West Texas A&M Drag Ban Defeated in Court
Obviously drag shows are protected by the First Amendment.

After a yearslong legal battle, West Texas A&M University students can finally host a drag show. On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed a lower court's decision allowing the university to block an LGBT student group from hosting a charity drag show on campus.
"This is a victory not just for Spectrum WT, but for any public university students at risk of being silenced by campus censors," J.T. Morris, an attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a First Amendment group that filed a lawsuit on behalf of the student group, said in a Monday press release.
The conflict began in March 2023, when Spectrum WT, an LGBT-focused student club, sought permission to use Legacy Hall, a university venue, to host a drag show that would raise funds for the Trevor Project, a charity that addresses suicide in the LGBT community. While the university had allowed a wide range of events to take place in Legacy Hall—including religious events, a congressional candidate forum, and a local livestock show—the university's president, Walter Wendler, stepped in to prevent the drag show from going forward.
"Does a drag show preserve a single thread of human dignity? I think not," Wendler wrote in a university-wide email. "As a performance exaggerating aspects of womanhood (sexuality, femininity, gender), drag shows stereotype women in cartoon-like extremes for the amusement of others and discriminate against womanhood. Any event which diminishes an individual or group through such representation is wrong."
Later in the email, Wendler even admitted that the show is First Amendment–protected, noting that he would oppose it "even when the law of the land appears to require it." That month, FIRE filed a lawsuit alleging that Wendler's actions obviously violated the First Amendment. However, a district court denied FIRE's request for a preliminary injunction.
FIRE appealed, and on Monday, the 5th Circuit sided with the students, finding that while the lower court which reversed the injunction "held that it was not clearly established that all drag shows are inherently expressive and therefore implicate the First Amendment, and President Wendler's cancellation of the drag show was not objectively unreasonable given the show's 'potential lewdness,'" the drag show was in fact "protected expression" whose censorship must pass strict scrutiny.
"President Wendler did not argue, either before the district court or on appeal, that restricting the intended drag show would survive strict scrutiny," wrote Judge Leslie H. Southwick, in the majority opinion, adding that "the plaintiffs have shown a substantial threat of irreparable harm to their First Amendment rights absent an injunction against President Wendler."
Despite several attempts to crack down on drag performances in recent years, this latest court decision affirms what everyone—even Wendler himself—knew all along: Just because you don't like drag doesn't mean you can ban it.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Court could have gone with "moot"
No. Because the group wanted to put on the same show next year.
I'm still not wrong. nobody cares. I've lived in Texas three decades I don't even know where West Texas A&M is
Leftists don’t have a sense of humor.
yes ... dampens all my fun
Borowitz is MUCH funnier than Babylon Bee.
Still refusing to understand when they cross the line?
As one judge said somewhere, drag shows are easy to see as making fun of women, in the same way blackface shows make fun of blacks.
Emma dear, would you be in favor of someone bringing in a revival of some old minstrel shows? How about a screening of Al Jolson in blackface in the first motion picture with sound, The Jazz Singer? It's historical. It's expressive. It's freedom speech.
ETA: I want to make this perfectly clear so sarcasmic has no excuse for misunderstanding this. I despise censorship by governments. I'd love to see some university having the cajones to show old minstrel movies with blackface, just to see all the woke heads esplode. My objection here is Emma and her ilk applauding drag shows without recognizing their hypocrisy in being so selective about what is OK to censor.
Censors often use the phrase, "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences."
Of course, they complain when consequences are imposed against themselves or speakers who agree with them.
“ Of course, they complain when consequences are imposed against themselves or speakers who agree with them.”
The point is that those consequences come from society and social responses to free expression. If the government is involved, it’s wrong. Period.
Walk out in a KKK hood and robe to see what this means in practice. The government cannot (and should not) stop such behavior. But there are consequences nonetheless. As there should be.
Your real complaint is that most people don’t object to drag shows, so there aren’t the kind of social consequences that you want to see. Knowing that a fundraising drag show would raise a lot of funds makes you angry.
If I lived near the university I might be inclined to hang a bunch of gays in effigy from trees outside the event. Maybe some large drawings of gay people burning in hell.
