Student wins court ruling after being slandered for his spiritual morals: Ask God Your Grade

July 16, 3:33 AMWichita Christian Faith & Culture ExaminerSamuel Connelly

Los Angeles, California--A California court has decided in favor of a student whose professor slandered and threatened expulsion for defending traditional marriage in a classroom speech.

In November, Jonathan Lopez, a student at Los Angeles City College (LACC), was delivering an informative speech on his Christian faith in speech class when professor John Matteson interrupted him, called him a "fascist b----rd" in front of the other students, for mentioning a moral conviction against homosexual marriage and later Lopez found written on his evaluation  "ask God what your grade is" and "Proselytizing is inappropriate in public school", and later threatened to have Lopez expelled.

In Speech 101 there are several different speaking assignments, including a delivery speech, a culture speech, an informative speech, and a persuasive speech. For the informative speech, Professor Matteson allowed students to cover any topic and to speak between six and eight minutes with or without visual aids.

Professor Matteson’s evaluation did not mention that it is “inappropriate” to censor the speech of those belonging to a protected class. Nor did it mention that it is “inappropriate” to do these things while acting under the color of state law.

This was not the first time Professor Matteson’s animus towards Christians had been on display. Several weeks before the aforementioned incident, he told students the following: “If you voted yes on Proposition 8, you are a fascist bastard.” (Source, Mike Adams, criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington)

According to court documents, the district's website sexual harassment policy stated, "If [you are] unsure if certain comments or behavior are offensive do not do it, do not say it. ... Ask if something you do or say is being perceived as offensive or unwelcome."

Judge King, however, ruled, "By using subjective words such as 'hostile' and 'offensive,' the policy is so subjective and broad that it applies to protected speech."

He further quoted court precedent, stating, "'It is firmly settled that under our Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.'"

"Thus," the ruling concluded, "the policy reaches constitutionally protected speech that is merely offensive to some listeners, such as discussions of religion, homosexual relations and marriage, sexual morality and freedom, polygamy, or even gender politics and policies.

Ironically, one of the founding principles on the college's website states: