The University of Oklahoma Trans Instructor's Suspension Shows “Freedom of Speech” Only Applies to Conservatives
Conservatives hide behind 'free speech' to hurt others. They take it away when it hurts them.
.jpg){kind=link}
This week, the University of Oklahoma placed a transgender graduate teaching assistant on administrative leave after she gave a student a zero for turning an assignment about societal gender norms into a gender-critical, bible-centred essay. The university, which is controlled by regents appointed by Oklahoma’s Republican Governor Kevin Stitt, did so following widespread right-wing outrage over what they perceive as discrimination against the student’s religious beliefs.
This isn’t an isolated incident: for years, conservatives have hid behind religion to justify their transphobia and homophobia. Whether it’s through rampant disinformation about gender-affirming care for both minors and adults, refusing to accommodate same-sex couples, hate speech, protests at pride parades, targeted harassment campaigns against providers of gender-affirming care, or misgendering and deadnaming trans people, those on the right have long utilised the First Amendment’s freedom of speech to serve their interests.
Courts have upheld this “freedom” many times: in the 2018 case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the 2023 case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the Supreme Court ruled that those who provide wedding services—such as cakes and websites—cannot be compelled by state anti-discrimination laws to serve same-sex couples if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Just last month, the 6th Circuit Court ruled that teachers cannot be prevented from misgendering their trans students, so long as the teacher is misgendering someone based on their “sincerely held” “scientific and religious” beliefs. And additionally, the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Colorado’s conversion therapy ban, once again on “free speech” grounds.
On the surface, these rulings make sense. In the United States, freedom of speech has been recognised as being extraordinarily broad, going as far as protecting burning American flags as a form of protest. Often, it’s conservative judges that tend to recognise free speech as being near-absolute. Or at least they claim to, because in practice, this “freedom” is almost entirely self-serving.
Looking at the Sixth Circuit’s ruling on misgendering makes this abundantly clear. There, it was ruled that teachers cannot be compelled to address students in a way they disagree with, and yet, the very people celebrating that decision have been passing laws doing the exact same thing. In many states, Republicans have passed laws mandating teachers notify and/or obtain the consent of parents if their child requests to go by a different name or set of pronouns, and while this isn’t an outright ban, the supposed right of supportive teachers to address trans kids according to their beliefs is certainly restricted.
It could be argued that these restrictions are “reasonable” enough to be permissible, but in that case, a policy requiring parental consent for teachers to misgender trans students would also be equally valid. After all, the states have this vested interest in protecting the right of parents to dictate how their kids are addressed at school, right? Well, this story doesn’t even end here.
This year, Texas became the first state to ban teachers from affirming trans kids’ gender in any way when it passed SB 12. Under the law, “employees of school districts” are prohibited from “assisting a student enrolled in the district with social transitioning, including by providing any information about social transitioning or providing guidelines intended to assist a person with social transitioning.” And here, ‘social transitioning’ is defined as “a person’s transition from the person’s biological sex at birth to the opposite biological sex through the adoption of a different name, different pronouns, or other expressions of gender that deny or encourage a denial of the person’s biological sex at birth.”
Put bluntly, this is exactly what the Sixth Circuit just struck down: if someone’s scientific belief is that kids can, in fact, be trans, then being forced to deny that also constitutes compelled speech. But while a lawsuit brought by the ACLU in federal court is currently ongoing, it wouldn’t exactly be surprising to see the law upheld by the Trump-appointed judge that was assigned to the case.
In fact, the conservative outrage over the University of Oklahoma teaching assistant having “restricted” speech follows the same pattern. Responding to the situation, OK Governor Kevin Stitt stated that “the 1st Amendment is foundational to our freedom & inseparable from a well rounded education.” And yet, the state he governs is one of seven to have a so-called “no promo homo” law, which effectively prohibits K-12 teachers from positively discussing same-sex relationships.
Other states have been even more restrictive. A number have blocked K–12 teachers from discussing sexual orientation or gender identity through “don’t say gay” laws, and these attacks are now reaching universities. In September, Texas A&M fired a professor after a student filmed her mentioning “gender and sexuality” as part of a lecture. Following the incident, the school changed its rules to require any discussions about “race or gender ideology, or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity” to be approved by the institution’s president. And as part of his pressure campaign against colleges, Trump has demanded universities prohibit their employees from speaking about “societal and political events except in cases in which external events have a direct impact upon the university.”
Conservatives have shown that their “freedoms” only apply to their interests. They fight against vaccine mandates over “bodily autonomy” but then curtail reproductive rights. They fight against conversion therapy bans over “parental rights” but then restrict a parent’s right to seek gender-affirming care for their kid. They fight against Title IX being used to support LGBTQ+ students over “federal overreach” but then threaten the funding of any institution that doesn’t comply with Trump’s weaponisation of Title IX against trans students. Because “freedom” is for them. And once they get it, they’ll use it to take yours.