You know, for free speech!
Remember when FIRE was founded because in a tit-for-tat one student called another a water buffalo, the target of the insult took it to be a racial slur, and FIRE defended against the individual and school's assertion that it was a hate crime?
As I keep telling everyone, FIRE(ducation) was your libertarian friend, FIRE(xpression) is not.
“ As I keep telling everyone, FIRE(ducation) was your libertarian friend, FIRE(xpression) is not.”
Aw, is the civil libertarian legal firm not limiting itself to defending speech that you like? It’s almost like the principle is more important to them than the content. So the opposite of today’s conservatives.
“ I might be inclined to hang a bunch of gays in effigy from trees outside the event”
That is pretty easily interpreted as threatening, which isn’t protected speech. But the fact that your example of “free speech” is identical to the segregationist, white supremacist intimidation of the Jim Crow South isn’t surprising at all.
“ Still refusing to understand when they cross the line?”
Still refusing to understand that the First Amendment is about telling people who have rigid and narrow ideas of what is “across the line” to go pound sand?
You don’t like drag shows? Don’t go to one. You think they are insulting or demeaning to women? Say it all you want, in as many places as you want, to as many people as you want.
Your disapproval doesn’t get a vote. No one cares about your feelings, nor should they.
“ It's historical. It's expressive. It's freedom speech.”
Yes. That’s the point. Anyone can do exactly that. That’s what the First Amendment is all about.
“ I despise censorship by governments.”
And yet you argue that there is a line, based on who might be offended, that shouldn’t be crossed? This action is clearly and obviously wrong on every level. It’s anti-American. Making “they aren’t wrong” arguments and then pretending you support free expression is laughably transparent. You like that drag shows are being attacked by the woke-analogues on the right and like that massive effort has to be made to exercise basic Constitutional rights.
“ My objection here is Emma and her ilk applauding drag shows without recognizing their hypocrisy in being so selective about what is OK to censor.”
Nonsense. You are arguing that it’s not so bad to censor.
But if you’re looking for hypocrisy, today’s GOP is a fertile field. From speech-is-violence to separation of powers, the past complaints of the right have become their driving principles since Trump took office.
Sexually deviant minorities have first amendment rights to mock women, but Christians do not have first amendment rights to praise Jesus.
Got it.
"Christians do not have first amendment rights to praise Jesus" where did you dig up that bullshit?
Also Jesus and modern Christians are almost opposite ideologies.
Tony, you don’t understand a thing about Christianity. You just hate Christian’s because they revile your debauchery and sickness. It’s not because you’re a gay man, it’s because you’re a sick, Marxist, debased faggot. And those are often very different things.
No, of course not. But in a bit ya, Jesus did not revile people and he spoke out against that. Hate is a strong part of modern Christianity in the US.
Then explain the overturning of tables in the Temple.
Most White Evangelical Christians love the debauchery and sickness of the moral degenerate in the White House. It makes me proud not to be Christian.
Hitler speeches sure bristled with Bible quotes, praise for Jesus and christian homilies.
Cite?
“ deviant minorities have first amendment rights to mock women, but Christians do not have first amendment rights to praise Jesus.
Got it.”
You’ll have to show me where any Christian has ever been prevented from praising Jesus in the entire history of the US.
You can’t, because it hasn’t happened. The Christian “persecution” nonsense is as bad as the woke “hate speech” nonsense. And equally loathsome.
Mike Bloomberg banned religious groups from public spaces in NYC. Bill De Blasio dropped the ban.
End all coecerd taxpayer money going to education. Then if a fully privately funded university wants to have drag queen shows, students not liking that can take their tuition money elsewhere.
While not a wrong action, not a solution. Again, this all started when Raleigh tried to tell private business owners how they were and were not allowed to use their bathrooms and the State of NC, entirely within their purview and fully living up to the ideal of a classically liberal, republican government stepped in to prevent them from doing so.
Judicious containment and rejection is the only solution. There is no rational means by which the loonies are granted greater administrative control of the loonie bin that doesn't result in more lunacy and more rational people being subjected to it.
Even minstrel shows weren't so intellectually offensive and socially exploitative or oppressive.
