Suit filed against Tech.

Two students at Georgia Tech, Ruth Malhotra and Orit Sklar, have filed suit against Georgia Tech and President Wayne Clough:

Policies aimed at protecting students from intolerance end up instead, discriminating against conservative students who speak out against homosexuality and feminism and other issues, said Georgia Tech senior Ruth Malhotra, a conservative Christian who has tangled with Tech’s higher-ups time and again in her four years on campus.

She and Tech junior Orit Sklar, an engineering major from New York who is president of Hillel, a Jewish student organization, filed a federal civil rights suit last month against President Wayne Clough and other top officials at Tech saying they fear they may face sanctions for expressing their views on campus and violating Tech’s student conduct guidelines. The suit is backed by a national Christian defense legal fund.

Malhotra, an international affairs major, said she’s been “stifled, hindered and threatened” during her academic career by administrators and professors for organizing events, like a protest of the play, “The Vagina Monologues,” that run counter to what she calls the Tech administration’s liberal bias.

Read the entire article here.

Here’s the complaint.

Here’s a press release sent out by the Georgia Association of College Republicans.

23 comments

  1. Bill Simon says:

    Where o’ where has the innocence of Tech gone? None of this crap (i.e., “speech codes”) went on when Joe Pettit was in charge. Of course, that was back in the 1980s when the only things students worried about was getting enough good “Word” on a teacher.

  2. kspencer says:

    I plowed through the complaint. I give odds to them losing. No guarantees, of course, but with one exception the document can be interpreted as:

    “Their rules and actions denied us our constitutional right to publicly harass, verbally assualt, denigrate, and disparage others in the name of our religion.”

    And the exception – their objection to the “safe space” program – has to overcome the fact that it’s voluntary, not mandatory, to participate.

  3. atlantaman says:

    Don’t know if you guys follow Mike Adams, but hopefully he’ll get involved in this. He was intown a few weeks ago and suing colleges for these insaine free speech zones is his speciality.

  4. elaine says:

    Bill,

    Good “Word” is still a commodity at Tech, unless you’re an archi-torture major like I was in the 90s. šŸ™‚

  5. Bill Simon says:

    LOL! I don’t think we engineers were allowed to mix with the archi-torture students back then, so we couldn’t share our Word.

    Good to hear from a fellow Techie, Elaine. šŸ™‚

  6. hccitizen says:

    I take offense to the politically correct attitude of “denied us our constitutional right to publicly harass, verbally assualt, denigrate, and disparage others.”

    I have the same right of free speech that a homosexual or feminist. I do not share their points of view, and should have the right to express myself.

    Let us not forget that Political Correctness is defined as:

    Mandatory dishonesty and obfuscationof factual information when the truth is offense to leftists, terrorists and other subversive or subcultural enemies of America. A priori censorship of genuine ideological divcersity in public, political and educational areas.

    For the university or the university system to make policies that protect any one thought, choice or activity to the exclusion of any other is simply a violation of equal protection. Yes, I also have protections although my thoughts, choices and actions are more mainstream and classically considered as normal.

  7. Bill Simon says:

    HCCitizen,

    Pardon me if I sound a little provocative (which I am doing to not argue with you but to make you think), but what would happen to your entire religious precept IF another “ancient text” was discovered and translated and you were to find that where Jesus told someone that homosexuals are people too and should be treated as equals in the eyes of God?

    I only ask this because for 1700 years, the ENTIRE Christian religion was highly misinformed on the nature of the person known as Judas.

    Who knows how many other writings out there fill-in a whole bunch of blanks currently missing from the texts of the Bibles you have been exposed to?

    In case you didn’t know, King James (and the scribes that toiled under him) chose to remove, edit, and, at times, completely re-write sections of the Bible in order to fit it in to what the King wanted to see.

  8. I think in HCCitizen’s world someone who is gay and walks around without telling anyone is “expressing themselves” and he needs the right to walk around and tell everyone how much he hates fags so he can express himself too.

    I went to Tech for a while and it was very conservative/libertarian. I can’t imagine anyone (conservative or liberal) having their constitutional rights trampled at that place. I guess if you want to continue to fan the flames of the culture wars, then this development will be appealing to you, but I (and I would guess a majority of Georgians) think this is just a waste of time by a couple of blowhards.

  9. Skeptical says:

    Sadly, I was under the impression that one had to be pretty smart to get into Tech. Maybe these two students should have it pointed out the them that without those diversity policies in place, little Ruthie (a female) and little Orit (a Jew) wouldn’t be in that school. Oy! The hypocrisy (and not to mention sheer ignorance) abounds.

  10. kspencer says:

    HCCItizen –

    I chose those words not as politically correct elements, but because those are the SPECIFICS of the majority of the complaint. The majority of it was that the school had and enforced a policy of which they quoted relevant sections. The relevant sections quoted say “harass”, “verbal assault”, and so forth. As it happens those are not only politically correct terms but also happen to be legally defined terms.

    Here, let me quote the paragraph 57, the first specification of the first cause of action.

