Shawnee State Settles With Professor Over Pronouns

We have been following the litigation involving Shawnee State Professor Nicholas Meriwether over his refusal to adopt preferred pronouns when they contradict his religious views. He previously won a major appeal. Now, the university has settled with him for $400,000 in damages and attorney’s fees as well as a pledge not to continue to sanction him over pronoun use.

At the beginning of the school year, Shawnee State emailed all faculty members to order them to refer to students by their “preferred pronoun[s].” Meriwether teaches religion and philosophy and refers to all his students using “sir,” “ma’am,” “mister” or “miss.”  When Meriwether asked university officials for more details, the school confirmed that professors would be disciplined if they “refused to use a pronoun that reflects a student’s self-asserted gender identity” and the school would not recognize any ideological or religious exception.

The policy was stated as mandatory “regardless of the professor’s convictions or views on the subject.” He was further informed that such punishment would be meted out under the school’s anti-discrimination rules “because of . . . gender identity.”

The issue came to a head with an encounter described by the Court:

“In that first class, one of the students Meriwether called on was Doe. According to Meriwether, “no one . . . would have assumed that [Doe] was female” based on Doe’s outward appearances. Id. at 1474. Thus, Meriwether responded to a question from Doe by saying, “Yes, sir.” Id. This was Meriwether’s first time meeting Doe, and the university had not provided Meriwether with any information about Doe’s sex or gender identity. After class, Doe approached Meriwether and “demanded” that Meriwether “refer to [Doe] as a woman” and use “feminine titles and pronouns.” Id. at1475. This was the first time that Meriwether learned that Doe identified as a woman. So Meriwether paused before responding because his sincerely held religious beliefs prevented him from communicating messages about gender identity that he believes are false. He explained that he wasn’t sure if he could comply with Doe’s demands. Doe became hostile—circling around Meriwether at first, and then approaching him in a threatening manner: ‘I guess this means I can call you a cu–.’ Id. Doe promised that Meriwether would be fired if he did not give in to Doe’s demands.”

What is interesting is that after Doe complained, the Dean of Students and his department chair, Jennifer Pauley, came to Meriwether’s office and said that he had to use the chosen pronoun for the student. Meriwether explained that he had a religious objection but suggested a common resolution that he would use the last name of this particular student rather than use a pronoun. However, he would continue to use pronouns for other students.

As I discussed in the column, many faculty members are now abandoning the use of pronouns to avoid such complaints.The university likely spent in excess of a million dollars in the litigation. It created precedent that can now be cited by other faculty to decline to use such pronouns.


162 thoughts on “Shawnee State Settles With Professor Over Pronouns”

  1. Jonathan: In your opinion piece (9/25/21) in the Hill you said: “We need to find a common accommodation and respect in our society. Religious people, conservatives and ‘TERFs’ also are part of the diversity that we should seek to protect. In the end, a degree of mutual understanding and tolerance could produce greater integration of all these groups”. Fine words. But in the context of the Meriwether case “mutual understanding and tolerance” were no where to be found. You supported Meriwether’s litigation to impose his Biblical interpretation of the scriptures on his students. “Doe” has no rights Meriwether is obligated to respect. Meriwether was not interest in “compromise”. He and the backers of his litigation wanted a confrontation to uphold his religious bigotry.

    This confrontation is playing out across the country. There are over 200 anti-LBGTQ bills in many states. Books that feature LGBTQ characters are being banned. More than half the books banned feature queer storylines (even including books with no mention of sex at all). Teachers can’t say “gay” in classrooms in Florida. This in spite of the fact that among the Gen Z generation one in five self identify as LGBTQ. GOP politicians are playing to their conservative religious base in promoting these bills.

    Now I would think that banning books and censoring students and teachers would raise free speech RED flags for you. I mean you claim to be a “free speech originalist” Nope. No post by you on this important issue. Nada, zilch! You are very selective in the “free speech” issues you address. The Meriwether case illustrates that, for you, “mutual understanding and tolerance” shall be applied only to the right of religious conservative professors to impose their anti-LGBTQ views on their students. When some in this chatroom think you are tolerant on LGBTQ issues I say–BUNK!

