The Legal Project's demand letter on behalf of Kasra Shhahosseini, Founder and President of UCI...

1500 Walnut St., Suite 1050 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: 215-546-5406 Fax: 215-546-5409 Website: www.legal-project.org E-mail: [email protected]

The Legal Project is an activity of the Middle East Forum.

November 11, 2013

Mark Deppe

Assistant Director

Student Programming Funding Board

Associated Students UCI

G244 Student Center

Irvine, CA 92697

Re: Pending Request by UCI Student Mr. Shahhoseini for Events Funding

Dear Mr. Deppe:

I serve as Director of The Legal Project, an activity of the Middle East Forum which is

seeks to protect the First Amendment on Islamic issues as a public interest non-profit. I

write to you on behalf of Mr. Kasra Shahhoseini, an undergraduate student in UC-Irvine

(University).

During the 2012 academic year, Mr. Shahhoseini founded the student organization ‘Ex-

Muslims and Critics of Islam’ (ECI). Mr. Shahhoseini served as the Organization’s

President where his responsibilities included coordinating the ECI’s activities. In this

capacity, Mr. Shahhoseini coordinated two separate events ‘Freedom of Speech vs.

Blasphemy in Islam’ on November 26,2012 (Event 1) and ‘Religious Roots of Israeli-

Palestinian Conflict,’ (Event 2) on May 8, 2013. Both events were held on University

grounds and attended by registered students.

Mr. Shahhoseini applied for funding of both events to the Student Programming Funding

Board (Board). For Event 1, Mr. Shahhoseini requested from the Board $430.00. Mr.

Shahhoseini spent a total of $380.00 of his own funds. For Event 2, Mr. requested from

the Board $465.00. He received $165.00 from the Dean’s Fund and ultimately spent

$300.00 of his own funds.

The Board denied funding in both instances under the rationale that the events were

religious in nature and therefore outside the funding guidelines. The denial by the Board

violated Mr. Shahhoseini’s constitutional rights protected under the First Amendment

which raises serious and actionable concerns. The Board’s policy of not funding religious

mailto:[email protected]



events is a form of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination as the Board funds other

events organized by UCI Irvine student groups.

Legal Analysis

The First Amendment has special application on campuses of public colleges and

universities. This has been well articulated by multiple decisions of the Supreme Court.

In Sweezy v. New Hampshire, the Court stated that “[t]he essentiality of freedom in the

community of American universities is almost self-evident.” The Court has also observed

that the freedom of association “has long been held to be implicit in the freedoms of

speech, assembly, and petition.”1

Moreover, in Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitor of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819

(1995), the Court observed that, in the public university setting, “the State acts against a

background and tradition of thought and experiment that is at the center of our

intellectual and philosophic tradition.”2 In Rosenberger, the Court struck down a

university student activities funding policy that prohibited funding for any student

publication that “primarily promotes or manifests a particular belief in or about a deity or

an ultimate reality.”3

The Court also held that university students should be free to express viewpoints—

including religious perspectives—that are unpopular, unorthodox, or differ from those

held by school officials.

The quality and creative power of student intellectual life to this day

remains a vital measure of a school’s influence and attainment. For [a]

University . . . to cast disapproval on particular viewpoints of its students

risks the suppression of free speech and creative inquiry in one of the vital

centers for the Nation’s intellectual life, its college and university

campuses.4

In other words, a public college may not single out student religious expression for

disfavored treatment.

The right to express one’s viewpoint is so fundamental that it is even held by elementary

and secondary school students. In a landmark decision involving high school and junior

high school students, the Supreme Court held in Tinker that “[i]t can hardly be argued

1 Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972) 2 515 U.S. at 835. 3 Id. at 825 (emphasis added). 4 Id. at 836 (emphasis added).




that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or

expression at the schoolhouse gate.”5 Students enjoy the protection of the First

Amendment “in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on campus during the authorized

hours.”6 The First Amendment provides greater protection for college student expression.

The First Amendment’s protection of student expression on public university campuses

includes religious viewpoints. While some school officials may believe that they can

suppress student religious expression due to the “separation of church and state,” it is

well settled that private religious speech—including the speech of students—is protected

by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has explained:

Private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as

fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression.

