Former University of Arizona professor Daniel Grossenbach is suing the school over alleged retaliation over his views on gender policies in his children’s school district. Grossenbach, who taught ethics as an adjunct instructor from 2020 to 2023, was a contract faculty member (as opposed to tenured faculty) and was terminated after a cancel campaign over his voicing objections to the policies. The lawsuit presents a familiar free speech controversy in higher education, where conservatives or libertarians are targeted for their views outside of universities, while those on the left are rarely subject to such campaigns.
Daniel Grossenbach says the university was pressured to terminate his contract in November 2023 after receiving anonymous complaints about his parental rights advocacy in his children’s school district.
Grossenbach is the father of two students at Catalina Foothills School District (CFSD) and founded a parental rights group called SaveCFSD in 2023. The group fought “policies and practices of hiding minors’ mental health information as a violation of fundamental parental rights.” The impetus of the group was gender identity surveys of students that allegedly led to lists of students who preferred different names and pronouns without notifying parents.
Grossenbach’s advocacy is clearly protected speech under the First Amendment.
Grossenbach alleges that he was fired due to anonymous complaints accusing him of leading an “anti-gay hate group,” engaging in anti-LBGTQ speech on social media, and spreading “misinformation.” However, the university insisted that his position was eliminated because of funding for new full-time roles.
The problem is that, after he was terminated, the school posted other openings for adjunct professors in the ethics department and Grossenbach alleges that the university withheld documents showing that administrators were responding to the complaints.
The lawsuit paints a rather conflicted picture for the university. While we have not seen the university’s answer to the complaint, the pattern is a familiar one.
The support enjoyed by faculty on the far left is in sharp contrast to the treatment given to faculty with moderate, conservative, or libertarian views. This includes blocking figures from speaking on campuses due to their political views. Conservatives and libertarians understand that they have no cushion or protection in any controversy.
The treatment of faculty based on their ideology is striking and disturbing. I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments on the left, including “detonating white people,” abolish white people, denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. I also defended the free speech rights of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. (Loomis was later made Director of Graduate Studies of History at Rhode Island).
Even when faculty engage in hateful acts on campus, however, there is a notable difference in how universities respond depending on the viewpoint. At the University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.
When these controversies arose, faculty rallied behind the free speech rights of the professors. That support was far more muted or absent when conservative faculty have found themselves at the center of controversies. The suspension of Ilya Shapiro is a good example. Other faculty have had to go to court to defend their free speech rights. One professor was suspended for being seen at a controversial protest.
The University of Arizona’s lack of transparency and conflicting record raise very serious free speech questions in this case. The litigation could create an important precedent if allowed to proceed into discovery and trial.
He is represented by Liberty Counsel, which is alleging violations of the First and 14th Amendments, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and Arizona’s public records law.
Another effort by Turley, speaking as part of MAGA media, to attack higher education, so followers of MAGA will be more inclined to believe MAGA media’s attacks against scientists, economists, lawyers and physicians and ignore the warnings of these and other educated people about how the Trump administration is making it easier for his wealthy donors to pollute our air and water, to screw consumers, to try to dismantle our courts and legal systems, and how his policies, including tariffs and multi-trillion dollar tax breaks for the wealthiest will drive inflation, jack up the cost of goods and increase the national debt–all of which push back against his Project 2025 agenda–something Trump denied was his agenda after polls proved that most Americans opposed it, but which he is implementing. As posters infra have pointed out, Grossenbach was not a “professor”–he was a contract instructor, and based on my experience, that means that he can be terminated for no reason whatsoever. He is not on a tenure track. He was hired to teach an ethics course.
The worst part of this piece, IMHO, is Turley’s claim that in higher education there is a “sharp contrast” between how the “far left” is treated compared to teachers who espouse even “moderate” views. That’s simply not true, but, again MAGA media likes to create the false impression that there is a “cancel campaign” against moderate or even conservative views. Like Trump, who always has to somehow be a “victim”–MAGAts also have to be convinced they are the “victims” of some “far left” cabal out to silence them, mislead them about vaccines, about climate change, about economics, like the effect of tariffs and how much money banks and airlines are making off of things like overdraft fees and cancellation and baggage charges, and that they’re going to try to take away their assault rifles.
If Turley wants to talk about “cancel campaign”, why doesn’t he start with Trump threatening to take the broadcast licenses of mainstream news organizations who don’t bend the knee to him, his attacks on journalists who tell the truth about him–his limiting of access to “White House press briefings” toward billionaire-created and owned MAGA media, and his dipstick “press secretary” openly insulting actual journalists who ask uncomfortable questions and couching every response with some spin on the facts praising Trump? How about the CDC, firing physicians who wouldn’t go along with RFK, Jr.’s boneheaded anti-vaccine campaign? The work of the CDC is literally life and death. RFK didn’t even know that a study on Alzheimer’s funded by the CDC was cancelled. RFK has no background or education in science, much less medicine, medical research or pharmaceutical science. He’s not qualified to issue edicts on public health.
One contract instructor getting fired for the alleged reason that he espoused “conservative” views is not proof that there is a “sharp contrast” between how the “far left ” is treated and how allegedly “conservative” professors are treated.
Anonymous says: September 2, 2025 at 4:52 PM
Another effort by Turley, speaking as part of MAGA media, to attack
The TDS runs strong in this one ⬆ ⬆ ⬆ …………….🙀
@Anonymous
Again. You are an idiot.
“One contract instructor getting fired [. . .] is not proof . . .”
Yet another Leftist lie (and smear) by omission.
You conveniently ignored all of the other examples he cited, and the countless examples he has cited in other posts.
What is missing: Any argument or evidence that contradicts the facts presented by Turley in the article.
@Anonymous
ChatGPT much?? lol
Is there a pro-gay love group?
Do parents send their children to school for education or psychoanalysis?
The communist teachers union has expanded from the “dictatorship of the proletariat” to the psych-eval and re-education gulag.
Establish freedom—educate—ban bullies of any stripe.
Discrimination is the first step of freedom – sorry for you if you don’t like freedom.
Get the freak show out of kids’ heads and put conformity and education in there; let ’em freak out in their closets on their own time.
The far left radicals are not only stupid, but they are very dangerous as well.
They are only dangerous because they act in a mob. One stupid person is not all that dangerous. The problem is that most people are mediocre, and many are angry about that because they wish they had talent, but they don’t stand out from the crowd. Then they lash out collectively against greatness and require conformance to their own mediocrity. That is what “equity” is all about. That is what the DEI is all about. That is why the DEI movement is totalitarian.
Well said
An entirely volatile mix of substandard psychological adaptation to civilized society, which was popularly called to societal account by Dickens.
“This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased.”
— Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol.
—————————————
–Oddball
“Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings.”
The heavy lifting in these cases are the defunding and consequential removal of all board members that are ultimately responsible for the prog/left turn into a ditch of fascism that plagues most of our media/education industry and quite a large dollop of that same ideology that has infested our government bureaucracy and corporate board rooms.
While polls show that a majority of average Americans object to this nonsense – the progs have successfully infiltrated so many areas of our culture and simulated public support through deceptive media propaganda that we have almost come too late to the realization that this millennial old grift by progressives pushing their ideology has come to the brink of annihilating our very constitution and all of its protections.
The fish rots from the head and that is where our efforts must be – forget the street level crazies and the puppet politicians and talking heads. The real threat lies in the few who truly distribute the monies and have control over all the rest.
When we can rid ourselves of their influence, and only then, will we be able to restore this nation to some semblance of reflecting the values with which our founding fathers blessed us,
An institution infringing on the right to free speech in support of a political party’s agenda could be viewed as functioning in support of that party, and hence jeopardizes any right to federal funding. In addition, said institution risks running afoul of the First Amendment….
There is something Professor Turley glosses over. Grossenbach is a contract instructor. A part-time teacher who is usually the lowest ranking in University academia. This means his employment can be anywhere from semester-long contracts. Or year-long contracts and as per the Arizona University rules it can be deemed an at-will form of employment which means those under the “contract” terms can be fired for whatever reason. We don’t know what is in his contract and neither does Professor Turley. Here’s the part of the University rules explaining their Contract employees,
“ Section 1. Background—Contracts and Employee Handbooks
Contract law stems from a rationale that analyzes the tenets of fairness, justice, reliance,
commitment, certainty, efficiency, and promise-keeping between parties to a contract. These
tenets are balanced by the freedom to contract and the fairness of the exchange. The employer-
employee relationship is a unique contractual relationship that outlines the terms and
conditions of employment. Under the common law of contracts, most employment relationships
are “employment at will.” At-will employment means that an employee can be terminated at
any time or for any purpose, unless there is a statutory, public policy, or contractual limitation
on the employment termination right. 2 At-will employees who are terminated cannot sue their
employers for breach of contract or wrongful termination, and public at-will employees may not
have the advantage of due-process protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, discussed
below.”
He was very likely a part-time instructor with no benefits and found out his advocacy outside his job cost him. There are consequences for exercising free speech and this is one of them. Unless his contract included an at-will clause as part of his teaching position there is not much he can do. The complaint does look like it relies heavily on allegations and hearsay. Not a good strategy for a part-time employee barely two years in.
This does not trump the First Amendment for an institution that has been found to act under “color of state law” in the context of First Amendment disputes. Public universities like the University of Arizona are routinely treated as state actors for First Amendment purposes, making their actions subject to federal civil rights claims (such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983). The University of Arizona’s own Office of Institutional Equity openly acknowledges that, as a public university, it must comply with First Amendment restrictions, permitting it only to limit speech in instances clearly proscribed by law (such as threats or harassment).
Kevin Anderson, it all depends on what was on his contract. He was essentially a part-time employee with little or no benefits and protections. If he his contract was up for renewal and the University chose to not renew it is their prerogative. Grossenbach will have to prove he was indeed fired because of his speech outside of the Univsersity. The only evidence he has so far are allegations and hearsay.
“. . . with little or no . . . protections.”
Per usual, you’re just making stuff up:
“The AAUP asserts that all faculty, *including adjuncts*, have the right to academic freedom, ensuring freedom in the classroom, in scholarship and research, and in public statements.” (emphasis added)
Adjunct does not mean second-class (as you imply). It’s essence is short-term and non-tenure track.
Engineers, scientists, entrepreneurs, CEO’s, emeritus faculty, lawyers — they all can be adjunct faculty, some with five-year contracts and *full* benefits.
As an academic adjunct (part-time employee) contract employee does not guarantee benefits or employment. Since we don’t know the specifics of his contract his termination could still be legal.
You cited the academic freedom policies that apply to all staff, however, an adjunct does not do research or anything else except just teach. His anti-LBGTQ stance is perfectly within his free speech rights, but he is still a contract employee who is still bound by a contract that does not oblige the university to renew. If they choose not to renew his contract at the end of the semester then there is little he can do. Claiming he got terminated because of some complaints and/or allegations would be very hard for him to prove.
That is what discovery is for, if the case is allowed to proceed.
“. . . an adjunct does not do research or anything else except just teach.”
That is false.
There are adjunct researchers and investigators all over academia. And there are those with joint responsibilities — teaching and research.
It’d be nice if once in a while you knew what you were talking about.
Sam, but he’s not a researcher or an investigator. He’s an instructor and his only job is to teach the course he’s assigned to.
He’s a contract instructor, a part-time employee. This particular employee is only there to teach an ethics class. Nothing more.
*. As you’ve stated, x, he can’t because he hasn’t any due process rights and can be fired without cause. His employer can fire for unquestioned reasons and the aggrieved is without any right to see complaint files.
Employment without a clause specifically giving the employed Constitutional rights deletes those rights. In fact there may be a clause saying he gave them up.
Without an exact clause stating his hours, wage and conditions and duration he’s subject to what the employer requires.
X, everyone has an opinion. How can you possibly know what the evidence is when the depositions have not occurred. You write of assumptions by the good Professor while your statement is predicated on information that you cannot possibly have. So whose opinion should I trust. The answer is obvious. Perhaps it would be appropriate for you to tell us where you received your degree in the law. Short of this we can only come to the conclusion that you consumed an extra large bowl of contrarian fruit loops this morning and not yet having your constitutional it has made you a little crank and full of something. My recommendation is Duhlcolax. Its just the softener you need.
TiT,
Of course I did not bother to read the slow and dumb one’s comment but your comment was well done!! Excellent take down of the slow and dumb one! Thank you!
Thinkitthrough, I used the evidence at hand. the lawsuit and the description of the issue linked by Professor Turley. I looked up the rules regarding contract instructors for Arizona University. All points to clear issues that the employee will very likely face in his lawsuit.
Perhaps if you thought things through and read through my posts and the links provided by Professor Turley you would understand where this information came from.
The fact Grossenbach is indeed a contract instructor and what the rules regarding such employment Grossenbach likely had a contract that had an “at-will employment” clause. It makes the sudden firing after the complaints or accusations from alleged trolls or other parents make sense. I’m making an observation based on the facts before me. The lawsuit, the policy, and other articles mentioning this story. Grossenbach claims he was fired because of his religioius views. But he has not shown how other than allegations.