    1. Dennis McIntyre – Merriweather “misnamed” on the first day of class AND the student was obviously male. He slipped later and corrected himself. He tried to make accommodation.

    2. Science is literally the “search for truth”. Just because you want something to be a certain way or thing (your gender, for instance) doesn’t make it so any more than saying the is earth was flat. Calling something green when it is red is just as wrong as saying your a girl when your plumbing is not a girl’s. Much of this is to gain a favored social status or gain a professional edge. In one local school most of the pregnant girls identify as Lesbian. How does that work? Many men are competing in women’s sports because they have a genetic advantage. This doesn’t even begin to address the men that want to use a women’s rest room to do women and children harm. All because it’s cool and socially acceptable to claim you were born wrong. Sounds like the education system has totally failed us. Your argument is BUNK.

    3. “There are over 200 [anti-groomer] bills in many states.”

      Now that statement’s accurate.

      If you need a law to keep you from discussing sex with other peoples’ children, you shouldn’t be allowed within 1,000 feet of a school.

      1. The religious right told us that if we allowed gay marriage the next thing you know we would be talking about normalizing and legalizing pedophilia and we all laughed.

        Regardless, democrats are giving a huge gift to republicans here.

        A huge winning issue that appeals to minority voters and from a party with a long history of fostering educational excellence.

        Charters and cyber charters are STILL booming.

        This is a reach but we may be looking at the slow implosion of the public school system.

        Good Riddance.

        1. John B. Say, I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on virtual and charter schools. Many are booming because they are money hungry enterprises that are prone to corruption. Oklahoma just had its biggest scandal regarding charter schools when Epic charter schools has been embezzling millions from tax payers over a decade. On top of that it’s performance was way below public schools and the majority of its students were not ready for college by the time they graduated.

          This is not saying all charter schools have this problem, but it’s more prevalent than it is being reported. Oklahoma is learning a valuable lesson with the Epic charter school mess and that is charter schools do need close scrutiny when it comes to using tax dollars to support them.

          1. Much of how Charter Schools function is based on the laws which need to be set up carefully. In NYC, charter schools are doing tremendous good, and their numbers show it. (per capita payment ~70% of public schools) Like every business, some have their fingers in the till and must be thrown out. However, we see the same in the public school systems, and at least in NYC, they are doing a horrible job for minorities.

            However, don’t forget that the Biden Crime syndicate had its fingers in the charter school till as well. Yes, the same family that takes money from Russia., Ukraine and China. Yes, that corrupt family that corrupts everything it touches.

            “Mavericks in Education Florida, the Fort Lauderdale-based charter school chain promoted by Frank Biden, has ties to another for-profit charter school company that has been highly controversial in Ohio.”

            “Many of the company’s schools have been investigated and asked to return public dollars. Three have closed. Local, state or federal officials have flagged academic or other problems at Mavericks schools, including:”



            1. I should have added that the Biden political clout was used to get the Maverick Schools approved. A Biden in front of a school board, zoning board, city, etc., appears to be quite helpful.

  2. NOTICE::
    I refuse to participate in your gender delusion not out of anything sexy (and butt covering) like deeply-held religious beliefs or moral principles but simply out of a desire to promote truthfulness. You may identify as anything you like from an aardvark to a xylophone with any gender in between but I will refer to you based solely on my belief in your genitalia status which I will deduce from the commonly accepted methods for doing so used by humans from time immemorial. This may offend you, amuse you or drive you to drink but in the midst of your emotional undertakings in response please rest confident in the knowledge that I don’t give a f (fill in any word signifying nothing at all. Your choice!).

  3. Another victory for common sense. I don’t have an issue with someone pretending to be something they’re not but they don’t have a right to force anyone to play along.

  4. Calling all students by their last name seems an intelligent and reasonable compromise.

    1. It may be. but none of us are obligated to compromise.

      One of the core problems is this idiotic idea today that speech must be bland and nonthreatening.

      Compromise is a choice – sometimes a wise choice, it is not an obligation.

    2. This is a curious response.
      In college classrooms, I can imagine that at times there would be anywhere from a handful of students in a seminar to several hundred in an auditorium. Sometimes it is quite impossible to address each by a surname. Furthermore, isn’t it more proper to call someone “Mr Smith ” or “Ms Smith“ rather than “Smith”?

  5. If you can get the people of this country to buy into this transgender crap, you can get them to buy into anything.

    1. “If you can get the people of this country to buy into this transgender crap, you can get them to buy into anything.”

      That is very perceptive.

      And it’s the fundamental reason why the Left keeps flogging this issue: “If we can get the public to swallow this absurdity, we can get them to swallow any absurdity.”

  6. Paul,

    Like I said:

    “If only his followers were more like Turley, this country would not be so polarized. Turley is someone with whom you can reason in good faith.”

    Turley said:

    “Many of us have no objection to using a student’s preferred pronouns.”

    I’ll stand with him.

        1. Your actually proud enough of that collection of nonsense to republish it ?

                1. “I don’t know what I’ve done to deserve you.”


                  He wakes up hostile. Goes through the day hostile. Goes to bed hostile.

                2. Written garbage and insults.

                  Further this is not about you or me.

                  As Justice Brandeis said – the remedy for bad speech is more speech.

                  Do not make mistakes and you will not need corrected.

                  If you are intent on calling others liars or otherwise defaming them – prove your claims.
                  Otherwise the moral failure is yours.

    1. JeffSilberman tells us everday that Professor Turley is not to be believed because he appears on Fox News. Now all of a sudden for the past two days he praises the Professor’s fairness. What’s on the juke box Jeff. “Whiskey river take my mind?”

      1. TiT,

        You are missing the subtlety of my opinion of Turley. Have I not said repeatedly that Turley is a NeverTrumper?

        1. He is not a liar;
        2. He has opined that Trump is a “carnival snake charmer”;
        3. He never believed the Big Lie;
        4. He called for Trump’s Congressional censure for his “reckless” speech on 1/6

        A NeverTrumper. On the other hand, Fox News:

        1. Creates false narratives like the “Deep State” or “witch-hunts”;
        2. Is not of the opinion that Trump is a “carnival snake charmer”;
        3. Pushed the Big Lie;
        4. Claimed Trump’s 1/6 speech was perfect

        Turley is a sell-out and a hypocrite; apart from that, I respect his fair-minded, educated and rational opinions by and large.

        1. “1. He is not a liar;”
          Turley is not a liar. correct.

          “2. He has opined that Trump is a “carnival snake charmer”;”
          So ? That tells us absolutely nothing about the correctness of Trump’s policies, or pretty much anything else.
          It is not far from Turley saying Trump is Fat – it is an insult, it is true, but it is also meaningless, unless the discussion is about weight.

          “3. He never believed the Big Lie;”
          Which “big lie” would that be ?
          The collusion delusion ?
          The russian bounties lie ?
          The Russian disinformation lie ?

          and on and on and on.

          I would note that very early on Turley called on Biden to support meaningful audits of the 2020 election.
          Turley’s argument was that such audits almost never change outcomes and they would help to establish trust – which is very important as there is very good reason STILL to distrust the 2020 election.

          “4. He called for Trump’s Congressional censure for his “reckless” speech on 1/6”
          Again SO WHAT ?

          I think Turley was wrong. I listened to Trump’s speech several times and find nothing wrong with it.

          Further reckless has meaning, and the speech was not reckless.

          “A NeverTrumper.”

          An absolutely stupid claim. Never Trumpers are a REPUBLICAN mofvement. Turley is a democrat.

          “1. Creates false narratives like the “Deep State” or “witch-hunts”;”
          You mean like claims of russian disinformation ?
          Or Russian bounties ?
          Or Russian collusion ?

