The comparison to blackface is erroneous simply because blackface is not formally banned or outlawed. It’s socially repugnant and therefore may cause harm to one’s reputation…but it’s not legally or formally banned as they have done with drag.
Yup! This is exactly the point I was going to make.
I don't know about the legalities of banning events that are deemed distasteful on state university campuses. I would think the First Amendment should reign supreme on public land. A private university campus might be a different matter.
Isn't it funny how it always seems to be white people comparing drag to blackface? Maybe I'm wrong but I don't feel like I see black people making this comparison.
Kacsmaryk Is a dyed in the wool MAGAT Purchased, Nazi Compromised White Supremacist Judge! One of many that TINY HANDS has recruited to the Authoritarian Fascist Regime of MAGA! We can claim the same comparison for the Orange Faced Pig MAGATS Elected to the Dictatorship! The People of America and the People of the democratic world will be holding All of them accountable for their crimes against humanity! The true enemy of the country isn’t brown, yellow, LGBTQIA or Trans people…ITS ALL THE WHITE PEOPLE AFRAID TO LOSE THEIR WHITE PRIVILEGE!!! 👿🔥
Please hear me out. I don't like drag performance. I admit, I have never attended one in person and I doubt that I ever will. Drag performances are a huge trigger for me. As a young boy assigned male at birth I remember sitting in front of the TV and listening to my family laughing at Harvey Korman, Jamie Farr, and others that dressed as women for the laughs. I read newspaper articles when I was older, and I still presented as male, of fundraisers at county fairs where men wore their wives or sisters clothes on stage for yuks and cash. It was all for fun and charity but that is not how this young woman-in-hiding understood it. I was embarrassed to be me.
Now I'm 68 years old having transitioned 18 years ago and while I won't attend drag shows I think I can, at least, know that our world is striving to be better. Young people, like I was, have plenty of women who are transgender to look up to now. *Cross dressing" doesnt have the stigma that made me shudder in fear of being caught.
I write this to say, I think it's okay to not like drag shows. It's NOT okay to legislate either in legislatures or from the bench to limit freedom of expression/speech.
100% agree. I don't like drag, but that doesn't give the government or the university the moral right to ban it! Lord knows I've said and done things people disagree with, but that's the price we pay for freedom.
This statement is in opposition to the racist decision permitting West Texas A&M University, a public institution, to ban drag performances on campus and to the reasoning advanced and endorsed by U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk.
The ban and the judicial approval of it violate the First Amendment, constitute impermissible viewpoint discrimination, and rely on historically inaccurate and racially offensive analogies that have no place in constitutional analysis.
II. Statement of Facts
West Texas A&M University prohibited a student-organized drag performance intended as expressive activity and fundraising.
University leadership justified the ban by asserting that drag performances are inherently offensive and, at times, compared drag to blackface. Judge Kacsmaryk upheld the university’s authority to impose the ban, effectively allowing the suppression of student expression based on its content and perceived message.
III. Argument
A. Drag Performance Is Constitutionally Protected Expression
The Supreme Court has consistently held that expressive conduct conveying a particularized message is protected by the First Amendment.
Theater, dance, costume, parody, and gender performance all fall squarely within the ambit of protected speech.
Drag performance communicates ideas about identity, gender, culture, and resistance to rigid social norms.
It is not obscene, illegal, or devoid of expressive content. A public university may not prohibit protected expression simply because administrators or judges find it distasteful or controversial.
B. The Ban Constitutes Viewpoint Discrimination
The prohibition on drag performances is not content-neutral.
It targets a specific form of expression closely associated with LGBTQ+ identity and culture. Viewpoint discrimination is presumptively unconstitutional, particularly in a limited or designated public forum such as a public university campus.
Allowing expressive events celebrating traditional gender norms while banning drag performances reveals that the restriction is motivated by hostility to the viewpoint expressed, not by any legitimate governmental interest.
C. The Blackface Comparison Is Legally and Historically Indefensible
Equating drag performance with blackface is a gross distortion of history and an abuse of racial trauma to justify censorship.
Blackface emerged as a tool of racist mockery and dehumanization, reinforcing violence and exclusion against Black Americans.
Drag, by contrast, is a form of self-expression and performance historically used by marginalized communities to challenge rigid power structures and social constraints.
This analogy is not only factually wrong but legally irrelevant.
Courts do not determine First Amendment protection by analogizing disfavored speech to historically racist practices.
Such reasoning imports moral condemnation where constitutional scrutiny demands neutrality.
Worse, it trivializes the specific and brutal history of anti-Black racism by weaponizing it against another marginalized group.
D. The Ruling Undermines the Role of Public Universities
Public universities are not ideological safe spaces for the state.
They are marketplaces of ideas where students are entitled to explore, challenge, and express diverse perspectives.
Endorsing censorship of student expression based on moral panic or political ideology erodes academic freedom and invites further suppression of unpopular speech, whether related to race, gender, religion, or politics.
IV. Conclusion
Judge Kacsmaryk’s decision to allow West Texas A&M University to ban drag performances sanctions unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, misapplies First Amendment doctrine, and relies on a racially offensive and intellectually unsound comparison.
