Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Doe v. University of Michigan

721 F. Supp. 852 (1989)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...

Doe v. University of Michigan

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

721 F. Supp. 852 (1989)

Facts

The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor (defendant) adopted an antidiscrimination and antiharassment policy to stem what it viewed as a rise in racial harassment on campus. The policy prohibited physical conduct and “stigmatizing or victimizing” speech based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and various other grounds. Speech was not regulated in various public areas, and university publications were not regulated. However, the policy did apply in educational settings, including classroom discussions. For example, a student was reported for sexual-orientation harassment for his comments about homosexuality and counseling plans for gay patients during a classroom discussion. The student was found guilty of sexual harassment, but he was not convicted, which would have resulted in sanctions, based, in part, on First Amendment grounds. Reported violations resulted in a formal hearing by a panel that was encouraged to require attendance at classes to sensitize violators to the hurtfulness of the offensive speech. These classes were not an effort to change religious or moral convictions, and the Office of the General Counsel ruled on speech that might be permissible under the First Amendment. A violation of the policy resulted in punishment ranging from a formal reprimand to expulsion. John Doe (plaintiff) filed suit claiming that the policy was overbroad and vague and that it prohibited speech shielded by the First Amendment. The university argued that the policy had not been applied in a way that violated freedom of speech. A lower court granted a permanent injunction enjoining the restrictions related to speech but denied the injunction regarding the policy’s prohibitions related to physical conduct. The case came before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to assess whether the policy was overbroad and vague.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Cohn, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 605,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,800 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership