Federal Court Corrects an Injustice

Richard Riordan is a Lane Community College student who challenged the administration and LCC Board of Education at public meetings and via email. He questioned program cuts, budget decisions and the data used to defend them. LCC responded by banning him from seven college properties and blocking him from registering for classes. On September 28, U.S. District Judge Michael McShane ordered LCC to remove the registration hold and let Riordan return to campus for academic purposes.

The College called these actions a trespass notice and an enrollment hold. The labels may sound routine, but the sanctions were not. Riordan risked arrest and prosecution if he entered LCC property. The hold on his account was set to last until December 31, 2099. In practical terms, LCC had expelled him for life.

The ruling is not final. It is a preliminary injunction, an order that applies while the lawsuit continues. Even so, McShane found that Riordan is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that LCC retaliated against him for speech protected by the First Amendment. That is a serious rebuke to President Stephanie Bulger, her administration and LCC’s elected Board.

I am a retired college administrator and former part-time LCC faculty member. I am not a lawyer, but I read Judge McShane’s ruling closely. I also attended every Board meeting where Mr. Riordan spoke during public comment. I found him outspoken, rambling, persistent and often sarcastic. McShane described him as “annoying, long-winded, aggressive, hyperbolic, and grandiose.”

But the judge also found “nothing in the record” showing that Riordan posed a threat to anyone. He said Riordan’s statements were hyperbole, jokes and political rhetoric, not real threats of violence.

The court’s account of LCC’s response is troubling. During a campus conversation about an upcoming Board meeting, Riordan told Vice President Shelley Tinkham he was “ready for the spin.” Public Safety Director Lisa Rupp then filed a report on Tinkham’s behalf claiming that Riordan had “accosted” Tinkham. LCC’s Threat Assessment Team began watching Riordan without his knowledge. Dean Carl Yeh and Rupp later told him to stop sending mass emails and to “be careful,” but did not tell him what college rule, if any, he had broken.

LCC also relied on an email meme and Riordan’s self-deprecating comparison of his writing to a “drive-by shooting.” McShane found that the College took those statements out of context and turned them into threats. He wrote that LCC’s misrepresentation “approaches dishonesty” and said the College appeared to be “covertly building a case” against Riordan.

The judge was just as direct about the harm LCC caused. He wrote that its actions effectively expelled Riordan and would discourage an ordinary person from speaking out. He called LCC’s safety argument “anemic and unconvincing” and its sanctions “unreasonable and legally unsupported.” He said the College’s conduct looked “much like blacklisting.”

McShane accepted that some officials may truly have been afraid. But feeling afraid is not proof that someone really poses a threat. The judge allowed Riordan to return for classes but barred him from attending Board meetings in person or approaching the officials named in the suit. He said those limits were meant to calm the situation, not to suggest that LCC’s fears had an objective basis.

That difference matters. LCC must act when a threat is credible. But fear alone cannot turn protected political speech into threatening conduct. Before punishing a student, the College must consider the student’s words in context and separate discomfort from a serious threat of violence. Officials may need to remove a student briefly when there is credible evidence of immediate danger. Any longer campus ban or registration block should require written notice, access to the evidence, a prompt hearing and a fair appeal.

President Bulger bears direct responsibility for this failure. The officials involved serve in the administration she leads. If Bulger approved their actions, she must answer for a serious abuse of power. If she did not know senior staff were building a case against a student critic and pushing him out of college, then she failed to supervise them. Neither explanation is acceptable.

The Board should require Bulger to explain publicly what happened. It should commission an independent review to establish the facts. The review should identify who approved the sanctions, what evidence those officials relied on, why Riordan was never told what rule he had broken and why he had no fair chance to respond.

LCC should correct any unsupported claims in Riordan’s records that could hurt his education or employment.

Bulger and the Board owe Riordan and the community a sincere public apology. LCC cannot claim to value free speech while punishing criticism that makes its leaders uncomfortable. The College should admit what went wrong, repair the damage and stop spending public money to defend conduct a federal judge has called unreasonable and legally unsupported.