Federal judge issues preliminary injunction against University of California policy banning inconsistent name or pronoun use

The University of California maintained a harassment policy that prohibited the intentional or repeated use of pronouns or names inconsistent with an individual's gender identity. This policy was part of a broader framework covering sexual violence and harassment, specifically targeting conduct that creates a hostile environment. Violators of this policy faced disciplinary actions that could lead to dismissal.

The court rejected the university's argument that the policy required additional aggravating factors to trigger punishment. Instead, the judge found that the university's own materials, including FAQ sections and SHAPE training scenarios, indicated that the policy applied to the use of birth names and biological pronouns. This interpretation led the court to conclude the policy restricted protected speech.

The legal cost of this policy was its conflict with First Amendment protections against compelled speech. The judge referenced cases where requiring the use of preferred pronouns was viewed as restricting speech based on content and viewpoint. Even after the university attempted to amend its FAQ to specify that conduct must be unwelcome and intimidating, the court maintained its stance.

The injunction stops the university from enforcing these specific restrictions on speech. The ruling highlights a tension between institutional efforts to prevent harassment and the legal protections afforded to individuals who believe gender is binary. This creates a limit on how universities can define and punish misgendering within their conduct codes.