A preliminary injunction has been issued in the case of Grace Christian Life v. Woodson, in which NC State has been ordered to halt its Solicitation Policy*, REG 07.25.12, until a final ruling has been made.

Grace Christian Life (GCL), one of the university’s 600 registered student groups, is suing NC State for what it views as the university’s violation of its right to free speech, not only by requiring it to obtain a permit before passing materials or engaging in discussion related to their organization, but by the selective enforcement of this policy.  

The defendants in the case Grace Christian Life v. Woodson include Chancellor Randy Woodson, Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Warwick Arden, Associate Director of University Student Affairs TJ Willis and Associate Vice Provost of the Division of Academic and Student Affairs Mike Giancola.  

Executive Director of University Relations Fred Hartman said in an email that NC State protects and defends the rights to free speech of all groups regardless of the content of the speech. 

“The implication that an organization has been treated differently because they are a religious group is simply not true,” Hartman said. “Grace Christian Life has been holding church services and soliciting on campus for many years.” 

On June 4, a federal judge granted GCL’s request for a preliminary injunction, meaning that NC State must suspend its policy requiring students, student groups or off-campus guests sponsored by a student or student group to obtain a permit for non-commercial solicitation under University REG 07.25.12 until the case is decided. For the injunction order, the judge adopted the plaintiff’s assertions of fact, which included the statement that GCL is “likely to succeed on the merits of its claim” that the university’s non-commercial solicitation policy violates the First Amendment, and therefore an injunction was “in the public interest.”  

Alliance Defending Freedom, the Arizona-based legal advocacy group dedicated to defending religious freedom that is representing the GCL, is seeking a revision to the university’s policy on solicitation on the basis that it allows “unfettered discretion” to the university when deciding whether to grant permission to speak, according to a letter sent by ADF to NC State’s General Counsel, Eileen Goldgeier. 

The letter continues to argue that the university’s permit policy constitutes prior restraint on student speech, meaning that it allows the university to censor speech before it occurs, which is “the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights,” according to a lawyer from ADF. 

GCL made reservations for space on campus 198 times between Aug. 16, 2015 and Dec. 16, 2016, according to Student Involvement records submitted to the court and obtained by the Technician. Of those reservations, 67 are from June 10 to Dec. 16, 2016.  

Chancellor Randy Woodson noted in his response to the lawsuit in his Chancellor’s Letter in April that over the past three years, NC State issued 2,280 permits to student and non-university groups to either speak or distribute information on campus. He added that of those issued, close to 500 were issued to faith-based groups or individuals.  

“None of these individuals or groups have ever been denied the right to speak or distribute materials based upon their message content or beliefs,” Woodson wrote. 

In fact, within the last 10 years, no student or student group has been disciplined under NC State’s solicitation policy.  

The incident that prompted the lawsuit occurred on Sept. 15 when TJ Willis, a defendant in the case, witnessed on multiple occasions GCL members Thomas Saunders and Todd Valentine “walk up to a single person or duo of persons, start with a hello and then start the conversation into religion, ending with giving them a card” according to an email sent by Willis recounting the situation obtained by the Technician.  

Willis told the GCL members that by approaching students to engage in religious discussion, they were violating the university’s policy to speak on campus without a permit, but according to the plaintiff’s version of events, GCL had obtained a permit and was told that its members “were not required to remain behind the table, but that they were allowed to walk around and engage students in conversation.”  

The Technician could not independently verify whether GCL had obtained a permit specifically allowing them to hand out materials, as this is a disputed fact in the case which is ongoing, though the primary focus of the plaintiff’s case is on the policy of requiring a permit in the first place.  

The university’s policy on solicitation, listed under University REG 07.25.12, requires that “groups or individuals wishing to conduct any form of solicitation on University premises must have the written permission of Student Involvement in advance.” The policy defines non-commercial solicitation as “any distribution of leaflets, brochures or other written material or oral speech to a passersby, conducted without intent to obtain commercial or private pecuniary gain.”  

The policy includes that the university may deny a permit for solicitation on the basis of “reasonable time, place or manner limits” or if the solicitation is not consistent with the University’s “mission and purpose of the location.” 

In their court filings, ADF is arguing that this policy is too broad and is thus inconsistent with the function of a university as a “voluntary and spontaneous assemblage … for students to speak and to write and to learn.” 

ADF claims that the policy’s requirement of advance notice restricts “spontaneous and anonymous speech,” which is often “the most effective kind of expression.” They further contend that the act of letting the government know before being able to speak can discourage citizens from speaking freely. 

Woodson commented in his Chancellor’s Letter that the lawsuit is “without merit” and that the limits placed on permits depending on time, place and manner are necessary to manage the large numbers of requests by speakers or those wanting to distribute materials.

The permit application only requires an explanation of purpose, but the stated purpose of the group in question is the only limiting factor regarding the content of the speech, aside from the time and place limitations depending on availability.  

“Obviously, individuals can engage others in conversation about their faith on campus,” Hartman said.  

Zainab Baloch, a 2013 alumnus of NC State and former president of the Muslim Students Association, said in a Facebook message that his group never felt restricted by the permit process. 

 “[We had to] just make sure we had the permit displayed and not to like bother people,” Baloch said. “Basically stay near the table and don’t like force people to talk.” 

Baloch said his experience being approached by groups who were pushing a message was a deterrent for him as a student, so as president he wanted to take a different approach. 

“We let students approach us,” Baloch said. “We didn’t approach students. Unless we were doing a service event and selling like baked goods or something. The purpose of any outreach tables was to defy stereotypes and let people have a chance to ask questions to counter what has been said about Muslims in the media.” 

In response to the injunction, the university released a statement maintaining that the ruling does not mean there is any concern over the university’s application of its policy, which is applied neutrally.

“The university remains an environment that fosters and enables the healthy and free exchange of ideas and viewpoints by our students and academic community,” the statement read.

*Editor’s Note: The original story inaccurately titled NC State’s Solicitation Policy. The story also mislabeled the judge’s adoption of the plaintiffs assertions of fact regarding the injunction.