While the law, at least for the moment and somewhat theoretically, only compels a university to act when the conduct at issue is “severe, pervasive and objectively offensive,” that doesn’t mean the school cannot appreciate the delicate feelings of an extremely sensitive student.

Here are the facts. On April 1, the University of Idaho College of Law (“University” or “Idaho Law”) held a “moment of community” in response to an anti-LGBTQ+ slur left anonymously on a classroom whiteboard. Event attendees included plaintiffs Peter Perlot, Mark Miller, and Ryan Alexander, who at the time were law students and members of the Idaho Law chapter of the Christian Legal Society (“CLS”), and Professor Richard Seamon, the CLS faculty advisor.

At the April 1 event, the plaintiffs gathered in prayer to express support for the LGBTQ+ community. After the prayer was over, Jane Doe, a queer female student at Idaho Law, approached the plaintiffs and asked them why the CLS constitution declares that marriage is between one man and one woman. Miller explained that the CLS adhered to traditional biblical views of marriage and sexuality, and he and Jane Doe then debated whether the Bible actually supports such a conclusion. Professor Seamon allegedly affirmed Miller’s explication of the CLS view on marriage.

Soon after the event, Perlot left a handwritten note on Jane Doe’s study carrel, which read in its entirety as follows: “I’m the president of CLS this semester. Feel free to come talk to me if you have anything you need to say or questions you want to ask. I’m usually in my carrel: 6-034. over by the windows. Peter [smiley face].” According to the Idaho Law officials who are the defendants in this case, Jane Doe interpreted the leaving of the note as “violating” her private carrel with “messaging she interpreted as one of the Plaintiffs’ efforts to proselytize about extreme hateful religious dogma that [she] emphatically rejects.”

There were subsequent “walk-outs” of Professor Seamon’s class, and the University of Idaho’s Office of Civil Rights and Investigations issued “no contact” orders against the students whom the “queer” law student, Jane Doe, grieved because she felt “targeted and unsafe” because of the note left at her carrel.

The court granted an injunction against the university’s issuance of “no contact” orders, which is certainly the proper outcome, but the fact that a student complained of harassment and feeling unsafe, and the University took her absurd complaint seriously enough to act upon it and issue “no contact” orders is shocking.

Or is it merely sad and unsurprising at this point, both in terms of this “queer”* law student’s absurd hypersensitivity and the school’s willingness to take any complaint, no matter how ridiculous, seriously and act upon it?

*The word “queer” is used in quotations marks because Jane Doe considered it significant enough to include, but what it means and what relevance it has here cannot be discerned.