August 4, 2015

President Dianne F. Harrison

California State University, Northridge
Office of the President
18111 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, California 91330
Sent via U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail (dianne.harrison@csun.edu)
Dear President Harrison:
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) unites leaders in the fields of
civil rights and civil liberties, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals across the
political and ideological spectrum on behalf of liberty, legal equality, academic freedom,
due process, freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience on Americas college
campuses. Our website, thefire.org, will give you a greater sense of our identity and
activities.
FIRE is deeply concerned by the threat to academic freedom presented by California
State University, Northridges (CSUNs) investigation of tenured professor Robert Lopez
on the apparent basis of student complaints related to the content and viewpoints
expressed in a conference the students themselves elected to attend in conjunction with a
class assignment. That the mere exposure of students to potentially controversial
opinions can result in a professors investigation on such a serious charge is intolerably
chilling to faculty expression and anathema to our deeply ingrained understanding of the
university campus as a marketplace of ideas. We ask that CSUN promptly and
definitively close its investigation of Professor Lopez, consistent with its moral and legal
obligations as a public institution of higher education.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following is our understanding of the facts. Please inform us if you believe we are in
error.
Robert Lopez has been a faculty member in CSUNs Department of English since 2008
and has been a tenured associate professor since 2013. In the Fall 2014 semester, Lopez

2
taught four courses at CSUN: English 275 (Major American Writers), English 473
(American Literature: 16071860), English 477 (Major American Novelists I: The
Nineteenth Century), and Modern and Classical Languages and Literatures 315 (Greek
and Roman Mythology). As described in the syllabi provided to students at the beginning
of the semester, the grading methodology of each course required the completion of two
papers, each worth 40% of a students final grade. Thematic Engagement counted for
the remaining 20% of students grades, and Lopez gave students two options for fulfilling
this requirement.
The first option consisted of writing a series of ten online journal entries spaced out over
the course of the semester in which students were required to locate a current-events
article that demonstrates a question or dilemma that is also relevant to the weekly
reading and write 600 to 800 words connecting the articles to their coursework. The
second option required students to prepare and present an exhibit at a conference called
Bonds that Matter, which took place on October 3, 2014. The conference was jointly
sponsored by the International Childrens Rights Institute (of which Lopez is a cofounder and current president), The Ruth Institute, and the Love & Fidelity Network. The
requirements of the project and details of the conference, including the identities of its
presenters, were extensively detailed on the courses syllabi, repeated in significant part
below:
For this exhibit, you will draw from the texts we read in class in order to
understand the history of family obligations, particularly the way that
childrens ties to their mother and father were understood and/or legally
recognized. The conference, Bonds that Matter, will feature
presentations by leading experts in the fields of third-party
reproduction, divorce, and adoption. People attending the
conference will generally be activists who are interested in
obtaining a broader understanding of childrens rights in a
historical context. Your exhibit should be engaging and illuminating for
someone who has not studied American literature and may not be aware of
facts such as Edgar Allan Poes status as an orphan/adoptee or Andrew
Jacksons decision to adopt Native American children. Your audience will
include people who are concerned about childrens rights today and want to
know how such rights were viewed in early American history. You should
not be commenting on present-day debates about childrens rights, rather
giving an objective view of children and family in early American narratives.
In addition to your exhibit, which I will photograph and/or film, you will
need to write a report of the days conference, including descriptions of
what kinds of questions were posed to you and what relevance American
literature has for the social issues raised in the presentations by

3
Alana Newman, Jennifer Lahl, Jennifer Johnson, Jennifer
Roback-Morse, Claudia Corrigan DArcy, and Cathi Swett. 1
[Emphases added.]
August 26 marked the first day of the Fall 2014 semester, and Lopez asked students to
confirm by roughly September 3 whether or not they would complete the exhibition
assignment, so that students would be able to begin work on their assignments in a timely
fashion. Between 110 and 120 of the roughly 160 students enrolled in Lopezs four course
sections elected to complete the assignment involving the conference exhibition,
substantially more than Lopez expected. As a result, Lopez reserved extra space at the
conference to accommodate all of the students present.
Lopez provided additional information and guidance on the conference shortly following
the beginning of the semester. In a September 9 email to students, he emphasized that
students were to keep the tone of their exhibits objective and neutral and that they were
to remain focused on antiquity or early American culture, and not bring in parallels to
present-day controversy. Students were free, however, to opine on contemporary
matters when discussing their exhibits with other conference attendees. In this email,
Lopez also made clear that students were expected to attend the presentations at the
conference in addition to being present with their exhibits. In a September 16 email, he
sent students the links to the conference speakers websites in case they were interested
in learning more about the speakers and their organizations.
The Bonds that Matter conference took place as scheduled on October 3. FIRE has viewed
video recordings of each speakers presentation, none of which contained anything more
eventful than a lecture followed by a civil question-and-answer exchange. A minor
exception took place during Alana Newmans presentation, when during the questionand-answer portion of the discussion, student
repeatedly questioned
Newmanin a discussion of roughly five minutesabout the implications of her
arguments on surrogacy for same-sex parents and their ability to adopt children.
While the October 3 conference passed largely without incident, Lopez devoted the full
sessions of his classes on October 6 to a discussion of student reactions to the conference,
and particularly to the views expressed by its presenters. This decision by Lopez was
motivated by his discovery that the previous day he had been singled out in a mass email
sent by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a national civil rights organization that
advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans. HRCs email labeled
Lopez an exporter of hateits term for those who travel around the world to advance

This language is reproduced from the syllabi for English 275, 473, and 477. The syllabus for Modern and
Classical Languages and Literatures 315 contains virtually identical language, with the only exceptions
consisting of course-specific references to classical antiquity as opposed to works of American literature.

5
The University is not obligated to investigate under the provisions of this
Executive Order when no Complaint is filed, or when a Complaint is not
timely filed. Nevertheless, if the University determines the circumstances
warrant an investigation, the University shall investigate the underlying
allegations of any Discrimination, Harassment or Retaliation Complaint. [. .
.] The University may in its discretion waive the time limits for filing a
Complaint and choose to process the Complaint under this Executive
Order.
All of the students who had filed the formal and informal complaints, Hua made clear, had
already graduated by the time CSUN informed Lopez of the investigation. In her June 5
email to Lopez, Hua further explained her reason for investigating the complaint:
As we discussed during the phone call yesterday, Equity and Diversity has
determined that the circumstances warrant an investigation given that we
have received multiple complaints (one formal and several informal)
containing the same allegations all pertaining to discrimination based on
a protected category arising out of the same incidents. We also found it
plausible and reasonable that students waited until after the semester was
over and even upon graduation, to bring forth concerns for fear of
retaliation.
Lopez, accompanied by attorney Teresa Mendoza, met with Hua on June 10. At this
meeting he was given more specific information on the nature of the complaints against
him. Hua informed Lopez that
had filed the formal complaint and also identified
the three students who had complained informally. The complaints all concerned the
content of the presentations at the Bonds that Matter conference, including the
viewpoints expressed by the speakers, which the students viewed as hostile to same-sex
marriage and adoption by same-sex parents. According to Lopez, Hua informed him that
the students had felt blindsided by the conference and believed Lopez had deceived
them about its content. Students also objected to the content of brochures distributed by
the other participating organizations at the conference, which Lopez had no role in
creating or circulating.
Lopez contested the students claims at length in a letter sent to Hua on June 17, a copy of
which is enclosed. Lopezs letter to Hua was accompanied by copies of his syllabi, the
aforementioned emails to students regarding the assignment and the conference
speakers, and individual correspondences with students concerning the assignment.
Lopez also provided a written transcript of the portion of Alana Newmans presentation
that included her exchange with
. (Lopez later provided a recording of this portion of
the conference to Hua at her request.)
discrimination occurred, whichever is later. January 21, 2015, marked the thirtieth day past the end of the
Fall 2015 semester, making the filing of the formal complaint against Lopez at least 100 days past this
deadline.

6
Hua responded via email to Lopez on June 19, stating that she disagree[d] with [Lopezs]
description of their meeting and claiming that there were multiple inaccuracies in his
account. Hua did not elaborate further at that time on the specifics of the alleged
inaccuracies, stating instead that [i]t seems we will likely require a follow-up interview in
light of the additional information Lopez provided in his June 17 email. Hua later
informed Lopez, however, that this follow-up interview would not be necessary. Lopez
has not received further information from Hua or other CSUN administrators concerning
the progress of the investigation.
ANALYSIS
CSUNs investigation of Professor Lopez is profoundly troubling and a threat to the
academic freedom of all CSUN faculty. The only acceptable course for CSUN, consistent
with its moral and legal obligations as a public university to uphold the First
Amendment as well as its institutional promises of academic freedomis to promptly
and permanently close this investigation.
It has long been settled law that the First Amendment is fully binding on public
universities such as CSUN. See Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 26869 (1981) (With
respect to persons entitled to be there, our cases leave no doubt that the First Amendment
rights of speech and association extend to the campuses of state universities.); Healy v.
James, 408 U.S. 169, 180 (1972) (internal citation omitted) ([T]he precedents of this
Court leave no room for the view that, because of the acknowledged need for order, First
Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the
community at large. Quite to the contrary, the vigilant protection of constitutional
freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools.).
The Supreme Court of the United States has also made clear that academic freedom is a
special concern of the First Amendment, stating that [o]ur Nation is deeply committed
to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not
merely to the teachers concerned. Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967).
See also Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250 (1957) (Scholarship cannot flourish
in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. Teachers and students must always remain
free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding;
otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.); Rodriguez v. Maricopa County
Community College District, 605 F.3d 703, 70708 (9th Cir. 2010) (Intellectual
advancement has traditionally progressed through discord and dissent, as a diversity of
views ensures that ideas survive because they are correct, not because they are popular.
Colleges and universitiessheltered from the currents of popular opinion by tradition,
geography, tenure and monetary endowmentshave historically fostered that
exchange. But that role in our society will not survive if certain points of view may be
declared beyond the pale.).
CSUN has likewise long committed itself to the principles of academic freedom, which
fundamentally include the right of faculty to determine their course content and how it

7
shall be taught. Since 1971, California State University system policy has held that the
teacher is entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results and to
freedom in the classroom in discussing any subject. This language hews closely to the
American Association of University Professors (AAUPs) 1940 Statement of Principles on
Academic Freedom and Tenure, which also holds that academic freedom is essential to
the free search for truth and its free exposition and that [a]cademic freedom in its
teaching aspect is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher. The
AAUPs Statement on the Freedom to Teach expounds further on faculty rights in the
classroom, stating:
The freedom to teach includes the right of the faculty to select the
materials, determine the approach to the subject, make the assignments,
and assess student academic performance in teaching activities for which
faculty members are individually responsible, without having their
decisions subject to the veto of a department chair, dean, or other
administrative officer.
CSUN has previously demonstrated a willingness to stand publicly and firmly in support
of freedom of speech and academic freedom against public pressure, while also
recognizing that the pursuit of academic truth necessarily involves the clash of opposing
views. In 2012, a campus lecture by Exeter University professor Ilan Papp led to protests
of his right to speak at CSUN due to his vocal criticism of Israeli policy towards Palestine.
In a February 16, 2012, statement addressing the controversy, CSUN Interim President
Harry Hellenbrand, joining the presidents of California Polytechnic State University and
California State University, Fresno, wrote in part:
Universities are places where debate, discussion, and the free exchange of
ideas are welcome and encouraged. As such, it is a universitys
responsibility to tolerate a wide range of views on issues, even if they are
unpopular or minority opinions. Academic freedom and freedom of speech
are not hollow ideals but rather hallowed cornerstones of higher education
and a functioning democracy.
Universities are charged with teaching students how to think for
themselves. This includes accessing and processing knowledge and ideas
and considering, discussing, and debating them. We seek to instill in
students the tools to fairly and intelligently assess all data and views, as well
as the personal integrity and values to come to a rational and reasonable
conclusion. There is no danger to a free society in allowing opposing views
to be heard.
The danger, instead, is in censoring them. It is easy to support free speech
when we agree with what is being said. The real test is when we are asked to
defend the expression of views with which we disagree.

