Two students have filed a free-speech lawsuit against George Mason University’s law school, accusing university officials of violating their constitutional rights by disciplining them after they raised concerns about installing tampons in the men’s restrooms.
Selene Cerankosky and Maria Arcara, third-year law students at the GMU Antonin Scalia Law School, said they were slapped with “no-contact” orders after they expressed concerns in a group chat about a male classmate’s proposal to stock all restrooms, including men’s rooms, with menstrual hygiene products.
The female students were told to have no in-person, phone or social media contact with their male classmate, even though they had never interacted with him outside the “Scalia Law ’25” GroupMe chat.
“Selene and Maria respectfully voiced their opinion about biological differences between men and women and how the other student’s proposal blurs those lines at the expense of safety, privacy and religious conviction,” said Tyson Langhofer, Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel, in a statement.
“Because of this, their academic and professional careers are now in serious jeopardy,” said Mr. Langhofer, who represents the female students.
The complaint filed Friday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division) asks the court to declare that the no-contact orders violate the students’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights as well as Virginia’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The students were disciplined under the university’s Title IX Sexual Harassment Policy after the Sept. 27 online chat with the male student, identified as Mr. Doe, who solicited comments about his proposal and said he was the “Law School/Student Representative” for the Graduate and Professional Studies Assembly.
Mr. Doe said in the chat that he would “do [his] best to advocate for all of us,” but appeared offended when Ms. Cerankosky said she worried that the proposal would end up with male students accessing female restrooms, which would make her “considerably uncomfortable.”
Ms. Acara agreed, saying she would not want to have a “biological man” in the women’s restroom with her.
“Ms. Arcara and Ms. Cerankosky civilly and respectfully expressed their disagreement with Mr. Doe’s proposal,” said the lawsuit. “Mr. Doe, however, responded to Ms. Cerankosky and Ms. Arcara by labeling their concerns as bigoted, despite soliciting their opinions and initially promising to ’advocate for all’ students.”
Two weeks later, Ms. Acara and Ms. Cerankosky received the “no-contact” orders from Thomas Bluestein, GMU’s Title IX Coordinator and Assistant Vice President for Equity and Access Services, part of the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.
Ms. Arcara sent an email asking about the reason for the Oct. 11 order to Mr. Bluestein, who said that the “alleged prohibited conduct here” is “the effect of speech on a member of the Mason community,” the lawsuit said.
Violations of the no-contact orders are punishable by sanctions up to and including expulsion.
“Because of these orders, both Plaintiffs credibly fear that Defendants will sanction Plaintiffs or issue other no-contact orders if Plaintiffs express their religious beliefs, even if they do so in direct response to a question asking what their beliefs are and why they hold those beliefs,” said the complaint.
The students also worry that the no-contact orders will jeopardize their ability to gain admission to the Virginia bar, which asks in its application if the applicant has been disciplined academically or administratively.
Stephanie Aaronson, GMU deputy vice president for communications, told The Washington Times that the university “does not comment on pending litigation.”
• Valerie Richardson can be reached at vrichardson@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.