    57. By prohibiting, among other things, “acts of intolerance” and by prohibiting “denigrating written/verbal communications” or acts that “malign” another individual on hte basis of “race, religious belief, color sexual/affectional orientationn, national origin, disability, age, or gender,” Defendants have conditioned compliance with Institute speech codes on the subjective emotional experience of the listener and have enacted regulationns that limit and prohibit speech without providing any objective guidelines by which Plaintiffs can guide their behavior.

    “We are denied our right to perform acts of intolerance and denigrate others.” As skeptical pointed out, how ironic.

  11. Demonbeck says:

    HC,

    You have just as much a right to March down Peachtree with your hood and bedsheets as you do with your ass-less chaps. No one is stopping you from either.

  12. Bill Simon says:

    Skeptical,

    Perhaps you need to change your moniker to “Skeptically Ignorant” as the college of Georgia Tech never did much discriminating on the basis of religious affiliation.

    As far as when women starting going there, I’m not sure of ths history, but it has been for awhile.

  13. GAPeach says:

    I’m really not sure if the lawsuit was filed on the merits of the case. Both of these students are on the GA Tech College Republicans exec board and anyone who knows College Republicans knows they will sell their souls if it means they get on O’Reilly.

    My prediction: Case gets thrown out and they spend their last 15 minutes of fame claiming it’s another blatant example of injustice.

  14. elaine says:

    Women were admitted in 1952 and blacks in 1961 without a court order. Georgia Tech also graduates the most black engineers in the country.

  15. DoubleDawg3 says:

    These kids have been working on this for over two years now– does anyone else remember when David Horowitz (I’m a Republican and even I don’t like that man – he’s arrogant) was coming down to the GA Capitol, along with Jack Kingston, for that whole “Academic Bill of Rights” stuff that a few of the Senators were pushing a couple of years back or so — it never went anywhere if I recall (other than being a non-binding legislative Resolution ) b/c passing something like that was going to potentially mess up accreditation. That was designed to fight the whole “Tech/Emory liberal bias” if I recall my readings correctly.

    I’m not defending GA Tech (I mean, heck, as a UGA Alum, it wouldn’t kill me if Tech got into some trouble — ahh, I take that back – it’s a good school, for people who like to deal with numbers – so I won’t wish anything bad on them – other than continued FAILURE under the Chan Gailey reign, but I digress) — but I mean, doesn’t every college have some “liberal” bias. I suppose they have some valid arguments, but I don’t know how far they’ll get.

    It’s sad to say that I’m this skeptical, but something like this just makes me wonder if the two students are planning on going to law school in the near future (Int’l Affairs Major — what do you do with that other than law school? and hoping to get a little publicity before hand? I tend to agree with GAPeach’s analysis – sounds to me like a couple of kids are eager to get on O’Reilly, Townhall.com, etc.

    Maybe if that doesn’t work though, they can come up with a lawsuit about how MARTA is an “underground railroad” for Illegal Immigrants and they can at least get on Lou Dobbs for a few minutes.

  16. hccitizen says:

    Ignorance is a terrible thing to waste. and I see it abounds in some of the butt-whupping I got in some of the responses.

    I do not hate fags. I am not a religious zealot. And my ass-less chaps are a thing of beauty.

    I spoke about the fact: nobody has a right not to be offended. You and I have beliefs, preferences and positions. It is no more correct to deny homosexuals and feminists (that is where we started the thread) than to deny those whose opinions differ.

    I still believe that “equal protection” has become a victim of political correctness.

  17. Sid says:

    I am a current Georgia Tech student and I just wanted to say that Ruth’s view is not the view of the majority of the students. I have never felt my rights were violated or denied at Tech.

    1) Tech has a free speech zone by the Ferct Center where people can say anything they want. In the past, I have seen protests against Rock and Roll music “Rock and Roll music is by the devil” and protests against homosexuality “Homosexuality is a Sin”. If Ruth really wants to voice her opinions about gays and lesbians, she can join those protests or start her own in the free speech zone.

    2) Ruth is the chair of the College Republicans and it doesn’t surprise me that the College Republicans “support” her. There are members in the college republicans who don’t support the lawsuit (see AJC article about the law suit).

    3) Ruth has taken drastic actions in the past instead of goint to the Tech officials and/or proper channels.

    4) She protested against the Vagina Monologues. The money from the Vagina Monologues goes for women who have been sexually abused and mutalated. Who in their right mind protests against that?

    5) Safe Space is a VOLUNTARY program. They don’t force people to attend. The lawsuit argues against some of the information (manual http://www.safespace.gatech.edu/training_manual.html) the Safe Space group has. This information lists some religions and their views on homosexuality. How does that harm the plantiffs?

    That is just off the top of my head. I will probably write more about it on my site. To sum, Georgia Tech respects people right for free speech and wants people to express it, but it also doesn’t want hate crimes and wants students to be tolerant of others, even if students disagree with other students.

    I hope this lawsuit doesn’t change people’s view on Georgia Tech. It is a great school, hard and sometimes you can really get shafted, but in the end it is great and I love it!

Comments are closed.