Ivory Tower Hypocrite: George Mason University Female students censored for concerns about men using women’s restrooms. by Sara Dogan
https://www.frontpagemag.com/ivory-tower-hypocrite-george-mason-university/
Editor’s note: Over the past several decades, few places in America have become more hostile to free speech than our universities. Yet in the wake of rising anti-Semitism and the pro-Hamas campus rallies and occupations that were sparked by the terror group’s October 7 massacre, university administrators seem to have had a sudden change of heart.
The Freedom Center is exposing the most egregious perpetrators of these double standards in free expression as the Top Ten Ivory Tower Hypocrites. These are universities whose leaders have permitted woke leftist activists to run roughshod over campus rules and violate codes of conduct with impunity, while failing to extend even basic free speech protections to students and faculty with opposing views. George Mason University is #9 on our list.
#9: George Mason University
When George Mason University played host to egregious pro-Hamas protests, university administrators defended the demonstrators on free speech grounds. But when two female law students at the university expressed their concerns about gender-confused biological men using the women’s restrooms on campus, the university quickly enacted legal measures to silence them and prevent any further discussion of the issue.
GMU has a lengthy resume of anti-Semitic and pro-terror activism. Just days after the Hamas massacre that killed 1200 and resulted in the rape, mutilation and kidnapping of hundreds more, SJP held an “Emergency Palestine Protest – Support the Resistance.” During this event, SJP’s chants glorified the Hamas terrorists, some of whom gained entry into Israel via hang gliders: “They’ve got tanks we’ve got hang gliders, glory to the resistance fighters;” “glory to the resistance fighters;” “settler, settler go back home, Palestine is not your home.” An advertisement for the rally stated: “SJP Mason calls on the GMU community to support the struggle of our people against colonialism and the zionist occupation. It is our duty to echo the calls for liberation of our homeland and our people, from the river to the sea. Show up and show out for Palestine, and let GMU know that we will rise against the occupation!”
A group calling itself GMU Intifada released a statement on their now-deleted Instagram titled “The student intifada lives on.” The statement condoned terrorism, and urged students to “take action” on behalf of Palestine: “We call upon you to rapidly escalate your resistance efforts in order to honor the steadfast people of Gaza and Palestine. Every drop of Palestinian blood spilled fuels the flame of our resistance against a university profiteering off the genocide of our people… Student Intifada will not halt until all ties with weapons manufactures and institutions aiding in the genocide of Palestinians are ceased, and the complete and total liberation of Palestine is realized. Resistance until victory, GMU Intifada.”
As the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has documented, an anti-Israel sit-in at the university featured a banner reading: “Divest from death” which depicted a bloody hand bearing the Israeli flag and piles of money, a blatant reference to anti-Semitic tropes. A sticker found on campus, from the pro-Hamas outlet Within Our Lifetime, read urged students to “Resist colonial power by any means necessary”—an unabashed incitement to terrorism.
Throughout months of anti-Semitic provocations, the university administration was mostly silent, releasing only a handful of statements decrying “acts of violence and hostility toward members of the Jewish and Muslim communities” but also instituting a Patriot Plan for Community Safety and Well-Being which prioritized freedom of speech. “While the First Amendment allows for and protects hate speech, it doesn’t mean that we encourage it,” states the Patriot Plan. “We are at our best when we choose speech that makes our point without hateful rhetoric and language and we ask everyone in our community to engage vigorously but do so in a manner that is respectable to others.”
The attitude of extreme tolerance that George Mason adopted towards pro-Hamas protests and events is at odds with its conduct in a very different matter. When two female law students expressed concern about the possibility of trans-identified male students using the restrooms reserved for women, they met with immediate censure and repercussions.
A lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court on behalf of the two women by the Alliance Defending Freedom describes how the two women, Selene Cerankosky and Maria Arcara, were issued a no contact order for a fellow student by GMU’s Office of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion solely due to gender critical comments they expressed in an online group chat for law students. Ironically, the women never had any in-person contact at all with the student who filed the complaint against them—their only interactions took place in an online forum where they expressed their concerns about biological men entering women’s restrooms. According to the ADF’s lawsuit, George Mason University “enforced its anti-harassment policies to punish students based on the content and viewpoint of their protected speech.”
The legal filing concisely lays out the sequence of events that led to the women’s censorship:
On September 27, 2024, a classmate solicited their opinions in their class-wide “Scalia Law ‘25” GroupMe chat regarding his proposal for the student government to have GMU put tampons in the men’s restroom. Ms. Cerankosky voiced her concern that if GMU adopted a policy “allow[ing] biological females into male restrooms to access period products as ‘trans men,’” then that would mean “female bathrooms will welcome male occupants.” She asked her classmate to “recognize the concerns of biological female students” and how they would feel “considerably uncomfortable if there are males using private women’s spaces on campus.” She noted that “[w]omen have a right to feel safe in spaces where they disrobe.” Ms. Arcara only posted twice during this conversation to “agree with [Ms. Cerankosky]” and to highlight her concerns for her own privacy and safety “if a biological man is in the [bath]room with [her] at a vulnerable time.”
Their classmate, who had claimed to be their representative to the student government and initially promised to “advocate for all” students and viewpoints, responded by mocking their concerns and labeling their views as bigoted for questioning others’ gender identity…
Unbeknownst to the two women, this same classmate, named in the lawsuit only as “Mr. Doe,” filed a complaint with GMU’s DEI office, claiming that they had harassed him by voicing their fears of men entering women’s intimate spaces.
In fact, it was “Mr. Doe” who was potentially guilty of harassment. The complaint describes how he derided the women for their views and labeled them as bigoted:
“Mr. Doe […] responded to Ms. Cerankosky and Ms. Arcara by labeling their concerns as bigoted, despite soliciting their opinions and initially promising to ‘advocate for all’ students,” the complaint reads. “He stated that their views of ‘one’s gender’ were just “a perception,’ and that it wasn’t any of their ‘business what gender someone identifies with, as, or if they identify with any at all.’
“He further mocked their concerns and beliefs by asking if a male ‘need[ed] to have a shaved head, have or not have certain anatomy, not wear makeup, dress a certain way, or fit a systemic stereotype of a ‘male.’”
Following Mr. Doe’s complaint to GMU’s office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, the office issued both women a no-contact order for Mr. Doe, who had previously claimed to be their representative in student government.
The legal filing states:
Two weeks later, on October 11, both Ms. Cerankosky and Ms. Arcara received no-contact orders from GMU’s Office of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (“DEI Office”), prohibiting them from having any contact with their classmate…
GMU issued these no-contact orders under their Title IX Sexual Harassment Policy. But GMU has applied this Policy to the students because of their protected speech, not any conduct. Indeed, neither Ms. Cerankosky nor Ms. Arcara have ever spoken to their classmate in person or interacted with him outside of the “Scalia Law ‘25” GroupMe chat.
To compound the infringement of the women’s legal rights, the complaint notes, “They did not receive notice that anyone had complained about them and were not given an opportunity to review the allegations against them or defend themselves.”
“Instead of allowing the students to disagree civilly and respectfully with one another and to discuss these important issues, GMU chose instead to censor the Plaintiffs,” concludes the legal complaint.
It was only after being sued by the ADF for violating the two women’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights that George Mason University backtracked and agreed to lift the “no contact” order they had imposed.
George Mason University failed to adequately control and discipline its pro-Hamas radicals while misusing its sexual harassment policy to infringe on the legitimate concerns and speech of its female students about gender radicalism. It has earned its place on the list of Ivory Tower Hypocrites.
Comments are closed.