          Grow up – there is a “deep state” they always has been, in the distant past it has been more conservative,
          Today it is not. Even Chuck Schumer accepts the “deep state”

          as to “witch-hunts” – what is it that Mueller found ? Horowitz, and now Durham ?

          Most of us know a “witch hunt” when we see one.
          And the left engaged in a massive one post 2016, and worse leveraged ”
          the deep state” into joining.

          Further these are neither naratives, nor created by fox.

          Fox isn’t leading anything – they are FOLLOWING.

          “2. Is not of the opinion that Trump is a “carnival snake charmer”;”
          So ? Again how is a insulting characterization that provides us with very little meaningful information relevant ?

          “3. Pushed the Big Lie;”

          You live in an alternate universe.

          Fox did not claim Trump collused with Russia.
          or that the Biden laptop was russian disinformation
          Or any of the long list of other “big lies” you the left,t he media have been caught in.

          “4. Claimed Trump’s 1/6 speech was perfect”
          Cite ?

          This is just a stupid argument. It was neither reckless, nor perfect.
          But it was an pretty good summary of the beleifs of about 56% of the country at the time.

          Trump uses words like “perfect” to describe the things he does – such descriptions are annoying and narcicistic.
          They are false – but only in the most trivial and meaningless ways.

          “Turley is a sell-out and a hypocrite;”

          Most of the democrats like Turley who appear on Fox do so, because the rest of the media will no longer have them.
          Because the left wing nut media is so bat$hit they can not tolerate the slightest deviation from dogma.

          Increasingly myriads of the countries most prominent actual liberals are appearing on Fox.
          Because the rest of the media is more than just left biased – they are intolerant and just blatant propogandists.

          Finally – Jeff, this is just a stupid post.
          You are wrong on most points.
          Most of your points right or wrong are inconsequential.

          SO you have wasted alot of space on an embarrasingly weak, lame close to meaningless argument.
          If everything you wrote was true – the argument would STILL be Weak and inconsequentiual
          But worse still – most of it is false.

            1. That is not surprising.
              You are not very good at “understanding”

              You have self evidently made very poor choices with regard to who to trust.

              Regardless, I am not difficult to understand.

              I deliberately try to use simple clear words that have clear meaning, and to state things bluntly and clearly.

              I doubt your problem is understanding.
              More likely an unwillingness to consider actual arguments that deviate from your orthodoxy.

    2. Not an argument.

      Even Jordan Peterson whose meteoric rise was over this issue has no problem with calling people by their prefered pronouns.

      He has a problem with being Compelled to do so.

      Conversely I have a serious objection.

      I have no affirmative obligations to most random humans.
      I am not obligated to remember your name – much less your pronouns.
      And I have no intention of doing either – merely because you exist.

      A man said to the universe:
      “Sir, I exist!”
      “However,” replied the universe,
      “The fact has not created in me
      A sense of obligation.”
      Stephen Crane.

      Things like respect, knowing your name, much less your pronouns are EARNED, they are not rights.

      You are free to think of yourself however you wish. I am not obligated to think of you at all – much less as you wish.
      No one else is.

  7. Turley admits:

    “Many of us have no objection to using a student’s preferred pronouns.”

    Except nearly all of Turley’s Trumpist followers as I had initially predicted.

    1. Jeff, Not a teacher, but I will NEVER ask someone their preferred pronouns. Lunacy. Your pronouns are based on your sex at birth. Just like I don’t ask them for their heritage. Or if they are left- handed or right-handed. I will make exceptions for hermaphrodites. 1.7% of population.
      And as you know I am NOT a Trumpist.

      1. The fundamental issue is not biology – it is entitlement.

        The pronoun demand is an effort to control others.

        When I call someone who presents as male – him, that is a choice – my choice. it may also be a cultural and historic norm.

        But I am free to call someone who presents as a man her, or it or they if I choose.

        I have no problem with choosing to call people by whatever terms they wish. I absolutely resist being compelled to.

        This is particularly important when there is little or no relationship.

        Earn my respect – and I will call you whatever you want.

        But demands from strangers I have no relationship with deserve contempt.

    2. Turley concludes

      “We need to find a place of common accommodation and respect in our society. Religious people, conservatives and “TERFs” also are part of the diversity that we should seek to protect.”

      The resident village idiot. is forced to selectively edit our hosts writings, in an attempt to make some stupid point.

      1. Iowan2,

        You are a goddamn liar. I did not selectively edit out the part of the quotation you claim:

        I don’t believe that people of faith ought to be treated any differently under the law than people of reason. I think what Turley is intimating by his quote was that we must respect a man’s religion like we respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart!

        1. “Many of us have no objection to using a student’s preferred pronouns.”

          That’s the partial quote,you provided

          I provided the rest to give the quote the full context. Of course many do comply. That in no way casts those that object, are in some way guilty of some breach of manners.

          As always you picked a stupid cudgel in your attempt to justify you fetish.

          1. Here is the whole paragraph:

            “Many of us have no objection to using a student’s preferred pronouns. Indeed, many faculty members try to avoid using pronouns altogether in class, rather than look up a student’s designated pronoun. Confirming the right pronouns can be challenging in the middle of a fast-moving class. Students today identify from a growing list of gender identities including, but not limited to, genderfluid, third-gender, amalgagender, demigender, bi-gender, pansgender, and a-gender. Pronouns can include, but are not limited to: He/She, They/Them, Ze/Hir (Ze, hir, hir, hirs, hirself), Ze/Zir (Ze, zir, zir, zirs, ze), Spivak (Ey, em, eir, eirs, ey), Ve (Ve, ver, vis, vis, verself), and Xe (Xe, xem, xyr, xyrs, xe).”

            Nothing stated AFTER the first sentence I quoted undermines the rest of the paragraph. The full context does not change Turley’s attitude that he has no “objection to using a student’s preferred pronouns” like many others.

            Those who don’t accommodate the preferences of students are less respectful and courteous than Turley and I. Certainly it’s your choice to be I’ll-mannered and intolerant.

            1. This is simple Jeff,

              Turley is Wrong in multiple ways.

              No one is entitled to be called whatever they want.

              I choose god as my preferred pronoun – are you going to be courteous and respectful regarding my wishes ?

              The core of this debate is the deliberate destruction of language and the ever growing plethora of preferred pronouns is both evidence of that and evidence that those involved are clueless at the harm they case.

              You are not entitled to have others know your name – much less your preferred pronouns.

              One of the PURPOSES of pronouns is to avoid having to recall names.

              Neither you nor anyone else is entitled to control the language of others.

              Further respect remains something that is earned – not something you are entitled to.

              It is dis-respectful, ill mannered, courteousness, and worse – egotistical and narcissistic to demand that others use the language of YOUR choice about anything.

              The purpose of language – words is to communicate and I – the author of what I say am responsible for the words I choose.
              If I as most on the left choose to use words at odds to their actual meaning – then I am responsible for my own muddled thought and miscommunications.

              I can not require you to call water dihydrogen monoxide – just because that is accurate.

              If you choose to call water dihydrogen monoxide outside of the context where that word is likely to be understood – you fail to communicate.

              I would further note that purportedly these plethora of different pronouns actually mean something.
              Yet, the very fact that people choose their own pronouns undermines that claim.

              Calling someone a “man” means something – or it is supposed to. It means they have x and y sex chromosomes, it means they have small motile gametes. To a greater or lessor extent it means many other things – reqardless of what that person wishes.

              The net effect is to both compel speech and to destroy language, communication and ultimately thought.

              1. I’m sticking with Turley on this- be respectful, good mannered and polite.

                1. It is not respectful, good mannered or polite.

                  If you respect people – you tell them the truth – not what they want to hear.

                  It is bad manners to demand control of the way others speak.

                  It is impolite for a stranger to demand that you waste time and precious storage space in your brain to record information about them that is at odds with what is apparent by observation.

                  This is nearly straight out of Orwell.

                  1. “It is bad manners to demand control of the way others speak.”

                    As you get older, you start to realize who was raised properly. So many people lack basic decency.

                2. I would ask you how this is going in the rest of the world.

                  Much of this woke nonsense is relatively Unique to the US.

                  While the rest of the western world may have a strong left, that left does not resemble the woke left of the US.

                  Most european languages other than english not only have sex driven pronouns, but rigidly sexed articles.
                  Even nouns sometimes have a sex.

                  Are the germans replacing Der with Ze or some other construct ?

                  1. What you dismiss as “woke,” I regard as politeness. I’m a gentleman. I’m accommodating. That’s the difference between you and me.

                    1. You are anything but a gentleman. You are uncouth, insulting and worst of all, ignorant. You prove all these things almost every time you respond.

                    2. Do we give repetitive rapists credit because they are consistent? I think you fit in best with that broad group of anti-social people.

                    3. “Guilty”

                      Most people knew that long ago. But thanks for letting those in the slower group learn it as well.

                    4. You’re welcome. Anything I can do to help out. I told you I was a gentleman.

                    5. Glad you are self-satisfied, but a gentleman, not unless the word foolish is placed in front.

                    6. Consistently wrong is not that consistent.

                      I would say your arguments are self contradictory – but you make few arguments.

                      Your beleifs are self contradictory and you make no effort to resolve that.

                    7. Yours is one man’s opinion. Fortunately, there is only one John B. Say in this world.

                    8. “Yours is one man’s opinion.”

                      John might represent only one man, but at least he is a man.

            2. This entire argument beautifully reflects so much of what is wrong with the left on so many levels.

              First is the issue of compelled speech, and force silence. The powerful forces of conformity to every changing values within the left.

              Next is the issue of destroying meaning. Suddenly supreme court justices do not know what commonly used words and even worse legally significant words mean.

              Then there is the issue of whether something is a fact or a choice. Is transgenderism as an example a choice or is it somehow determined either genetically or by hormonal shifts during pregnacny ? Regardless of what you choose as the answer, that answer has consequences.
              But the left actively wants transgender to be both a choice and immutable. If gender is immutable – you do not chose your own pronouns, preference has nothing to do with it. If it is a choice – it is NOT entitled to the “Respect” of others.

              I “respect” your right to shoot heroin if you choose, I am not obligated to respect your choice.

              Regardless, actual debate about what is essentially a philosophy of gender within the left is verbotten. That is deliberate – because there is no coherent much less correct philosophy involved and actual discussion would expose that.

              But again this is pervasively true of modern leftism – it is dogma, actually it is worse than dogma – religious scholars debate issues arround dogma, Dogma’s are usually constructed after a great deal of consideration and examination of how they fit into a cohesive whole that is not self contradictory and at odds with reality.

              Pronouns, gender, leftism do not have that cohesiveness, they must be accepted on faith. Real scientific research on gender is not allowed today. God forbid we discover there is a biological basis – or that there isn’t ? Nothing we could discover would not destroy the modern leftist conception of gender.

              Utilmately this is discourteous and disrespectful, you are compelling others to beleive your dogma, to adopt your faith.

              Modern leftism is a religion – and a very poor one at that.

              1. I am not quite convinced. Keep it up though. You almost had me. Nice try!

                1. Jeff, you have done it. You posted the longest series of silly and juvenile posts to an honest and correct debate of another.

                  You get the prize, a conical hat. Now go sit in the corner.

                2. Jeff, I am not here to convince you – that is a lost cause.

                  Your a foil. You echo lots of stupid left wing beliefs
                  providing a framework to comment on them.

                  1. Good. I’m glad you realize that you are wasting your time attempting to convince me of your world view. We are as different as different can be. It’s remarkable that two people can be citizens of the same country, and yet agree upon nothing.

    3. Again logic eludes you.

      As you have no objections to calling people by their prefered pronouns – you are required to refer to me as “god” in all your future posts.

      It you can not do that – then you must be one of those Trumpists.

  8. Misgendering someone is insulting and offensive. Religious beliefs do not give a prof the right to insult their students. This is no different then if the prof called a student “Mr. Dumb”. That is unacceptable and so is misgendering..

