EAST ST. LOUIS – Former chancellor Randall Pembrook of Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, who restricted speech of former student Maggie DeJong, accuses her of violating his free speech by suing him and seeking punitive damages.
In answering her complaint at U.S. district court on April 21, he also argued that he didn’t harm DeJong but claimed her own actions did.
The answer of art therapy program director Megan Robb stated DeJong violated standards of diversity competency.
The answer of equal opportunity director Jamie Ball stated she had legitimate reasons for actions she took relating to DeJong.
Three classmates complained to Robb about DeJong expressing her beliefs in Jesus Christ.
Robb relayed the complaints to Ball, who obtained an order from Pembrook prohibiting DeJong’s contact with the classmates.
Alliance Defending Freedom filed DeJong's suit after she graduated last May.
She sought compensatory and punitive damages.
Pembrook, Ball, and Robb moved to dismiss the complaint and Chief District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel denied it.
Pembrook, Bell and Robb
Rosenstengel found it plausible that Robb intended to intimidate or humiliate DeJong.
“An individual’s right against retaliation for protected speech under the First Amendment is not a new constitutional principle,” she wrote.
Rosenstengel found DeJong clearly had a right to express religious, political, and social views on social media and engage in conversations with fellow students without fear of retaliation.
She found no contact orders would likely deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in protected activity.
She added that Ball copied campus police on the orders and DeJong faced discipline for violations.
Rosenstengel found that if DeJong’s statements motivated Pembrook, Ball, and Robb to issue the orders, they would have known they infringed on her First Amendment rights.
Answers of all three defendants stated they weren’t aware that their actions violated any clearly established constitutional right.
All three stated they engaged in discretionary functions in good faith with a belief that their actions were consistent with their obligations.
They stated that DeJong’s claim for punitive damages violated their rights of free speech, due process, equal protection, and freedom from excessive fines.
They added that DeJong’s own actions caused her damages in whole or in part.
Robb’s answer argued that DeJong expressed viewpoints that didn’t align with multicultural and diversity competency standards of art counseling.
She admitted she stated DeJong was entitled to her viewpoints but not to harm others.
She also admitted the program’s value statement discusses anti-oppression and social justice.
University counsel Ian Cooper of Clayton, Missouri, filed the answers in association with colleague Katherine Nash.
Rosenstengel has set trial next April.
She plans a scheduling conference for May 31.