8
Lopezs Bonds that Matter conference assignment is protected by the safeguards of
academic freedom, and the students arguments otherwise do not withstand basic
scrutiny. Furthermore, the allegations of discrimination against Lopez fall far short of
federal government guidance on unlawful discrimination, and Lopezs investigation raises
serious due process concerns. We discuss our numerous concerns in turn.
The Bonds that Matter conference assignment is protected by Lopezs
academic freedom.
While the Bonds that Matter conference was upsetting and controversial to some
students, its inclusion as part of Lopezs courses curricula is protected by his right to
academic freedom. Assignments of this nature, in which students classwork and research
interacts with broader debates taking place in contemporary society, are common
throughout academia and are understood as an accepted pedagogical practice. As such,
Lopezs decision to engage his students via involvement with the conference should be
accorded the same professional deference due any other legitimate pedagogical act
protected by academic freedom.
At least at one interval, in fact, CSUN apparently recognized that Lopezs use of the
conference was protected by his right to academic freedom. Lopez reports that in
September 2014, some students approached then-provost Hellenbrand, objecting to the
conference and to the viewpoints of the speakers and asking him to force Lopez to cancel
the conference. Hellenbrand refused to do so, saying that doing so would violate Lopezs
academic freedom. (Lopez was not aware that this had happened at the time, but was
informed of it during a meeting with Hellenbrand on or around December 17.)
We additionally note that the assignment related to the conference is consistent with
Thematic Engagement assignments in past courses, in which Lopez similarly asked his
students to create exhibits connecting the themes of course materials with issues in
contemporary culture not otherwise directly covered in their courses. In both the Fall
2012 and Spring 2013 semesters, for example, Lopez taught English 487 (Latino
Literature), in which students produced visual exhibits and performance pieces inspired
by their coursework. Similarly, in the Fall 2012 semester, students enrolled in English 312
(Literature and Film), English 473, and Modern and Classical Languages and
Literatures 315 presented exhibits at a film and guest-lecture series titled Myth at the
Movies, connecting the themes of their coursework to those of films in the series,
including Dr. No, Lawrence of Arabia, and The Music Man. None of these assignments met
any opposition from CSUN.
If faculty are to be subject to investigation for exposing students to ideas and views they
disagree with, past statements in support of academic freedom at CSUN will ring utterly
hollow. Teaching students how to think for themselves, and instilling the tools to fairly
and intelligently assess all data and views in fact requires students to be confronted with
ideas that challenge their deeply held beliefs and views. Indeed, asking students to
contemplate, understand, and defend opposing views is a time-honored exercise in