As I have said before, It all depends on what is in his contract. Until there is a trial the only thing he has is allegations and unsubstantiated claims against the school.
*. True
*. Employees can sign contracts with a clause stating they’ve given up all Constitutional rights upon employment, x.
Here’s where the university will lose. The university claims that his firing was due to a change of policy to hire instructors for permanent positions. The argument falls apart because the university continued to hire contract instructors in the same department after his termination. What is most amazing is the lack of ethics in an ethics department that makes it a firing offense for stating that one is not in agreement with the amputation of a boys penis and a girls breast without consent of the parents. This is simply the nitty gritty of whats at stake in the land of WokeUtopia. Earth to the University of Arizona. Big time contributors with a leaning to the right after hearing of this firing will not be sending a contribution check to help support the fall semester. Stupid is as stupid does.
This is about a religous apologist and part time college teacher finding out that his free speech has consequences. If his contract was crafted as with an “at-will” clause he certainly has little recourse. His lawsuit is 114 pages long and strewn with lots of allegations and baseless claims that sound more like male karen of sorts.
He blames internet trolls complaining about his views to the school and claims without evidence that the school used this as an excuse to fire him. We should still keep in mind that he is only a part-time teacher and he’s also a contract based employee which normally lasts anywhere from one semester to an academic year. The school can still choose to not renew his contract when it runs out. It is more likely than not there is a clause in his contract treating his employment as at-will and they can certainly fire him for whatever reason or no reason IF that was in his contract. We don’t know the particulars of his contract, but it is likely that is why he was fired. Until we know more about what was in his contract we are only left with speculation, just as Professor Turley is.
*. TiT, no matter what is said and done, no matter the forced propaganda and demanded acceptance, LGBT relies upon those who’ll go along to get along. LGBT behaviors are repugnant, repulsive to many if not most and those people simply don’t think about those behaviors at all for mental peace.
It’s forced acceptance.
@X
You can’t possibly be serious. All sorts of jobs come with stipulations, even something as basic as an NDA. Very often, just as in online terms of service agreements, you are absolutely waving certain rights to do certain jobs or participate in certain activities, and it is legally binding. Your position is ludicrous and legally spurious, and one needn’t be a lawyer to know it.
*waiving
James, what exactly do you think my position is? You seem to be agreeing with me on the assumption that if he signed his contract and it had an “at-will-employement” clause. He doesn’t have much of a case.
@X
I think your position is that of a troll, likely paid to be here, parroting leftist talking points under the guise of being informed, which you are not. You aren’t convincing anyone. 🤷🏻♂️
James, you’re not answering the question. What you have been saying is basically what I have been saying. You seem to be agreeing with my point but somehow you’re assuming I said something else.
You haven’t shown how I am uninformed. All you have shown is an urge to insult because you cannot provide an articulate counter argument.
@X
😂😂😂
At least you tried.
“James, what exactly do you think my position is?”
How is he supposed to answer that question? Your position changes every time your ignorance is exposed.
Sam, my position has been consistent. Its James difficulty in keeping track of his own accusations that is the problem.
“James, what exactly do you think my position is? You seem to be agreeing with me on the assumption that if he signed his contract and it had an “at-will-employement” clause. “
“position is? “
George Svelaz, which of your positions is under question? As an idiot, a troll, or a liar?
You talk a lot, but you don’t seem to understand “at-will” is well protected at a private school. The University of Arizona is a public university, and in discussion, you have to treat it as such.
I would hope at some particular time that the Supreme Court or Congress would make it plain that federal funding will no longer go to those Universities that do not whole heartedly embrace the concept of free speech and diverse ideas on these campuses. I would like to see the DOJ taken more of an interest in these cases and try to make them a class action. Hopefully that will help a great deal more of the university dominos to fall.
Unfortunately the DOJ is quite busy trying to get the federal government to obey the law so I doubt they will be able to help much. This will be a slog one by one over the years until a critical mass is reached and we really rebuild our university system.
I had the opportunity to enter academia years ago but it was already so political I just had to turn down the offer. Treating patients was difficult enough but was almost simple compared to the political fights that occurred in faculty meetings and interactions.
When you were a Fellow in the center where I trained, you were also considered clinical assistant professors and could attend faculty meetings. A real eye opener. Not for me.
