Conservative group says Pitt violated free speech rights of organizers of transgender debate

A conservative group representing organizers of an April transgender rights debate at the University of Pittsburgh claims that Pitt violated the organizers’ free speech rights by charging an $18,734 security fee to quell raucous student protests outside.

The Alliance Defending Freedom made the accusation in a letter to the university on behalf of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, a Wilmington, Del., organization that sponsored the debate, and the Pitt College Republicans, which hosted the event.

Attorneys for the alliance assert that rhetoric by Pitt officials “incited” hundreds of protesters who took to the streets around the O’Hara Student Center on the evening of the event and attempted to disrupt it. The Alliance released a copy of the letter Tuesday.

Pitt said Wednesday it has received the letter and is reviewing it. The university has insisted that it acted properly to balance the rights of free speech with those of individuals who say the event promoted hate against transgender people.

Inside, Michael Knowles debated with libertarian journalist Brad Polumbo in an event titled “Should transgenderism be regulated by law?”

The event proceeded as planned, and there were no injuries reported from the demonstration outside that drew an estimated 250 people, many of them students.

But the disturbance prompted the university to close buildings for a time. It reported a public safety emergency as the crowd grew and said an “incendiary device” went off. Police later identified the device as a smoke bomb and firework.

A body dummy with a picture of Knowles’ face also was set ablaze on the street. Medics were summoned to campus as a precaution as the protests continued.

Alliance officials accused Pitt of effectively encouraging the disturbance and then charging event sponsors for police and other emergency resources needed to maintain safety.

“Charging students more than $18,000 to host a campus event is prohibitively expensive speech — not free speech,” said alliance senior counsel Philip A. Sechler.

“It’s bad enough that the University of Pittsburgh charged ISI and College Republicans an outrageous and unconstitutional security fee simply out of fear about how others might react to a particular viewpoint,” Sechler added. “But it’s worse that the university also encouraged students to disrupt the event and shut it down.”

From the start, Pitt officials said it had a legal obligation as a public institution to defend free speech and allow the event to go forward, though leaders called the rhetoric and views offensive.

The letter to the university, sent Monday, was addressed to Senior Vice Chancellor and Chief Legal Officer Geovette Washington.

“The University of Pittsburgh has received this letter and is carefully reviewing it,” said a statement released by Pitt spokesman Jared Stonesifer. “Given that this letter was only recently received along with an implicit threat of legal action, the university is not in a position to comment about these specific assertions and allegations.”

The university pointed to a web page addressing free speech in its student code of conduct.

Pitt received criticism from some on campus for approving the event. In a message to the Pitt community March 16, Provost Ann Cudd referred to a recent speech by Knowles as “repugnant” and said it contained “hate-filled rhetoric.”

The Alliance said sponsors initially were told by Pitt that they could expect to be billed about $2,000 in security costs, but then days before the event indicated the sponsors would pay an estimated $16,925 in security fees. Ultimately, the alliance said, Pitt assessed a total of $18,734 for event security and, on June 1, demanded they “process this transfer very soon.”