## Facts

- The Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity was a recognized student organization at George Mason University (GMU).
- Sigma Chi conducted an annual “Derby Days” campus event intended as entertainment and a charity fundraiser.
- During the 1991 event, Sigma Chi staged an “ugly woman contest” in the student union cafeteria.
- Fraternity members appeared in costumes portraying caricatures of women; one member performed as an offensive caricature of a Black woman using blackface and stereotyped mannerisms.
- The record contained no direct evidence of the performers’ subjective intent; the fraternity later apologized and conceded the event was “sophomoric and offensive.”
- Many students signed a petition condemning the event as racist and sexist, including objections to the blackface portrayal.
- GMU’s Dean for Student Services concluded the contest created a hostile learning environment for women and Black students and conflicted with the university’s diversity mission.
- GMU imposed sanctions, including suspension of the fraternity from activities for the remainder of the school year, a two-year ban on social events involving alcohol, and requirements for educational programming on cultural and gender issues.
- The fraternity and individual members sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the fraternity on the First Amendment claim and enjoined enforcement of the sanctions; GMU appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the “ugly woman contest,” including the blackface portrayal, constituted expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.
2. Whether GMU’s sanctions, imposed because the event was viewed as conveying racist and sexist ideas inconsistent with the university’s mission, were impermissible content- and viewpoint-based regulation of expression.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for the fraternity.
- The court held the skit was expressive conduct within First Amendment protection, despite being crude and offensive.
- The court held GMU sanctioned the fraternity because of the message’s racist and sexist implications, constituting content and viewpoint discrimination.
- The court rejected GMU’s argument that its actions were justified by its educational mission and desire to prevent a hostile learning environment, because the sanctions directly targeted protected expression.
- The court held no genuine dispute of material fact precluded summary judgment; the relevant facts and the university’s reasons for sanctioning were undisputed.

## Legal Principles

- The First Amendment protects expressive conduct, not only spoken or written words, when conduct is sufficiently communicative in context.
- Government entities, including public universities, may not restrict or punish expression because it is offensive or because officials disapprove of the ideas expressed.
- Disciplining speech due to disagreement with its viewpoint is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
- A public university may pursue diversity and anti-discrimination objectives through lawful means, but it may not condition student-organization recognition or benefits on adopting the university’s preferred views on race or gender.
- Universities may respond to offensive expression with counterspeech and educational measures, but may not impose sanctions that directly suppress protected expression absent an independent basis placing the conduct outside First Amendment protection.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that GMU violated the First Amendment by sanctioning Sigma Chi for an offensive skit based on its perceived racist and sexist viewpoint, and it affirmed an injunction barring enforcement of the sanctions.


Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason Univ., 993 F.2d 386 (4th Cir. 1993)