EAST ST. LOUIS – Former Southern Illinois University student Maggie DeJong asserts that her graduation doesn’t prevent her from pursuing a censorship claim against the university.
On Aug. 29, her counsel Greg Walters of Alliance Defending Freedom wrote that she has standing because she seeks money damages as well as declaratory judgment.
Walters argues that a declaration is a permissible prelude to a claim for monetary relief for concrete harm already suffered.
The university had challenged her standing earlier in the month, stating its policies no longer applied to her.
In February, the university ordered DeJong not to contact students who objected to statements reflecting her belief in the Bible and Jesus Christ.
Former Edwardsville chancellor Randall Pembrook rescinded the orders after receiving a demand letter from Alliance Defending Freedom.
DeJong graduated as a master of art therapy in May.
Tyler Langhofer of the alliance sued Pembrook, equal opportunity director Jamie Ball, and art therapy program director Megan Robb on May 31.
“University officials sacrificed Ms. DeJong’s civil rights to appease the art therapy mob,” the suit claims.
DeJong alleges the officials did not provide a chance to defend herself and didn’t tell her the allegations against her.
Robb allegedly encouraged students to report DeJong’s speech to officials and confirmed to students in the program that DeJong was under investigation.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages and a declaration that defendants violated DeJong’s constitutional rights.
It also seeks a declaration that university policies on discrimination and harassment violate the Constitution facially and as applied.
It listed some beliefs the university opposed.
DeJong believes assigning negative attributes to individuals based on race is an unqualified evil.
She believes identifying groups as perpetually privileged or perpetually oppressed is sinful.
She believes such ideology assumes racism requires dismantling of institutions.
She believes counseling must focus on individuals, not group identity.
University counsel Ian Cooper of Clayton, Mo.moved to dismiss on Aug. 2.
“To obtain declaratory relief in this context, plaintiff must establish that she is in immediate danger of sustaining some direct injury,” he wrote.
"Defendants cannot in any way control her speech or other activity by enforcing policies that have no application to her now.”
Cooper also asserted immunity for officials performing discretionary functions.
He claims university policies granted Pembrook, Ball, and Robb discretion to exercise judgment as they deemed appropriate under the circumstances.
He also claims DeJong’s complaint contained inappropriate and inflammatory commentary such as "pitchfork mentality."
Walters responded, “If the First Amendment means anything, it surely means that a graduate student at a public university has the right to speak both on and off campus about religion, politics, and social issues without fear of retaliation by school officials.
"Yet that is exactly what happened here.”
He claims Robb didn’t address the allegation that she encouraged students to report DeJong’s speech.
He claims there’s a reasonable inference that without a demand letter, the orders would have stayed in effect for months.
“In any event, DeJong’s mitigation of the harm defendants’ edicts caused does not immunize defendants,” he wrote.
He claims defendants alleged that the complaint contained inflammatory comments but they didn’t claim any prejudicial harm.
Pembrook retired at the close of the school year.