Tag Archives: ZZ: Sklar v. Clough

Ruth Malhotra and Jennifer Keeton at The Christian Post: Our cases, filed by Alliance Defending Freedom, defended the freedom of Christian and conservative students to speak on matters of public importance and to pursue our fields of study without compromising our convictions. In response to our lawsuits, the Tolerance Inquisition unleashed its fury. We faced everything from snide insults to false attacks on our character to threats of rape and murder so serious that Ruth was put under police protection.

Artinfo: “In 2006, members of the college Republican club sued Georgia Tech with the help of the Alliance Defense Fund . . . The college swiftly yielded to the Republican students’ demands that the school’s Student Code of Conduct and Community Guide be changed — actually collaborating with the Alliance Defense Fund in drafting an amended policy . . . Despite the school’s collaboration with the Alliance Defense Fund, the conservative students continued to pursue their lawsuit, with Clough and four other administrators named as defendants.”

ADF Attorney David French writing at Speak Up Movement / University: “Congratulations to former ADF Clients (and current treasured friends) Ruth Malhotra and Orit Sklar for a glowing profile in today’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution. … ‘Decisive victory’ is an understatement. Not only did Georgia Tech ultimately change four policies as a result of the lawsuit (speech code, speech zones, student fee distribution policy, and ‘Safe Space’ training manual), it was sternly chastised by a federal judge, and eventually paid more than $200,000.00 in legal fees.”

Atlanta Journal Constitution: “When Georgia Tech students Ruth Malhotra and Orit Sklar sued the school in 2006 for unconstitutional speech policies, both intended on pursuing careers in their majors: international affairs and civil engineering. … [Their] federal civil rights lawsuit, supported by the Christian-based Alliance Defense Fund, challenged Georgia Tech’s speech code, the use of a ‘free speech zone’ and portions of the university’s ‘Safe Space’ training manual that were considered unconstitutional.”