Golden West College Settle Lawsuit with Young America’s Foundation Students over Free Speech

Golden West College in Huntington Beach is repealing unconstitutional provisions of its disciplinary code to settle a free speech lawsuit by conservative students who a woke school administrator threatened to punish for making pointed criticisms of Hamas and illegal immigrants.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Coast Community College District, which oversees Golden West College and two other nearby schools, is removing the code prohibition on “hateful behavior” and   “infliction of mental harm,” defined as anything that “demeans, degrades, or disgraces any person.”

Additionally, the District is paying the students, members of the Young America’s Foundation, $17.91 in damages–meant to symbolize the year the First Amendment was ratified.  And Institute for Free Speech lawyer Alan Gura, who represented the students, is receiving $25,750.89 in legal fees.

So this is a complete capitulation to the federal lawsuit that was filed only slightly more than two months ago.

Gura told the California Globe, “we welcome the district’s quick decision to fix its disciplinary code so that students will no longer be punished for expressing their political views.The most important principle that we vindicated is that students have a right to express their views on campus, regardless of whether others agree with them.”

Young America’s Foundation spokesman Spencer Brown said the quick settlement should bode well for free speech on college campuses.  “This swift and decisive victory for free expression should be a warning to any school: do not infringe on students’ God-given and constitutionally protected freedoms. It should also inspire conservative students to be bold: when you’re under attack, YAF has your back.”

The fracas dates to this February when students Annaliese Hutchings and Matin Samimiat, a naturalized citizen from Iran, set up a Young America’s Foundation booth at a campus fair with a white board that said “CHANGE MY MIND” with provocative slogans below that challenge.

• It is a privilege to be an American and we should all be thankful for it.

• Illegal immigration is a cancer upon any society in the world.

• Men do not belong in women’s sports and spaces.

So they were trying to have a free-spirited debate, which is what college is supposed to be all about. But instead, students complained to the administration about their provocative slogans.

On March 7, Stephanie Smallshaw, director of student life and also the school disciplinary officer,  told Hutchings and Samimiat  she received multiple complaints about the whiteboard and demanded they come to her office for a meeting.

The meeting was scheduled for March 20.

Meanwhile, the students kept trying to spark debate with provocative statements. At another campus event on March 13 , they brought a whiteboard that said:

   • Illegal immigration is a cancer upon any society in the world.

 • Men do not belong in women’s sports and spaces.

 • Hamas is a terrorist organization, and they must be wiped from the face of the earth.

Some students debated with Hutchings and Samimiat. Others just shrieked at them.

“While Samimiat was engaged in a debate with two other students over illegal immigration, using his own experiences as a naturalized citizen, a passerby yelled at Samimiat, “Go back to your f*cking country!” A member of the Gender, Love, Acceptance, Sexuality Alliance (GLASA) screamed at Samimiat for saying that children should not be exposed to pride messages,” the lawsuit says.

When Smallshaw met with the students on March 20, she accused them of inciting violence with their slogans and threatened to punish them if they made the same kind of statements again.

She particularly fixated on their description of Hamas, disputing that it is a terrorist organization.  “Some students here believe Hamas is not a terrorist organization, and you need to stop using such offensive language that could potentially encourage violence,” she said, according to the lawsuit.

And there is this gem from the lawsuit–worth quoting in full because it makes Smallshaw sound almost like a parody of a buffoonish woke administrator.

“Samamiat offered that the YAF table probably had the most engagement during Club Expo, demonstrating students’ hunger to engage with difficult topics that they cannot engage with in other places. Samimiat stated that he sees it as his duty to create an environment for young students to engage with difficult topics, and that if adults in a college cannot learn how to handle tough discussions and disagreements, then they are going to have a difficult path ahead of them. Smallshaw became agitated and said, “That is not your responsibility.”

And when Samimiat asked Smallshow if he could file a complaint against the student who shrieked at him “go back to your fucking country” she defended the student, claiming the person had been triggered by Samiat’s provocations.

The lawsuit says because of Smallshaw’s “threats” and the “fear” they would be punished under the disciplinary code they refrained from further political advocacy.

 The complaint also said that the disciplinary code’s provisions against “hateful behavior” and the “infliction of  mental harm” contravene the First Amendment right of free speech on its face because they are substantially over broad, sweeping in vast amounts of protected political expression.

As former ACLU president Nadine Strossen previously explained to the California Globe prohibiting “hateful behavior aimed at a specific group of people” actually targets speech because it is “unduly vague and substantially overbroad, hence giving the enforcing authorities essentially unfettered discretion to single out for punishment ideas or speakers they disagree with/dislike, leading to a fundamental First Amendment violation:  viewpoint- or speaker-based discrimination.”

And Strossen said the prohibition against inflicting “mental harm” on others is also a blatant violation of the First Amendment for many of the same reasons.. “Again, this “standard” suffers from the same undue vagueness, substantial overbreadth, and viewpoint- and speaker-based discrimination as the “prohibiting hateful behavior” language does. It doesn’t include the necessary intent and objective/reasonable person elements, and from the portion you quote, it seems not to include a targeting requirement either. Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently reined in the concept of “intentional infliction of emotional distress” as not being applicable to any expression that addresses matters of public concern; the same limit would apply to the similar concept of “mental harm.”

Now the disciplinary code is out.

In statements released by the Young America Foundation, both students welcomed the settlement.

“This settlement reminds us that the First Amendment still means something in America,” said Matin Samimiat. “When I came to this country from Iran, I never imagined I’d have to fight for the same free speech rights here that were denied to me there. But thanks to this victory, future students won’t have to choose between expressing their deeply held beliefs and facing discipline under an unconstitutional speech policy.”

Annaliese Hutchings said that,  “This settlement sends a clear message that colleges cannot pick and choose which political opinions are acceptable. Students should be able to engage with difficult topics without fear of administrative retaliation.”

Stephanie Smallshaw did not respond to an emailed request for comment. Calls to her direct number went unanswered on Friday.