Win, lose or draw, Ruth Malhotra's lawsuit against Georgia Tech is sure to make national waves.
In fact, it already has. 'Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant' is how the Los Angeles Times began its report on her case.
"Sadly," says the Georgia Tech senior in International Studies, "the media has twisted this case into a battle over homosexuality. In reality, my lawsuit is not directed against any students or student group; I believe all students and student groups, including of course gay student groups, should enjoy the full range of First Amendment freedoms. Rather, it is against unconstitutional Institute policies."
The 22-year-old, who made national headlines two years ago for her fight against a professor who gave her failing grades for her conservative political views, has now filed a civil rights lawsuit alleging that the speech code at the college is 'draconian', and that it infringes her First Amendment right to express her conservative views freely.
She is a Christian, and a conservative, and that is two reasons for her to oppose homosexuality. "But I cannot voice my opinions freely," Malhotra, who chairs the Republican group at her college, says. "I am not against homosexuals; I only want the right to voice my views on the subject freely."
It is a fine distinction; one that the LA Times and other mainstream newspapers appear not to have grasped or acknowledged.
The suit, filed by Malhotra and Orit Sklar, an Orthodox Jew and fellow student, at the US District Court, Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta through the Alliance Defense Fund, seeks unspecified damages from Georgia Institute of Technology, and seeks to end its practice of restraining opposing viewpoints.
More than the compensation, their main goal is to force the university to be more tolerant of religious viewpoints.
"Our love of liberty and our love for Georgia Tech have compelled us to take this stand, so that every student's rights to free speech and religious liberty will be respected," she said.
"Universities are supposed to be the marketplace of ideas," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David French, who heads ADF's Center for Academic Freedom. "Despite that, officials at Georgia Tech are enforcing draconian speech codes that prohibit any kind of speech they deem to be intolerant.'"
The suit notes that Georgia Tech officials implemented a scheme aimed at indoctrinating the campus community in the 'correct' interpretation of holy texts on issues related to homosexual behavior. Through the program, called 'Safe Space', university officials promote the beliefs of religions that favor homosexual behavior and denigrate religions that oppose homosexual behavior.
"The university is clearly overstepping its bounds in interpreting religious texts and then pushing its own view upon a religiously diverse community on campus," French argued. "This is indeed an unconstitutional establishment of religion that clearly violates students' First Amendment rights to free speech and religious liberty."
Malhotra says the purpose of the lawsuit has been misrepresented in the media and on the campus. The suit was filed to hold Georgia Tech accountable for considering mainstream conservative speech is often considered 'hate speech' and 'intolerant', while politically-charged Leftist speech is considered part of the 'intellectual diversity' purportedly valued by the Institute.
She says she also intends the suit to challenge GT's discrimination against religious and political groups by refusing to fund them with the Student Activity Fee; the third reason is to raise the question why GT evaluates and endorses certain religious views through the school-sponsored 'Safe Space' program.
"In other words, I want free speech for all students, equal rights for all organisations, and I want the Institute to respect the Constitution by getting out of the business of promoting certain religions over others.
"Many have suggested that we should have dealt with these problems internally and that filing suit was an unnecessary step," she points out. "The truth is that we have been trying to change the climate at Georgia Tech for years. In spite of countless meetings with various deans and administrators, we've had our speech censored, we've had our protests shut down by campus police, and we've repeatedly had Institute officials warn us away from speaking out on important public issues. Simply put, Georgia Tech's policies and practices violate our First Amendment rights."
This is not the first time Malhotra has found herself in adversarial position vis-a-vis the college administration. When she protested a campus production of The Vagina Monologues with a display condemning feminism, she was asked to paint over one part of it.
Her letter to gay activists in 2004 caused another uproar; in it, she called the gay Pride Alliance a 'sex club that can't even manage to be tasteful.'
'If gays want to be tolerated, they should knock off the political propaganda,' the letter said.
A gay activist forwarded it to the administration; she was summoned to the dean's office for an official reprimand. As per campus rules, students can be expelled for intolerant speech.
After this, she says, she felt afraid of speaking freely; she even hesitated to organise campus lectures on living by the Bible. "Whenever I've spoken out against a certain lifestyle, the first thing I'm told is 'You're being intolerant, you're being negative, you're creating a hostile campus environment'," Malhotra said.
In another incident, she openly mentioned during a public policy class that she intended to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC. The professor allegedly told her that if she did, he would fail her.
Though an 'A' student, she was given an 'F' in the test. She took her story to the Education Committee of the Georgia State Assembly, and sparked a major controversy.
In another class, a professor reportedly told her 'You don't know what you are talking about. George Bush isn't doing anything for you. He's too busy pimping for the Christian Coalition.' Malhotra took up the issue, and touched off another firestorm.
Georgia Tech officials denied the charge that they curtail free speech. A spokesperson told Rediff India Abroad the university encourages students to debate freely, 'as long as they're not promoting violence or harassing anyone.'
Malhotra says father Naresh, a professor at Georgia College of Management and mother Veena, who has a doctorate in linguistics, are supportive of her battles with the college administration.
Though she has not interacted much with the Indian community in the US, she says she finds India fascinating, particularly its spiritual and family values.
Her battle has won her some support, but also garnered lots of negative publicity; she talks of threats received and of her photographs put up and mocked on internet sites.
In some circles, her suit is seen as part of the attempt by the religious right to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, and anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all.
But Christian activists say that they cannot speak about their faith in public; that the policies intended to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination end up discriminating against conservative Christians.
Critics consider this a right-wing fundraising ploy. 'They are trying to develop a persecution complex,' Jeremy Gunn, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, was quoted in LA Times. Others fear the banner of religious liberty could be used to justify all manner of harassment.
The college has refrained from comment about the specifics of Malhotra's charges. A spokesperson merely told Rediff India Abroad that the college does not curtail free speech; that the university in fact encourages students to debate freely as long as they are not promoting violence or harassing anyone.