Being fired from a job is a bit like being told that your spouse wants a divorce. It’s hurts initially, but you are far better off moving on instead of staying somewhere that you are not wanted or appreciated. BTW, whatever happened to “At-will” employment?
I wish Mr. Grossenbach great success in his lawsuit
stop the Fascist Democrats
End their funding
End all Federal Aid to cities, states, colleges and non-profits
outlaw public unions!
Defund them!
In 2025 many – maybe most – “Conservatives” support foreign models of fascism and foreign models of dictatorship. Conservatives no longer support America’s model of government.
Now those fans of foreign government models, are citing their (American) First Amendment, when it suits them.
The American model (constitutional democratic republic) is a package deal, not an a la carte menu. Conservatives can’t betray the U.S. Constitution, then cite the Constitution to protect First Amendment speech.
In the 1940’s it would be akin to granting free speech rights to Hitler and Mussolini at American colleges. When Conservatives start being loyal to the U.S. Constitution – they could then cry about their First Amendment rights!
No wonder you are Anonymous.
No they don’t. The vast majority advocate for a small “limited” government as opposed to the omnipotent centralized power many on the left seek. This nonsense “everyone I don’t like is a fascist” is played out.
you are aware that Democrats hate the Constitution? That Democrats want Censorship and Propaganda? That Democrats hate America and its people
They Love Crime, Drugs and Illegals!
Anon – 720AM You truly deserve this illustration -https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!sAn1!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F46947418-0f73-4de2-af02-6e09a30b7070_842x716.png
The Left got used to dishing with impunity and without backlash.
Now, they are not only being mocked for their impertinence, but are getting whiplashed.
They preached all these years about their god, Karma, but neglected her sister, Vengeance.
Seriously, God is not mocked, and one of His names is Vengeance.
Steve
Having been in the university business, I can suggest a few of the problems Grossenbach faced.
1. If he was an adjunct in math or the sciences and was doing a reasonable job of teaching, it is probable he would not be fired.
2. If he is in any of the social sciences or other humanities, the faculty are stridently political and think nothing of eliminating an adjunct for any deviation from the standard liberal narrative. (It is similar everywhere.)
3. Being fired at the adjunct level is largely an internal departmental matter. So, the upper administration may not even have heard of this fellow – until now.
4. Now the administration of the University of Arizona and its platoon of lawyers are involved. So, unless Grossenbach has been a terrible instructor, and so documented, the university will cave. They will settle, but not rehire.
*. Yes, another nuisance civil case. He wasn’t asking them to kneel and recite the rosary 5 times.
Once upon a time, everyone believed that humans are sexually dimorphic, coming in two sexes: male and female. Of course, we also knew about biologically intersex people—who exhibit rare variations in sex characteristics, and so don’t fit neatly into either category. But, just as it’s true to say that humans have ten fingers, even though a few are born with more or fewer, and just as we distinguish between day and night despite the shades of dusk and dawn, we accepted the idea that humans come in two sexes, despite the reality of intersex individuals.
In that simpler time, we also believed that males and females can be children or adults. When human males and females are children, they’re boys and girls. When they’re adults, they’re men and women. We used man and woman to track the distinction between adult males and adult females in our species, just as we do with other species: doe and buck, rooster and hen, sow and boar, cow and bull, etc.
Things began to change in the middle of the 20th century, when psychologists and philosophers proposed a distinction between sex and what they called “gender.”
https://quillette.com/2019/03/13/genders-journey-from-sex-to-psychology-a-brief-history/
Good comment and bonus points for “more or fewer”!
Well said, Hullbobby. Mistakenly saying “less” instead of “fewer” is a pet peeve of mine as well.
Nonetheless less the pinky is a lesser finger.
About dog-gone time.
Lets get back to normal, unlike the dems crazy side.
DustOff,
Well said!
One of the things I am looking forward to, is when collectively the American people look back and ask “Why did nearly one half of us lost their common sense, logic, decency?”
*. Looks like a good case to flesh out parental rights. KBJ would simply say to the opt out parents after the sex survey was given to all pupils, “Why don’t you just leave? Full stop”.
The sample questions from the survey would cause boiling blood.
*. I’m not researching precedent. Job loss and protected speech. They brought up hate speech.
It’s not about parental rights. That would need a filing, too?
One big gumball stuck in the carpet.
After looking at your world aka Obama world, no way I’d have babies. I guess when a person has lived in less than hades a plate food looks like a banquet.
Wholly immoral. Perfect immorality. 👌