Indeed, in Anglo-American history, at least, government suppression of

speech has so commonly been directed precisely at religious speech that a

free-speech clause without religion would be Hamlet without the prince.7

The Court has also noted that “there is a crucial difference between government speech

endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing

religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.”8

It is well established that the government—including public colleges and

professors—may not give private speech disfavored treatment because it is religious.9 To

treat religious speech less favorably than any other speech amounts to

unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.10

It is axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on its

substantive content or the message it conveys. . . . In the realm of private

speech or expression, government regulation may not favor one speaker

over another. Discrimination against speech because of its message is

presumed to be unconstitutional. . . . The government must abstain from

5 393 U.S. at 506. 6 Id. at 512-13 (citation omitted); see also Morse v. Frederick, 127 S. Ct. 2618, 2622 (2007). 7 Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 760 (1995). 8 Mergens, 496 U.S. at 250.

9 See, e.g., Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001); Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 819;

Pinette, 515 U.S. at 753; Lamb’s Chapel, 508 U.S. at 394; Mergens, 496 U.S. at 226; Widmar v. Vincent,

454 U.S. 263 (1981). 10 See Good News Club, 533 U.S. at 98; Lamb’s Chapel, 508 U.S. at 394.




regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or

perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.11

The Court has further explained that the Establishment Clause has “one basic principle

that has enjoyed an uncharacteristic degree of consensus: The Clause does not compel the

exclusion of religious groups from government benefits programs that are generally

available to a broad class of participants.”12

Lastly, with regard to public colleges, the First Amendment prohibits a dean, professor,

or other employee from restricting student religious expression solely because of a

viewpoint, even a religious one.13

Demand

In light of the Board’s violation of Mr. Shahhoseini’s constitutionally guaranteed rights

under the First Amendment, he respectfully requests to have the Board fund the Events’

expenses no later than ten business days from today. Payment should be made by way of

a check payable to ‘Kasra Shahhoseini’ for $665.00. This amount equals the total outlay

Mr. Shahhoseini spent on both the events (Event 1 $360.00 Outlay + Event 2 $305.00

Outlay).

Payment by the Board should be made directly to Mr. Shahhoseini. Mr. Shahhoseini can

be contacted the following email address to coordinate receipt of the check:

[email protected]. I request to be copied on the email at the address listed below.

Please be advised Mr. Shahhoseini is intent on protecting his rights and should this

request be denied he will have no option but to consider seeking redress in a more formal

forum. The denial of these funds has had a chilling effect on Mr. Shahhoseini’ s First

Amendment rights, forcing him to delay holding events during the 2013 Fall Semester.

11

Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 828 (internal citations omitted). 12 Id. at 861. (Citing Lamb’s Chapel, 508 U.S.; Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dist., 509

U. S. 1, (1993); Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. Mergens, 496 U. S. 226 (1990); Texas Monthly,

Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U. S. 1 (1989); Witters v. Washington Dept. of Servs. for Blind, 474

U. S. 481 (1986); Mueller v. Allen, 463 U. S. 388 (1983); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263, (1981)). 13 See, e.g., Gay Lesbian Bisexual Alliance v. Pryor, 110 F.3d 1543 (11th Cir. 1997) (holding that a statute

prohibiting public universities from providing activities funding for student groups that promoted

homosexual activity violated the First Amendment); see also Roman Catholic Found., UW-Madison, Inc.,

v. Regents of Univ. of Wisc. Sys., 578 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (W.D. Wis. 2008) & 590 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (W.D.

Wisc. 2008) (holding that a university’s refusal to fund student activities involving proselytizing, sectarian

religious instruction, or worship violated the First Amendment regardless of whether it was viewed as a

content-based or viewpoint-based decision).





Therefore, should the Board decline Mr. Shahhoseini’ s instant funding request, the

Board should provide me Mr. Shahhoseini via his email, copying myself, the following

records which he Mr. Shahhoseini is legally entitled:

1. Every event that the Board funded during the Fall 2012, Winter 2013 and Fall

2013 semesters.

2. Every event that the Board declined to fund during the semesters listed above

with the Board’s rationale.

This letter does not purport to state all facts and claims related to this matter. Mr.

Shahhoseini reserves all rights in law and equity.

We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

/Sam Nunberg/

Samuel Nunberg

Director

The Legal Project

1500 Walnut Street

Suite 1050

Philadelphia, PA 19102

[email protected]

CC: Kasra Shahhoseini


The Legal Project's demand letter on behalf of Kasra Shhahosseini, Founder and President of UCI...

Documents

Transcript of The Legal Project's demand letter on behalf of Kasra Shhahosseini, Founder and President of UCI...