SpeechFirst University Database cases

Introduction

An organization, Speech First, sued Virginia Tech University (Mr. Sands) on behalf of students. Virginia Tech has a website for anonymous complaints about student speech. Those complaints go into surveillance software, and a Bias Response Team (BRT) may invite the accused student to voluntarily meet with university officials. Assume that the speech is privileged under the 1st Amendment and so cannot be punished or discouraged. Assume too that the university does not punish the student in any way beyond the process described-- the BRT has no disciplinary power beyond a scolding. The issue is whether Virginia Tech is "chilling" free speech even so. Two judges said no, because students suffered no harm for their speech; the dissenting judge (the famous Harvey Wilkinson) said yes, because having your political views in a database and being invited even to a meeting labelled as "voluntary" is frightening.

The Alumni Free Speech Alliance (AFSA) and its member organizations, including my own MIT Free Speech Alliance (MFSA) plan to submit an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to grant cert to an appeal (the first step of the appeal, since the Supreme Court only can listen to a small fraction of appeals). There is a 3 to 2 circuit split on the issue, so chances of being granted cert are good.

The 4th Circuit Virginia Tech Case, Speech First v. Sands

The Supreme Court

• Speech First's petition for certiorari, its request for the Supreme Court to take up the case.

The District Court, Western District of Virginia

• The docket for the W. District of Virginia

• The Complaint by SpeechFirst.

• The 91-page hearing transcript

• The District Court opinion by Judge Urbanski

The Appellate Court, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals

• The 4th Circuit Court Opinion, with dissent by Judge Wilkinson.

• The SpeechFirst Main Brief and Reply Brief

• Virginia Tech's response brief

• The appellate docket

Amici, Pro-SpeechFirst

• The Alliance Defending Freedom

• FIRE

• The Southeastern Legal Foundation

• Cato and ACTA, counsel Ilya Solmin.

There were no amici for Virginia Tech. Were there amici for the universities in any of the other 4 circuits.

Other Circuits

• Speech First v. Fenves, 979 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. 2020), as revised. University of Texas. Texas loses.

• Speech First v. Schlissel, 939 F.3d 756 (6th Cir. 2019). University of Michigan. Michigan loses.

• Speech First v. Killeen, 968 F.3d 628, (7th Circuit). University of Illinois. Illinois wins.

• Speech First v. Cartwright, 32 F.4th 1110 (11th Cir. 2022). University of Central Florida. Central Florida loses.

Articles on Student Surveillance Systems

• "Meet the software company tracking college students’ behavior," The College Fix (2023).

• “Stanford Faculty Say Anonymous Student Bias Reports Threaten Free Speech,” Wall Street Journal (Feb. 2023). Paywalled.

• "Maxient: the social credit system of choice for America’s colleges," Mercatornet.com. Uninteresting.

• "Stanford University’s Pernicious Snitching Apparatus," The National Review (2023). By Steve McGuire of ACTA. Very good for specific quotes.

• "Princeton’s Bias Reporting System," The National Review (2023).

• "As colleges become more Stasi-like, students live in fear of being reported," Washington Times.

• Breaches of confidentiality/hacking,"

• "The Problem with Maxient." The Bard Free Press (May 1, 2012).

Miscellaneous

• "Justice Jackson Accused of Second False Claim in Affirmative Action Dissent," Jonathan Turley (July 31, 2023). An example of embarassing a judge by writing a sloppy amicus brief.