A short excerpt from the long decision in Canel v. Art Institute of Chicago, decided yesterday by Judge Georgia Alexakis (N.D. Ill.):
The First Amendment often protects offensive, hateful speech. As the Supreme Court has explained: "[P]reventing speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment." It continued: "Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate." In the university setting, the Supreme Court has stressed that First Amendment protections are especially "[v]ital." See Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va. (1995) ("For the University, by regulation, to cast disapproval on particular viewpoints of its students risks the suppression of free speech and creative inquiry in one of the vital centers for the Nation's intellectual life, its college and university campuses."); Healy v. James (1972) (First Amendment protection "is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools … The college classroom with its surrounding environs is peculiarly the 'marketplace of ideas,' and we break no new constitutional ground in reaffirming this Nation's dedication to safeguarding academic freedom.").
In balancing Title VI's prohibition of harassment against the First Amendment's protection of speech, courts distinguish between speech on matters of public concern "directed to the community at large through generally accepted methods of communication" and speech that constitutes "targeted, personal harassment" aimed at a particular individual or group of individuals. See Gartenberg v. Cooper Union (S.D.N.Y. 2025); Landau v. Corp. of Haverford College (E.D. Pa. 2025); see also Rodriguez v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) (analyzing the intersection of the First Amendment and a Title VII hostile environment claim and expressing "doubt that a college professor's expression on a matter of public concern, directed to the college community, could ever constitute unlawful harassment")….
The events Canel describes in her second amended complaint—even after being read in the light most favorable to her and with all reasonable inferences drawn in her favor—… represent instances of speech on matters of public concern "directed to the community at large through generally accepted methods of communication." Canel points to flyers criticizing SAIC's response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and resulting discourse that were thumbtacked in a school hallway. She alleges that students and faculty—herself included—exchanged open letters and petitions sharing their views on the conflict. She describes various social media posts, inviting SAIC students to protests, utilizing slogans associated with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and depicting posters and signs containing the same. She alleges that students conducted a "walkout," protesting on public streets and chanting slogans using similar language….
