## Facts

- Stanford adopted a policy titled “Fundamental Standard Interpretation: Free Expression and Discriminatory Harassment,” intended to define when free expression becomes prohibited discriminatory harassment.
- The policy prohibited, among other things, “personal vilification” directed at an individual or small group based on specified characteristics (including sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, and national or ethnic origin).
- The policy treated expression as harassment if it was intended to insult or stigmatize, addressed directly to the target, and used “insulting or ‘fighting’ words” or certain nonverbal symbols.
- Stanford students sued Stanford and certain university officials, alleging unlawful restriction of student speech.
- Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the policy and asserted violations of federal and state free-speech protections as applied through California Education Code § 94367 (the Leonard Law), along with due process and equal protection theories.
- The parties stipulated that the ruling on the preliminary-injunction motion would serve as the final decision at the trial-court level.

## Issues

1. Whether California Education Code § 94367 (the Leonard Law) applies to Stanford, a private secular university, to limit its power to discipline students for speech.
2. Whether Stanford’s speech code is invalid under the Leonard Law because it restricts speech beyond constitutionally unprotected categories such as “fighting words.”
3. Whether, even if limited to “fighting words,” Stanford’s code is invalid because it discriminates based on content and viewpoint by targeting vilification tied to specified characteristics.
4. Whether the Leonard Law is unconstitutional as applied because it infringes Stanford’s own First Amendment rights as a private institution.

## Decision

- The court granted injunctive relief preventing enforcement of Stanford’s speech code.
- The court held the speech code violated the Leonard Law because it prohibited more than constitutionally unprotected “fighting words,” reaching insulting or stigmatizing speech.
- The court held that even if construed to cover only “fighting words,” the code was impermissibly content- and viewpoint-based under principles reflected in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul because it singled out vilification based on specified characteristics.
- The court upheld the constitutionality of the Leonard Law, concluding it regulated Stanford’s ability to discipline student speech without restricting Stanford’s own institutional expression.

## Legal Principles

- California Education Code § 94367 bars private secular postsecondary institutions from disciplining students solely for speech that would be protected from governmental restriction by the First Amendment or by the California Constitution’s free-speech clause.
- A university policy that prohibits speech broader than the narrow “fighting words” exception conflicts with First Amendment limits incorporated by the Leonard Law.
- Even within an otherwise unprotected category (such as “fighting words”), selective bans targeting particular subjects or viewpoints are invalid when they operate as content- or viewpoint-based restrictions.
- A statute protecting students from institutional discipline for protected speech does not necessarily violate a private university’s First Amendment rights where it does not compel the university to speak or prevent the university itself from expressing its values.

## Conclusion

The court enjoined Stanford from enforcing its discriminatory-harassment speech code because it swept beyond unprotected “fighting words” and, in any event, impermissibly targeted particular hateful viewpoints, while also rejecting the university’s challenge to the Leonard Law as an unconstitutional restraint on Stanford’s own speech.


Corry v. Leland Stanford Junior Univ., No. 1-94-CV-740309 (Cal. Super. Ct. Santa Clara Cnty. Feb. 27, 1995)