    1. People who pretend they are not what they were born to be are simply – insane. Like those who deny there are but two genders. That includes pretend gender fascists like you Sammy. Trying to force others to go along with your (mentally ill) make believe version of reality is massively disgusting and insulting. If you want to know where the road your kind are on will lead to, read the excellent Kurt Schlichter series on the coming civil war here that begins with “Peoples Republic”.

      1. Even if what you say is true, that the transgendered are just mentally ill, then this professor is claiming a religious right to insult the mentally ill. That is in some ways even worse.

        1. “this professor is claiming a religious right to insult the mentally ill. “

          That is false. You probably had a brain freeze or something like that.

        2. False.

          Calling someone what they are rather than what they wish is not an insult.

          Calling a rock water does not make the rock into water, and calling it a rock is not an insult.

          The poor mental health of the person involved does not make calling them what they are into an insult.

          If I insist that you call me “god”
          is it an insult if you do not ?

          This is more leftist nonsense warping the meaning of words.

          If I call you a D1ckh3ad – that is an insult.

      1. Wrong fight.

        I do not care if adults modify their own bodies on their own dime, and I will with little thought call them what they present as.

        The core argument is about compelled speech – not sex or gender.
        The second argument is about the destruction of language.

    2. I agree. If you were born with a penis, He/ Him. A vagina She / Her
      Simple. No ” Misgendering” possible.

      1. Or you can call the person born with a penis who wants to be called something besides he/him


    3. Sammy, please tell us what preferred gender would be yours. Please choose from the following list and get back with us as soon as possible. He/She, They/Them, Ze/Hir (Ze, hir, hir, hirs, hirself), Ze/Zir (Ze, zir, zir, zirs, ze), Spivak (Ey, em, eir, eirs, ey), Ve (Ve, ver, vis, vis, verself), and Xe (Xe, xem, xyr, xyrs, xe). This isn’t about pronouns it’s about controlling other people. When they are not allowed to control another person they get very angry. This student’s anger cost the college four hundred grand. Respect is not a one way street.

      1. Sammy can be a male or female name. Still, Sammy’s icon has two other names, Edison, predominantly male, rarely female and Molly G., female. But Sammy is almost certainly one of ATS’s dumber pretend friends. ATS doesn’t want to take credit, so he can complain all he wishes.

        One can see Edison and Molly G with Sammy’s alias at the following two locations.

      2. Silly me, I thought it was the stupidity of the College Administration that cost the college four hundred grand.

    4. “Misgendering someone is insulting and offensive.”

      Sanctioning a person’s delusions is suicidal.

  9. Like I’ve posted before keep tapping those pockets $$$$. Hopefully more like the momma bears and Elon will lead us out of this mess.


    1. We are all. However for those of us who are Christian, Christ conquered death. It is Easter! This world is passing and it is not our final resting place. We are called to evangelize and to service. those who see this world as the only reality are the most hopeless

  11. You are hereby ordered to SUSPEND REALITY and PRETEND a man is a woman.. by order of the Liberal Speech Police.

  12. Compelled speech is of course blatantly unconstitutional, obviously unconstitutional and there is no legal argument to support defend it, no case law, none, yet these schools keep insisting you must comply to the Speech Police.

  13. Jonathan: On another topic of interest this Saturday we know how you complained ( see column of 4/2) about Judge Carter’s decision in the Eastman case. You said Carter’s “invitation” to prosecute Trump was “strikingly short of clear evidence”. Now another federal judge in DC has arrived at the same conclusion as Carter. On Thursday Dustin Thompson was found guilty of 6 charges relating to Jan. 6 including a felony count of obstruction of Congress. As other defendants have tried Thompson claimed the “Trump made me do it!” defense. That defense fell flat with the jury. After the verdict Judge Reggie Walton, appointed by George W Bush, echoed Judge Carter with the comment: “You know, I think our democracy is in trouble. Because unfortunately, we have charlatans like our former president, who doesn’t in my view really care about democracy, but only about power. And as a result of that, its tearing this country apart”. Walton is one of the most senior judges on the DC court. He says he has received many letters saying the justice system has so far failed to hold Trump accountable.