9
teaching essential critical thinking skills. CSUN may not, consistent with its legal
obligations, investigate Lopez for his assignment, and certainly may not morally claim to
be a place where debate, discussion, and the free exchange of ideas are welcome and
encouraged if it intends to ignore those obligations.
Claims that Lopez deceived students about the conference are without
merit.
As the extensive documentation provided by Lopez shows, any student claims that he
somehow deceived them about the conference are without merit. As has already been
detailed, a description of the conference and the identities of the speakers were on the
syllabus for each of Lopezs classes and available from the first day of classes. Students
had ample time to research the conference and the speakers to gain more information and
decide whether or not to participate. Lopez provided students with the links to the
websites of the organizations the respective speakers were affiliated with. He also used
time in class to answer questions about the conference and its speakers and provided
additional information to his students via email.
We are also compelled to point out that no credible argument can be made that Lopez
coerced students into attending the conference. As is obvious from a review of Lopezs
syllabi, from the very beginning students were given the option to complete the
conference-related assignment or instead complete the alternative assignment of ten
journal entries. While most of Lopezs students elected to complete the conference
assignment, roughly one quarter of them did not. Further, any potential claim that Lopez
sought to indoctrinate students strains credulity. We note that
directly contested
conference speaker Alana Newmans arguments during the question-and-answer portion
of Newmans discussion, without interruption. Furthermore, Lopez devoted his October 6
classes to discussion of the conference, in which several students voiced their vehement
disagreements with the speakers viewpoints. The students were free to form their own
opinions about the conference at no risk to their grades. Required attendance at a forum
as part of an optional assignment where one may be exposed to views with which he or she
disagrees simply does not amount to coercion in any actionable sense.
The discrimination complaint against Lopez falls far short of the federal
governments threshold for actionable discrimination.
Furthermore, federal guidance makes clear that the complaint of discrimination against
Lopez must be dismissed.
Under EO 1097which, according to Hua, serves as the basis for CSUNs investigation
discrimination is defined as Adverse Action taken against a Student by the CSU, a CSU
employee, another Student, or a Third Party because of a Protected Status. Adverse
Action is in turn defined as an action that has a substantial and material adverse effect
on the Complainants ability to participate in a University program or activity free from
Discrimination, Harassment or Retaliation[.] EO 1097 defines harassment as:

10

[U]nwelcome conduct engaged in because of a Protected Status that is

sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive that its effect, whether or not
intended, could be considered by a reasonable person in the shoes of the
Student, and is in fact considered by the Student, as limiting the Students
ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities or
opportunities offered by the University.
It is unclear precisely the grounds on which the students believed Lopez was guilty of
discrimination. Given the students apparent hostility to the conference and the views of
its presenters, however, it appears likely that the student has alleged that the conference
created a hostile educational environment to the extent that the views expressed by
speakers and printed materials circulated constituted discriminatory harassment.
As the Department of Educations Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has made clear, however,
professors do not create a hostile environment simply by exposing students to material
they find offensive. In its Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by
School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties (2001 Guidance), OCR wrote:
In cases of alleged harassment, the protections of the First
Amendment must be considered if issues of speech or
expression are involved. Free speech rights apply in the
classroom (e.g., classroom lectures and discussions) and in all
other education programs and activities of public schools (e.g., public
meetings and speakers on campus; campus debates, school plays and other
cultural events; and student newspapers, journals, and other publications).
In addition, First Amendment rights apply to the speech of students and
teachers.
Title IX is intended to protect students from sex discrimination, not to
regulate the content of speech. OCR recognizes that the
offensiveness of a particular expression as perceived by some
students, standing alone, is not a legally sufficient basis to
establish a sexually hostile environment under Title IX. In order
to establish a violation of Title IX, the harassment must be sufficiently
serious to deny or limit a students ability to participate in or benefit from
the education program.
Moreover, in regulating the conduct of its students and its
faculty to prevent or redress discrimination prohibited by Title
IX (e.g., in responding to harassment that is sufficiently
serious as to create a hostile environment), a school must
formulate, interpret, and apply its rules so as to protect
academic freedom and free speech rights. [Citations omitted;
emphases added.]

