Professor's Use of Pronouns

There are less than seventy Supreme Court opinions due this term involving cases that received full briefing and treatment. This is not all they do, to be clear, and order lists repeatedly involve treatment of other cases (such as sending back cases like the ones they decided). There is also the whole "shadow docket" issue where the Supreme Court decide at times significant cases. But, even with all that, we are talking about a small number of cases.

There are thousands of cases in the lower federal courts and state courts every year. Some get significant attention given some interesting facts or significant happenings. For instance, a few years ago, the Kansas Supreme Court signficiantly protected abortion rights, using the state constitution to use a stronger test than the "Casey" standard. We will deal with one such case here -- one involving a professor pushing back from using the desired pronouns and related forms of address ("Mr.") in a college classroom.

The case has received some attention in places like Slate, but my immediate reaction here arose from a blog discussion and comments. The case has various complications that often arise in these cases, complications that cloud the issues that get the most attention.

So, for instance, this case raises allegations of religious discrimination. The court of appeals panel (a trio of conservatives) frames the facts to suggest evidence of heavy-handed religious discrimination. It is a bit unclear to me in fact how (as they noted) the professor had no problems practicing his religion for years until this specific issue came up if the college actors here were so crude. The district ruling went the other way, and yeah, the players come off a tad bit differently.

The panel decision also frames the student as a rather crude character while the professor comes off as a victim who reasonably is trying just to practice his religion and express his views. It is a hard to really determine how much spin is involved here. For instance, a comment argued the core issue was his right to state his dissenting views on the syllabus, which the school rejects.

But, a read of the decision doesn't really tell me what exactly he wanted to say and fully why the college rejected this. Anyway, as I note there, if that was the only issue, it would be a narrow opinion. It wasn't and I understand not in effect treating a syllabus as just a public forum of sorts. OTOH, a simple disclaimer on his part might be possibly crafted.

My basic position is that a respectful rule to allow students and professors (staff) to choose what to call them is an acceptable one in this public context. It is basically a legitimate time, place and manner rule. A couple quotes from CLS v. Martinez, allowing an "all comers" rule for official school organization fits.

They do so by participating in a community that teaches them how to create arguments in a convincing, rational, and respectful manner and to express doubt and disagreement in a professional way.

The basic theme of the blog piece is that usage of "Ms" or someone's maiden name as compared to their husband's name is a matter of respect. And, again, that is what immediate comes to mind for me too on a basic level.  The quote, as many quotes turn out to be, does offer the other side something as well. The professor wants to "express doubt and disagreement."  The syllabus disclaimer is a possibility though there are other ways he can as well.  That might be a fine line, since the syllabus is in effect a limited public forum, to perhaps use the term close to accurately.  OTOH, a basic rule of respect includes agreement on certain respectful usage of names and titles in professional settings.  Rules of order in this respect do no violate the First Amendment.

A reply speaks of the professor "forced" and his "sin," which to me is rather heavy-handed language (the first reply came off to me as annoyingly fatuous and the second -- after the professor calmly basically noted there are close calls, but somehow we manage without the hypos cited ever coming up -- just annoyed me more)  for basic social graces that we managed to do daily without being required to call people silly names.  How is unclear going by "rational outlook" person. 

Academic administrators routinely employ antidiscrimination rules to promote tolerance, understanding, and respect, and to safeguard students from invidious forms of discrimination, including sexual orientation discrimination.

But, and this touches upon a reply that bothered me [spent time to provide a reply but deleted it; then the second reply just led me to have a morning rant aloud], the immediate case does raise discrimination concerns. I touch upon this on my comment. If we want to treat this as a "value," it is a constitutional value, one that is factored in when regulating speech.  Discrimination law does in some fashion involving changing social understandings.  This has speech implications -- it is not a violation of the First Amendment to have a civil rights law that deems usage of "boy" as discriminatory, even if a person honestly is expressing a dissenting view on the matter of racial relations. 

