The lawsuit Brooker v. The Governors of Missouri State University (MSU) was filed on October 30th on behalf of Emily Brooker. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian legal group that advocates religious freedom, accuses tax-funded MSU of retaliating against Brooker because she refused to sign a letter to the Missouri Legislature in support of homosexual adoption. Gay adoption violates Brooker's Christian beliefs.

ADF says the letter violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religion; the subsequent 'punishment' violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.

MSU President Mike Nietzel promises a full investigation that will "reflect thoroughness, thoughtfulness and care." The school released a statement that reads, in part, "Missouri State University has been and is committed to protecting the rights of its students, as well as its faculty and staff, including free speech and expression, and freedom of religion."

MSU officials also pointed to established policies for students who feel 'disrepected' by professors and to the non-discrimination policy printed in the syllabi that all students receive.

Nietzel and other university officials decline further comment, however, until the investigation renders results. Unfortunately, this means that the 'facts' of the matter come almost entirely from the lawsuit. it alleges the following:

In 2002, Brooker entered MSU for a bachelor of social work degree. In Spring 2005, she attended "Social Welfare Policy and Services I" taught by Frank G. Kauffman, a nontenured assistant professor. The course was a requirement; that is, Brooker could not graduate without it.

When Kauffman reportedly "engaged in leftist diatribes denigrating President Bush," Brooker and several other students objected. She received an atypically bad grade which, after a year of effort, was successfully appealed.

Unfortunately, Kauffman taught another required course that Brooker attended in Fall 2005. Students were required to engage in a social work advocacy project of their choice; Brooker chose 'homelessness'. But Kauffman ordered the entire class to focus on advocating homosexual foster homes and adoption, which he strongly favors.

(Missouri and Florida are the only two states in which gay men cannot adopt children. In Missouri, the issue is in flux not merely in election rhetoric but also in the judiciary; for example, a Missouri judge ruled in February that a lesbian could not be denied a foster care license because of her sexual orientation.)

Using a draft that Kauffman provided as their guide, the students were to compose and individually sign a letter on MSU letterhead in support of gay adoption which was addressed to the Missouri State legislature. The signature is key. Drafting a statement with which you disagree can be a valuable intellectual exercise; signing an addressed letter is an endorsement. The signature -- unlike the context in which it arose -- could be a matter of permanent and public record.

Brooker declined. Eventually Kauffman agreed that she could write "an alternate letter". Before this agreement occurred, however, Brooker and another student went to an outside professor for advice. Perhaps due to pressure from coworkers, Kauffman dropped the letter campaign.

After completing the course, Brooker was accused of a Level 3 Grievance -- the most serious charge that can be directed at a student's academic performance. A Level 3 review on her record significantly impairs Brooker's potential for employment or enrollment elsewhere.

The School of Social Work's Standard of Essential Functioning states, "More often, a Level 3 review is conducted when concerns have not been resolved in prior reviews?or when the student is being considered for withdrawal or discontinuance in the program."

Brooker had undergone no prior review.

On December 16, Brooker faced a two-and-a-half hour ethics review conducted by faculty, including Kauffman. Brooker was permitted neither legal representation nor her parents' presence. A written transcript of the meeting was not allowed. It should be noted, however, that closed and unrecorded hearings at which students are not allowed legal representation are common on campuses across North America.

Three accusations were aired. One was 'tardiness' for which no other MSU student had ever received a Level 3 review. The overwhelming focus, however, was on her refusal to sign Kauffman's letter.

The education journal Insider Higher Education reported, "According to the [ADF] complaint...faculty members asked Brooker: "'Do you think gays and lesbians are sinners? Do you think I am a sinner?'"

The committee also allegedly claimed "that Ms. Brooker's Christian beliefs conflicted with the National Association of Social Worker Code of Ethics (NASWCE)." It demanded she write a paper on how to "lessen the gap" between her personal beliefs and professional obligations. (Allison Nadelhaft of NASW's national office denies that the code requires a social worker to hold a specific view on homosexuality or to compromise their religious beliefs.)

At a later meeting, as a condition of continuing her degree, Brooker was required to sign a contract pledging to conform to the NASWCE. The complaint declares, "Statements in the contract implied that Ms. Brooker had engaged in additional unprofessional behavior. Further, there were several contradictions in the language of the contract." Brooker received a one-day deadline to sign. She complied under protest.

Brooker graduated on May 19, 2006.

This lawsuit is a test case that almost certainly will go to court or result in a very public apology that alters MSU policy. It asks not only to remove the stain of a Level 3 from Brooker's record but also to compensate her financially.

If successful, the lawsuit may reverberate through academia. The tax-funded policies at MSU are similar to those in other universities where parallel dramas play out. For example, last year Rhode Island College's School of Social Work required a conservative master's student to publicly advocate for political causes to which he morally objected. When the student refused, he was informed "he could no longer pursue a master's degree in social work policy" at the College.

David French is a senior legal counsel with ADF. With reference to Brooker, he comments on the brazenness with which universities now violate a student's freedom of conscience. "A person was forced to publicly state a position on a hot-button cultural issue to her own government that she disagrees with. You can't get a more fundamental violation of the First Amendment than that...Brooker objected, and then she was subject to investigation and punishment."

The case is being painted as 'Christian versus leftist' or 'conservative versus liberal' but it is far more. It reaches to the heart of freedom of conscience whatever the content of the conscience may be.

No one -- not the President, not the Supreme Court -- can rightfully require you to advocate for policies with which you disagree. The right not to speak is fundamental to human liberty. Indeed, freedom of conscience cannot exist without it.


Copyright © 2006 Wendy McElroy.