Christian professor targeted by LGBT community after discussing personal struggle with homosexuality
The grip of the mob on free speech at college campuses may finally be loosening, thanks to legal battles that aim to protect the rights of professors and students.
Take a look at Western Michigan University. In 2021, WMU fired adjunct music professor Daniel Mattson simply because he expressed his religious views off-campus during his personal time. After a remarkably short seven months of litigation, Mattson was vindicated on October 31st of this year.
Mattson, an accomplished symphony trombonist, had been a part of WMU’s School of Music since 1999. He performed with the university’s Western Brass Quintet, which consisted of faculty members from the School of Music. Additionally, Mattson played with the Western Winds, a student-faculty ensemble.
In 2009, Mattson returned to Catholicism and left behind his previous homosexual lifestyle. For years, he wrote articles and spoke at public events, sharing his perspective on how the church should engage with individuals who experience same-sex attraction. Throughout this time, Mattson kept his religious activities separate from his work at WMU and never imposed his beliefs on his students.
Punished for Christian Ideas
In 2017, Mattson published Why I Don’t Call Myself Gay: How I Reclaimed My Sexual Reality and Found Peace, an autobiography detailing his experience with same-sex attraction. He advocated for the church to compassionately engage with individuals who experience same-sex attraction while presenting Catholicism as a better alternative.
In October 2021, Mattson agreed to perform as a guest artist at the School of Music. However, a newly appointed faculty member and LGBT activist discovered Mattson’s writings about his experiences with homosexuality and his return to Catholicism. She launched a campaign to cancel Mattson’s planned events, stating on Twitter, “I won’t be attending any recitals by ex-gay activists, thanks.”
She rallied students, faculty members, and DEI administrators to join her cause. In the weeks leading up to the recital, there were extensive discussions via email and social media, with many expressing support for the idea that Mattson’s presence on campus was “harmful” to LGBT students.
The university administration swiftly and harshly responded to the outcry against Mattson’s religious speech. They stripped him of his core duties, hindered his involvement in important school activities, and ultimately refused to renew his teaching contract.
Mattson refused to be silenced without a fight. He challenged WMU’s ultimatum, which forced him to choose between his career as an esteemed artist and mentor on campus and his life as a religious believer and advocate for conflicted Catholics off-campus.
Violations of Free Speech and Religion
In March 2023, Mattson, represented by the Center for Individual Rights, a nonprofit public interest law firm, filed a federal lawsuit challenging his termination as a violation of his rights to religious freedom and freedom of speech under the First and 14th Amendments.
WMU’s attempts to cancel Mattson clashed with Supreme Court precedents that protect the right to religious free speech. In the recent case of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that government actions that burden sincere religious practices must be justified by a compelling government interest and narrowly tailored to that interest.
In the 2018 decision of Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court recognized that a violation of free exercise can also be proven by demonstrating government hostility towards religion. In this case, the school administration’s email to the entire community made their views clear: “Mr. Mattson is also a high-visibility advocate for the position that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle that is to be avoided. He has stated his position strongly and widely. While he is free to express his beliefs, we cannot ignore the fact that they are harmful to members of our LGBTQ community, particularly our students.”
Furthermore, laws dating back to the 1960s prohibit public employers from retaliating against employees based on protected speech that addresses matters of public concern and is not part of their official duties.
Faced with the legal authority supporting Mattson’s case and his refusal to be easily canceled, WMU quickly responded. Instead of defending their sectarian or viewpoint-based punishment in court, less than seven months after the lawsuit was filed, WMU settled the case and agreed to compensate Mattson for damages and attorney’s fees.
These are the tactics of the leftist cancel mob. Rather than a government-controlled censorship regime, activist mobs have informally collaborated with DEI bureaucrats to pressure administrators into censoring, punishing, expelling, and firing students and professors who challenge leftist orthodoxies on race and gender. These radicals have responded to even the slightest deviations from DEI orthodoxy with severe consequences, putting sincere religious believers at risk of losing their livelihoods.
For Mattson, the victory goes beyond financial compensation. It is a vindication of his fight for the rights of all individuals to express their religious beliefs, regardless of others’ opinions. With more victories like this, we can hope to see a turning point in the battle against cancel culture.
rnrn
Should universities have the power to terminate employees based on their personal beliefs, and what effect does this have on academic freedom
Lear: they believed Mattson’s religious speech was harmful to LGBT students and therefore justified his termination.
However, Mattson’s lawsuit argues that the university’s actions violated his rights to freedom of speech and religion. He contends that expressing his religious views off-campus during his personal time should not result in punishment or termination from his job. He maintains that he never imposed his beliefs on his students and kept his religious activities separate from his work at WMU.
This case raises important questions about the limits of free speech on college campuses. Should professors and students be punished for expressing their religious or political views off-campus? Should universities have the power to terminate employees based on their personal beliefs?
Free speech is a cornerstone of democratic societies, and universities are supposed to be spaces for open and diverse dialogue. However, in recent years, there has been a growing trend of silencing unpopular or controversial views on college campuses. The rise of cancel culture and mob mentality has created an environment where anyone who deviates from the prevailing ideology can be ostracized and punished.
But this case demonstrates that there is hope for change. Legal battles like the one fought by Daniel Mattson can provide a pathway to protect the rights of professors and students to express their views without fear of retribution. The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for academic freedom and the future of free speech on college campuses.
Universities have a responsibility to uphold the principles of free speech and intellectual diversity. They should foster an environment where ideas can be freely exchanged and debated, even if they are controversial or unpopular. Punishing individuals for expressing their religious or political beliefs sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the purpose of higher education.
It is essential that universities embrace a culture of tolerance and respect for differing viewpoints. Instead of stifling dissenting voices, they should encourage open dialogue and critical thinking. Students and professors should feel empowered to express their opinions and engage in constructive conversations, even when they challenge the prevailing narrative.
The case of Daniel Mattson and his fight for his rights is a reminder that the battle for free speech on college campuses is far from over. It is up to us to defend and protect these rights, for they are fundamental to the pursuit of knowledge, understanding, and intellectual growth.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