    So now there are at least two judges, with intimate knowledge of what happened on Jan. 6, who have arrived at similar conclusions. Trump should be prosecuted. When the House Jan. 6 Committee holds public hearings and issues its report there will be loud cries for AG Garland to act. He won’t be able to ignore the seriousness of Trump’s crimes.

    1. Are you serious? What Judge Reggie Walton is BEYOND egregious. No clearer example of bias can exist. He could never fairly preside over a Trump case. Trumps lawyers will make sure of that.

    2. Judge Carter’s comments were prejudicial and clearly biased by his dislike for Trump. If there is a threat to democracy and free speech, it is not coming from Trump and the conservatives; it is coming from the authoritarian and hysterical Democratic Party and judges like Carter.

    3. Dennis — This issue of the endless slander and false flag events (like Jan 6 and the dozens of FBI and Antifa thugs pretending to be Americans pushing into Congress) produced by the fascist Dem Party will be the primary basis of the overdue civil war – Americans vs. Dems.

    4. There is a civility rule on this blog.

      Profanity and vulgarity are strictly prohibited.

      Please refrain from the misuse and abuse constituted by the use of the nom de catastrophe, “George W. Bush,” in polite, civil circumstances.

  14. Shawnee State is provided no power or authority to establish language, or any degree or usage of language, in Ohio or any other State in the United States of America.

    Shawnee State must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for egregious usurpation of power, authority and language control and influence that it does not and will never possess.

    How does a word get into a Merriam-Webster dictionary?

    This is one of the questions Merriam-Webster editors are most often asked.

    The answer is simple: usage.

    Tracking Word Usage

    To decide which words to include in the dictionary and to determine what they mean, Merriam-Webster editors study the language as it’s used. They carefully monitor which words people use most often and how they use them.Shawnee State is a public entity under the dominion of the Constitution and it is not a private property under the dominion of its owners.

    – Merriam Webster

    Shawnee State, a public university, exists under the dominion of the U.S. Constitution.

    Who determines language and usage in America?

    The “Language Division” of the “Brain Police?”

    Someone please direct readers to the “Language Constitution” and “Language Statutes,” perhaps “Language Acts” by Congress.

    How is it that a society allows ubiquitous freaks, perverts, communists, anarchists and various and sundry “academics” to gain control of the language for the purpose of propaganda and indoctrination.

    Americans have delivered their country by omission.

    “Those who stand for nothing fall for everything.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

    Established dictionaries incorporate new words of the English language by usage.

    It was understood that English was the official language of America when the U.S. Constitution was ratified.

    English is the official language of America by omission.

    “Legend has it that in 1795 a bill to establish German as the official language of the fledgling United States of America was defeated in Congress by a single vote. There never was such a vote; indeed, there wasn’t any such bill, either. A proposal before Congress in 1795 merely recommended the printing of federal laws in German as well as English, and no bill was ever actually voted upon. This most famous of language legends began when a group of German-Americans from Augusta, Virginia, petitioned Congress, and in response to their petition a House committee recommended publishing three thousand sets of laws in German and distributing them to the states (with copies of statutes printed in English as well). The House debated this proposal on 13 January 1795 without reaching a decision, and a vote to adjourn and consider the recommendation at a later date was defeated by one vote, 42 to 41. There was no vote on an actual bill, merely a vote on whether or not to adjourn. Because the motion to adjourn did not pass, the matter was dropped. It was from this roll call on adjournment that the “German missed becoming the official language of the USA by one vote” legend sprang. The House debated translating federal statutes into German again on 16 February 1795, but the final result was the approval of a bill to publish existing and future federal statutes in English only. This bill was approved by the Senate as well and signed into law by President George Washington a month later. The legend lives on, though, presented a vivid lesson that the foundations of our world aren’t always as solid as we think.”

    – Guardian News and Media Limited

Comments are closed.