This isn't just something that pops up in this country. Somehow, Canada, e.g., in 2021 as compared to 1921 has more concern for sex and racial matters.  Again heavy-handed language ("dominant societal position") can be used here, but that sort of thing is factored in when regulating how to address people in public accommodations. If the person merely said that respect was not the only rule used, okay, but the idea line drawing here is just arbitrary value choices between "sinners" and saints is another matter.  The "at least in the U.S." comment is just one of many badly reasoned heavy handed comments that triggers annoyance.

"Leaf Blower" or something is not the same as gender pronoun usage or wanting to be called by your maiden name. This is part of why the first reply annoyed me -- yes, an "anything goes" rule isn't in place. There are various complexities. You cannot just require a professor call you "Mr. Asshole." And, race and sex discrimination concerns factor in here among other things.

The blog post might largely focus on respect, but the gender based examples are still notable. Sex discrimination is specifically a thing. Gender is a fluid thing which cannot be easily handled by some visual test and there is objective reasons here to provide a personal choice.  The basic rule of letting the person have a personal choice is a basic reasonable default, but there are going to be concerns around the edges.  And, being called "Leaf Blower," e.g., isn't going to raise federal sex discrimination policy questions or something here.  

I don't see why this is not a "great" or rather reasonable "idea." The allegedly absurd (not that one is safely advised to say that, since this is a game of gotcha) examples are also both not quite the same or even relevant.  The issue at hand is what choice specific of gender titles are appropriate. Wanting to be called "POTUS" or "professor" (if one is the student) is not the same thing.  Not only is the gender equality questions not arising, it is not a choice among some set. It is wanting to be given some other title.  And, yes, the objective reality of trans students as compared to someone thinking they are POTUS is not the same thing either.  It is simply not merely a "value choice" to see this difference.

People also have silly (to some) or maybe even somewhat offensive (let's say Jesus, which some might think blasphemous) names.  The latter shows their might be close calls (the "offense" here is different than "Mr. Asshole").  Some names actually translate to something as mundane as "Leaf Blower."  If that is a person's name, the name on their transcript especially, you call the person that.  That's a neutral rule.  Ms. Jackson over Mr. Jackson is not the same thing as Jackson wanting to be called Hillary Clinton. 

As Prof. Colb noted, she never had someone ask her to call her that.  It is more likely to be some sort of troll challenge of the rule, a rule that as applied here is not just a matter of respect, but a result of discrimination concerns.  And, if someone actually, seriously, wants to be called that, I bet it can be handled.  Still, there ARE reasonable lines to be drawn here. It is not all subjective values all the way down.

The cat example to me is just asinine.  I'll play the game -- let's say someone comes from a clan associated with an animal.  A "cat" clan and they feel they have the spirit of a cat inside of them.  Blah blah.  So fucking what? Really.  You call cats by their names.  They might not care, but they have names and personal pronouns and titles.  So, Mr. Whiskas or whatever.  So, what does the reference even get you at all?  There is even a name matching a cat -- Cat or Catherine.  It is not like there is a box on the transcript that says "human" or some cat related means of address.  You call cats by their names.  That is a "rational outlook."

So, I think as a general rule that you are not likely to have any problems by calling someone by their preferred name and pronouns, at least if some neutral standard rule is followed.  So, you know, they don't get to have one each day and if the professor goes by what is on the official records, it is a basic safe harbor. A professor might ask "Oh. So, you want to be called Sponge Bob Squarepants. Is that what you want on your formal recommendation letter?"  Because the average woman who uses her maiden name or a trans student very well is likely to consistently do so.

Still, sorry, "societal attitudes," attitudes that arise from objective things like the science of gender and constitutional discrimination rules, will somehow factor in -- at least along the edges.  The same arises in the Fourth Amendment. What is "reasonable."  Likewise, what is "cruel and usual." And so forth.  Yes, some close rational analysis is warranted since common sense is not always sense and all that.  Still the point holds. 

And, the cat example is simply stupid.