Professor gets $400K in settlement over pronouns
Ruling: Educators not bound by preferences
Shawnee State University will pay a professor $400,000 in damages and attorney’s fees to settle a lawsuit over not using a student’s preferred pronoun.
In 2018, Shawnee State philosophy professor Nicholas Meriwether called a transgender student “sir” during a lecture when she raised her hand, which sparked an investigation by school officials who found that Meriwether had created a “hostile environment.”
He was given a written warning that he could be fired or suspended without pay for violating the university’s nondiscrimination policy.
On March 26, 2021, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that Meriwether could sue the university for what he said was a violation of his constitutional rights.
The settlement, which was reached on April 14, rescinds the written warning the university issued in June 2018 and “affirms his right to address students consistent with his beliefs,” according to the Alliance for Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative Christian nonprofit organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona, that represented Meriwether in the case.
“We believe this not only protects the rights of Dr. Meriwether, it protects the rights of all professors to not be punished for simply declining to express an ideological belief that they disagree with,” said Tyson Langhofer, ADF’S senior counsel and director of the Center for Academic Freedom.
The ruling by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals means professors don’t have to adhere to a student’s preferred pronouns, Langhofer said.
Shawnee State said in a statement that it “made an economic decision to settle the Meriwether case.”
“Though we have decided to settle, we adamantly deny that anyone at Shawnee State deprived Dr. Meriwether of his free speech rights or his rights to freely exercise his religion. We continue to stand behind a
based on certain criteria. Eventually, a human will need to choose the final version.
“This is one of the solutions that folks offer because we’re tired of the ways that things have been done,” said Catherine Turcer, executive director of Common Cause Ohio. “What’s important to remember is garbage in, garbage out.”
Renacci concedes that whoever is controlling the computer could control the outcome of the districts as well. But it’s still a better option than what you have right now, he said.
“If you’re going to take it out of the political realm, which is the Legislature, don’t put it in a seven-member committee that’s even more political,” Renacci said.
Renacci, who wants to unseat Gov. Mike Dewine in the May 3 primary, said the governor has failed as a member of the seven-person Ohio Redistricting Commission, which has yet to approve a map that the Ohio Supreme Court agrees is constitutional.
“He is part of that commission that was not able to come up with a solution,” Renacci said.
Renacci knows a little something about the effects of redistricting. In 2012, he was drawn into the same congressional district as U.S. Rep. Betty Sutton,
a Democrat. They were one of only two races nationwide involving two congressional incumbents. Renacci ultimately won that race.
Who’s to blame for Ohio Supreme Court decisions?
Renacci also said he doesn’t blame Chief Justice Maureen O’connor for
Ohio’s redistricting chaos. After all, she’s only one of four justices who ruled against the maps.
Some GOP lawmakers have discussed impeaching O’connor, a Republican, for siding with three Democratic justices in rejecting Gop-drawn maps. Her term is done at the end of 2022 because of age limits on judicial candidates.
Instead, Renacci blames the Ohio Republican
Party – then led by Ohio Senate contender Jane Timken – for allowing three Democratic justices to win elections in recent years.
“I blame the Republican Party, in a sense, because if you’re going to complain about one, we should have defended the last three that were up for election,” Renacci said. “Then, we wouldn’t have one person in the Republican Party controlling whether districts are good or the districts are bad.”
Renacci wanted a delayed primary
Renacci said he blames Ohio lawmakers for not moving the primary to a later date, costing taxpayers at least $20 million to $25 million to hold two primaries.
“I am usually opposed to moving primaries, but this involves taxpayer money, and the only people benefiting from two primaries are incumbents who want to get the election over with, and burden Ohio taxpayers with the cost,” Renacci said in a March statement. He advocated for one primary in August.
Renacci reiterated that point Monday, saying: “the more you don’t put it off, the more it’s better for the incumbent statewides, and I think they all knew that.”
Jessie Balmert is a reporter for the USA TODAY Network Ohio Bureau, which serves the Akron Beacon Journal, Cincinnati Enquirer, Columbus Dispatch and 18 other affiliated news organizations across Ohio.