions.”
The students Jones referred to characterized Lopez’ words as “hateful propaganda” and “preaching hate in the classroom,” she wrote. Jones encouraged Lopez to stay in the class “since the end of the semester is imminent.”
According to a document submitted by ADF, just two days before Lopez had brainstormed five “topics for persuasive speech,” one of which was on free speech. He allegedly wrote the following for the class assignment:
“Topic 3.) Always stand up for what you believe in.
– exercise your freedom of speech right.
a.) I’m going to talk about having the courage to speak about what
you believe in.
b.) I’m going to say that people shouldn’t allow anyone to stop
them from exercising their constitutional right.
c.) I’m also going to talk about that [sic] everyone has the right to
their own opinion, beliefs, and to be who they are to satisfy
themselves, and not others.”
Matteson’s alleged response, which can be seen written on the document: “Remember—you agree to the student code of conduct as a student at LACC.”
In other words, free speech only applies as long as it matches the school’s speech code.
Ironically, Matteson also writes in his syllabus for the class to “never forget rule #1: ‘there are NO stupid questions.’”
Bethany Stotts is a staff writer at Accuracy in Academia.