11

Further, in a July 28, 2003, Dear Colleague letter sent to the presidents of public and
private universities nationwide, former OCR Assistant Secretary Gerald S. Reynolds made
clear to colleges that in addressing harassment allegations, OCR has recognized that the
offensiveness of a particular expression, standing alone, is not a legally sufficient basis to
establish a hostile environment under the statutes enforced by OCR. Reynolds further
cautioned:
Some colleges and universities have interpreted OCRs prohibition of
harassment as encompassing all offensive speech regarding sex, disability,
race or other classifications. Harassment, however, to be prohibited by the
statutes within OCRs jurisdiction, must include something beyond the
mere expression of views, words, symbols or thoughts that some person
finds offensive. Under OCRs standard, the conduct must also be considered
sufficiently serious to deny or limit a students ability to participate in or
benefit from the educational program.
On April 29, 2014, Assistant Secretary Catherine E. Lhamon issued guidance again
clarifying that the laws and regulations [OCR] enforces protect students from prohibited
discrimination and do not restrict the exercise of any expressive activities or speech
protected under the U.S. Constitution, and stating that when a school works to prevent
and redress discrimination, it must respect the free-speech rights of students, faculty, and
other speakers. Lhamon further made clear that OCR recognizes that the offensiveness
of a particular expression as perceived by some students, standing alone, is not a legally
sufficient basis to establish a hostile environment under Title IX. Title IX also does not
require, prohibit, or abridge the use of particular textbooks or curricular materials.
The federal governments guidance in this area makes clearer what has been obvious from
the outset: The exposure to ideas in an academic setting that one finds offensive does not
amount to unlawful discrimination. Whats more, the students own experiences severely
undermine claims that that the conference assignment proved so debilitating as to
effectively deny them equal access to CSUNs educational resources. Despite their
complaints of discrimination, most of the complainants apparently completed the
semester without further issue, and
, who filed the formal complaint,
declined to accept a special accommodation when Lopez offered it to her.
FIRE is aware that one of the students who submitted an informal complaint failed
Lopezs course and allegedly argued that he was so disturbed by the conference that he
was unable to continue attending classes, resulting in his failing grade. The argument that
this students troubles were the result of discrimination, however, is wholly unsupported
in both law and fact. Foremost, as noted above, exposure to the views expressed at the
conference cannot constitute discrimination. Furthermore, as Lopez explained in his
June 17 letter to Hua, the student in question had failed to attend course lectures from
nearly the very beginning of the semester, did not finalize an exhibit topic despite signing
up to complete the conference assignment, did not confirm his attendance at the

12
conference according to Lopezs records, and turned in no written work for the semester,
leaving Lopez no choice but to give the student a failing grade. Whatever issues the
student may have been contending with at this time, responsibility for them cannot
reasonably be attributed to Lopez.
CSUNs investigation of Lopez raises serious due process concerns.
In calling on CSUN to dismiss its discrimination investigation against Lopez, FIRE also
raises strong objections regarding due process deficiencies that have disadvantaged Lopez
throughout the investigation. FIRE is troubled, for one, by CSUNs decision, given the
circumstances of this case, not only to allow the student submitting the formal complaint
to file her complaint far past the deadline to be considered timely, but to allow the student
to graduate before even informing Lopez of the complaints filing. As Lopez has already
argued, he is fundamentally disadvantaged by being forced to defend his teaching, and
discussions related to his teaching, more than eight months after the matter at issue and
nearly six months after the end of the Fall 2014 semester, by which time the students
submitting the complaints had graduated. Systematizing such a course of action leaves
faculty members vulnerable to frivolous and malicious complaints that chill academic
freedom and tax the universitys administrative resources.
Even more troubling is CSUNs claim that it was justified in its actions because it
considered plausible and reasonable the likelihood that Lopez would retaliate against
students who submitted complaints. CSUN provided no evidence of any kind to Lopez to
fortify its argument, nor any indication of the level of due diligence with which it assessed
the claims. It is unclear just how CSUN concluded that Lopez was likely to retaliate
against the students had they filed timely complaints, particularly given that none of the
students in question were enrolled in a class with Lopez during the Spring 2015 semester.4
The implicit argument that Lopez would retaliate against students filing complaints
against him if given the opportunity is a gravely serious charge to makeand one that is by
all appearances entirely meritless. Should a credible case for a charge of retaliation arise
after a faculty member is notified of a complaint, universities have the resources and the
imperative to take appropriate action. But given especially that in this case the students
complaints pertained directly to exercises of Lopezs academic freedom, CSUN should
have viewed complaints regarding his pedagogy with far more consideration for Lopezs
fundamental rights than it apparently did.
CSUNs investigation of Lopez has a severe chilling effect on academic
freedom.
4