“ classically liberal, republican government”
Those are not synonymous. These days they are more opponents than friends.
“ Even minstrel shows weren't so intellectually offensive and socially exploitative or oppressive.”
Yes, they were. Far more so. And they are also protected by the First Amendment.
Texas public universities are primarily funded with their pil royalties.
No publicly funded education means only the well off get education and everyone else is unemployable. They will come to your home and squat on your property and steal you blind, And you will deserve it.
What date is the Minstrel Show? How about the "Mock Mohammed" musical?
Both open on the twelfth of never.
Mock Mohammed Drag Show! And they should hold it in that new Texas Islamic only city.
At least that would show some balls.
I thought the point was to disapprove of balls - - - - - -
“ What date is the Minstrel Show? How about the "Mock Mohammed" musical?”
Both protected by the First Amendment.
In all this time there was no other place for the student's to do this. Truly, they can *now* have a drag show when they never could before.
Oh, wait, no, its only that one particular venue didn't want to host them.
The single simplest counter-argument a libertarian might make and Reason refuses to touch it on this story.
Libertarians argue AGAINST censorship. I know this confuses the paleocons, but your dislike of someone else’s behavior isn’t a valid reason to censor them.
Bake the fucking cake.
If you intentionally put yourself in a position that requires you to be behave in a certain way, crying that you have to behave in the manner you knew would be required isn’t valid.
If you don’t want to follow the law, don’t open a business. Forcing your religion on others isn’t free exercise of religion, it’s a violation of it.
Wow that's the biggest load of anti-libertarian bullshit I have ever read on this site.
People should be free to conduct businesses in the manner in which they want to do so -- including who they sell to -- adhering only to laws that further the non-aggression principle.
“ In all this time there was no other place for the student's to do this”
This is the primary argument of all pro-censorship advocates. “Well, they can do it SOMEWHERE, so it’s OK for the state to ban it here, here, here, and here.”.
No, it isn’t OK.
The particular venue was a government agency violating the First Amendment.
The State Fairgrounds at Dallas,Texas, are the most famous of gathering places for Ku-kluxers. Grand Goblin Greg is simply cross-burning Texas back to its interwar roots. https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth31223/
ya sucked when Texas was run by Democrats.
That’s well over a century old, Hank. Got any more recent examples?
This opens the door to all kinds of adult entertainment on campus. If you're thinking minstrel shows, you're not thinking big enough. Lets bring in horse racing, strippers, and blackjack tables. Get these kids a real adult education.
Lets bring in horse racing, strippers, and blackjack tables.
False. The others are adjudicated as being off limits. Specifically and/or most recently, Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. in '91 and Erie v. Pap's A. M. in '00 on the strippers and Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association '18 on gambling.
This specifically enshrines the right to transgender drag shows but not strip shows. If you had lumped strip shows, drag shows, *and* minstrel shows together, it would've been struck down and FIRE wouldn't have touched it with a 30 ft. pole. FIRE is/was desperate and/or retarded to take this case. For all the issues that pushed white males to vote R/MAGA, this was the one issue that clearly motivated women and minorities to shun progressive Democrats and Libertarians.
Clearly the judge has never been to a drag show. They are just as adult-oriented as pole-dancing strippers. Nevermind that the act of cross-dressing in many parts of the country is considered an obscenity of itself. A savvy lawyer could make the case for a tasteful adult nudity exhibition based on this decision. Its for charity, right?
A savvy lawyer could make the case for a tasteful adult nudity exhibition based on this decision. Its for charity, right?
I'm neither authoritative identifier of superprecedent nor prognosticator of its overturn. It seems entirely possible that, with a modicum of legal skill and artistic creativity in the vein of The Windmill Theater and tableaux vivant, that some sort of 'naked review', 'nude painting theater', or 'Die Fledermaus: without clothes' could be allowed. But, again, the issue of "Can men or women get naked performatively?" would have to be a reversal of precedent rather than the stupid, activist predicate reversal of "What about men (mostly un)dressed as women (lap and pole dancing)?"