FIRE is aware of one specific allegation of retaliation in the academic setting claimed by the student filing
the formal complaint, in which the student alleged that, following the October 3 conference, Lopez reneged
on an alleged promise to nominate one of her essays for an academic award. In Lopezs June 17 letter to Hua,
Lopez denied this allegation entirely, stating that he had never discussed this issue with her in any context,
and that he had not nominated any student papers for awards in the Fall 2014 or Spring 2015 semesters.

13
While CSUN has a duty to protect students from actual unlawful discrimination, it also
has a duty to protect its faculty from what amount to attacks on the freedom to teach. As a
public institution committed to academic freedom, CSUN is obligated to reject student
claims that they must be protected from exposure to certain viewpoints or materials
relevant to the course of study. We call CSUNs attention to the AAUPs 2014 On Trigger
Warnings statement to convey the gravity of our concern. While this statement dealt
specifically with so-called trigger warnings for materials that may potentially be
upsetting to students who have suffered past traumas, its emphasis on the role of
intellectual discomfort in pursuit of enlightenment is wholly applicable to Lopezs case.
The AAUP states:
Some discomfort is inevitable in classrooms if the goal is to expose students
to new ideas, have them question beliefs they have taken for granted,
grapple with ethical problems they have never considered, and, more
generally, expand their horizons so as to become informed and responsible
democratic citizens. Trigger warnings suggest that classrooms should offer
protection and comfort rather than an intellectually challenging education.
They reduce students to vulnerable victims rather than full participants in
the intellectual process of education. The effect is to stifle thought on the
part of both teachers and students who fear to raise questions that might
make others uncomfortable.
It is far too easy to imagine the widespread and profound chilling effect on academic
freedom that will take root at CSUN if professors are subjected to investigation because
students cannot abide the content of their course materialsor, as in this case, the views
expressed by speakers at a conference students attended as part of an academic
assignment. In such an environment, professors will rationally choose to avoid certain
issues despite their relevance to the discipline at hand. Religious scholars may avoid
discussions about religious fundamentalism, Middle East studies faculty may forego
discussion of Israeli-Palestinian relations, and scholars of the civil rights era in American
history may refrain from fully exploring the racial violence of the period, to name only a
few examples. Not only is the intellectual environment of the university impoverished as
a result, but graduating students will be unprepared to address the complex issues their
society faces. There is far too much evidence already of such a climate of fear taking hold
in the university classroom.5 CSUN exacerbates this troubling problem by its
investigation into Lopezs teaching.

See, e.g., Jeannie Suk, The Trouble With Teaching Rape Law, THE NEW YORKER, Dec. 15, 2014, available at
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rape-law (Harvard Law School professor
notes that in part due to increased student demands for trigger warnings, more criminal law faculty are
removing discussions of rape cases from their curricula, and cautions that [i]f the topic of sexual assault
were to leave the law-school classroom, it would be a tremendous lossabove all to victims of sexual
assault).

14
CONCLUSION
Consistent with its obligations to protect its facultys First Amendment and academic
freedom rights, CSUN must close its current investigation and clear Robert Lopez of any
suspicion that decisions made pursuant to his academic freedom constitute any kind of
actionable discrimination. The longer that CSUN allows the impression to linger that
exposing students to the wrong ideas and opinions can land faculty members under
investigation, the more deeply academic expression will be chilled. While we hope to soon
commend CSUN for taking a strong stand in defense of its faculty members academic
freedom rights, we are committed to using all necessary resources at our disposal to
ensure a just resolution in this case.
We request a response to this letter by August 18, 2015.
Sincerely,

Peter Bonilla
Director, Individual Rights Defense Program
Encl.
cc:
Yi Li, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
Elizabeth A. Say, Dean, College of Humanities
Susan Hua, Director, Equity & Diversity