However, if Reason's and the general stupidity about bathrooms, locker rooms, women's sports, etc., etc., etc. is consistent, this is as much about the trans performers getting special privilege to exploit public spaces and rub their preferred brand of smut in everyone's, particularly children and people who don't want it, faces by legal force rather than actually make all kinds of smut more broadly free for people to enjoy among themselves. Normal, cis-het and even lots of cis-homo people who just want to be left alone and not have to provide any sort of education or venue space are the wreckers and kulaks in their particularly retarded social revolution. It's very much akin to the pro-Palestinian protesters and even George Floyd and Rainbow crosswalk activists who can't be content with people using campuses and crosswalks to cross the road or efficiently train and educate themselves in useful and/or productive endeavors.
“ this is as much about the trans performers getting special privilege to exploit public spaces”
Why should drag performers (trans or otherwise) be barred from using public spaces?
“ rub their preferred brand of smut in everyone's, particularly children and people who don't want it”
First, it isn’t smut. Some drag performances are raunchy and adult-oriented, some are not. A drag queen reading a children’s book to children isn’t smut by any reasonable definition. Drag isn’t inherently inappropriate for children.
As for people who don’t want it, if you don’t want it, don’t go. No one is forcing you to go to a drag performance. No one is even forcing you to pretend to accept it, never mind approve of it.
Drag shows hurt no one, and censorship hurts everyone.
“ Normal, cis-het and even lots of cis-homo people who just want to be left alone and not have to provide any sort of education or venue space are the wreckers and kulaks in their particularly retarded social revolution.”
If you are trying to stop someone from doing something that hurts no one merely because it offends your personal moral beliefs, you are the wrecker and the kulak.
You are being left alone. No one is forcing you to do anything. The fact that something that offends your personal feelings exists isn’t justification for censorship. Ever.
Hooray! FIRE defeated the Title IX and the female oppression of men on campus! Men will finally be able to dance in lingerie at campus sponsored events while women cannot! College students will finally be free to be enlightened in the transgender arts for the true value of their student loan dolalrs! Free speech and equality for all achieved!
This is even more dumb than Mexicans and ass sex. Fucking retards.
Pull Funding.
Commie-Indoctrination Camps for Kids shouldn't exist in the first place.
Too late. Texas gave its universities oil royalties in perpetuity. Until everyone junks their gas guzzlers and gets an electric car they are rich.
And Federal Funding.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/11/texas-universities-federal-stimulus/
an pedo student club, sought permission to use Legacy Hall, a university venue, to host a pedo rally that would raise funds for pedos
FTFY.
President Wendler's cancellation of the drag show was not objectively unreasonable given the show's 'potential lewdness,'" the drag show was in fact "protected expression" whose censorship must pass strict scrutiny.
Which it would have if anyone had the balls to challenge these fags and openly decry them as the pedos that every single one of them are or happily/tacitly enable.
LGBT Pedo deserves zero 1A protection. They use it against society as weaponized virtue in the name of normalizing their pedophilia. And America is done with that nonsense.
It's going to happen very soon. The day when the argument shifts from, the LGBT Pedos screaming, "You're censoring me! You won't get away with that!" to the Normals replying, "Fine, then we'll just kill you all. Remember - we were willing to live and let live, but you kept pushing the envelope."
If you are a homosexual that isn't on board with how the left has hijacked your movement to normalize pedophiles everywhere, then I have the one and only piece of advice for your survival: get back in the closet, and don't ever come back out. That's your earthly salvation. And it's the only one you'll get.
The pedophiles wear Roman collars. While vestments may seem like drag, they aren’t.
If it makes it easier, the religious ones are the pedophiles, the men wearing makeup aren’t.
Derp.
Why didn't you just go with, "I know you are but what am I!"
Nelson, you can't go one single news day without some member of the rainbow club being found with kiddie porn or diddling his nephew or raping their
kidnappedadopted kid (funny how they always want boys) and pimping him out to other rainbow people.Scratch a homosexual, find a pedophile. Or, at least, an enabler. Every single time.
Same cannot be said for literally any other demographic.
Most gays aren't pedos. A lot more straights are including the cult leader in the White House.
(1) "Obviously"?
(2) KKK cross burnings are also protected by the First Amendment. Should colleges be required to allow them on campus?
Yes.