If upheld, this reasoning threatens not only LGBTQ+ expression but the foundational principle that the government may not suppress speech because it challenges dominant norms or makes those in power uncomfortable.
For these reasons, the ban should be rejected, and the First Amendment rights of students at public universities must be reaffirmed and protected.
Not surprised to see this shithead's name attached to that shitty ruling. He's one of the fascists' favorite picks when they go judge-shopping; he can always be relied upon to deliver a steaming pile on demand, no matter the issue 𝘰𝘳 the facts of the case.
This judge committed perjury during his confirmation hearing when he lied about authoring a law review article that predicted his bogus ruling on RU 486. It's why they chose his district to file the case in. They knew the case would be assigned to him and that he would rule in their favor. This guy is a criminal, an unindicted felon.
The violation of the first amendment is obvious, and I definitely believe drag shows should be permitted. There is irony here. If one reads the University President's decision, and then that of the Judge, the University President's presentation of the argument is at least defensible as being coherent and internally consistent. That's way more than can be said for the pathetic Judge Kacsmaryk's ruling.
Even as someone who opposes drag and even compares it to blackface, I vehemently oppose any and all bans on it. I don't like it but many people do and it is undeniably, unarguably free speech and should only be restricted by personal conscience, not by the government or any other formal institution. Drag bans are unconstitutional, immoral and utterly reprehensible.
The comparison to blackface is erroneous simply because blackface is not formally banned or outlawed. It’s socially repugnant and therefore may cause harm to one’s reputation…but it’s not legally or formally banned as they have done with drag.
Yup! This is exactly the point I was going to make.
I don't know about the legalities of banning events that are deemed distasteful on state university campuses. I would think the First Amendment should reign supreme on public land. A private university campus might be a different matter.
Thank you for articulating this point better than I can.
Isn't it funny how it always seems to be white people comparing drag to blackface? Maybe I'm wrong but I don't feel like I see black people making this comparison.
Kacsmaryk Is a dyed in the wool MAGAT Purchased, Nazi Compromised White Supremacist Judge! One of many that TINY HANDS has recruited to the Authoritarian Fascist Regime of MAGA! We can claim the same comparison for the Orange Faced Pig MAGATS Elected to the Dictatorship! The People of America and the People of the democratic world will be holding All of them accountable for their crimes against humanity! The true enemy of the country isn’t brown, yellow, LGBTQIA or Trans people…ITS ALL THE WHITE PEOPLE AFRAID TO LOSE THEIR WHITE PRIVILEGE!!! 👿🔥
Ironically, the right is not against blackface (see: many of them caught doing it for laughs). Except in this case, apparently.
Judging from his picture, Judge Kacsmaryk does wyt face just fine. I can really imagine this guy at home dressed in a white sheet and hood.
As a matter of fact, this MAGA judge, appointed by Heritage45 in its first term, does look like ... and probably is...a Proud Boy.
I think I can guess, and maybe it's mentioned in the article and I missed it, but when and how did this man become a judge? By appointment?
Please hear me out. I don't like drag performance. I admit, I have never attended one in person and I doubt that I ever will. Drag performances are a huge trigger for me. As a young boy assigned male at birth I remember sitting in front of the TV and listening to my family laughing at Harvey Korman, Jamie Farr, and others that dressed as women for the laughs. I read newspaper articles when I was older, and I still presented as male, of fundraisers at county fairs where men wore their wives or sisters clothes on stage for yuks and cash. It was all for fun and charity but that is not how this young woman-in-hiding understood it. I was embarrassed to be me.
Now I'm 68 years old having transitioned 18 years ago and while I won't attend drag shows I think I can, at least, know that our world is striving to be better. Young people, like I was, have plenty of women who are transgender to look up to now. *Cross dressing" doesnt have the stigma that made me shudder in fear of being caught.
I write this to say, I think it's okay to not like drag shows. It's NOT okay to legislate either in legislatures or from the bench to limit freedom of expression/speech.
100% agree. I don't like drag, but that doesn't give the government or the university the moral right to ban it! Lord knows I've said and done things people disagree with, but that's the price we pay for freedom.
I. Introduction
This statement is in opposition to the racist decision permitting West Texas A&M University, a public institution, to ban drag performances on campus and to the reasoning advanced and endorsed by U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk.
The ban and the judicial approval of it violate the First Amendment, constitute impermissible viewpoint discrimination, and rely on historically inaccurate and racially offensive analogies that have no place in constitutional analysis.
II. Statement of Facts
West Texas A&M University prohibited a student-organized drag performance intended as expressive activity and fundraising.
University leadership justified the ban by asserting that drag performances are inherently offensive and, at times, compared drag to blackface. Judge Kacsmaryk upheld the university’s authority to impose the ban, effectively allowing the suppression of student expression based on its content and perceived message.
III. Argument
A. Drag Performance Is Constitutionally Protected Expression
The Supreme Court has consistently held that expressive conduct conveying a particularized message is protected by the First Amendment.
Theater, dance, costume, parody, and gender performance all fall squarely within the ambit of protected speech.
Drag performance communicates ideas about identity, gender, culture, and resistance to rigid social norms.
It is not obscene, illegal, or devoid of expressive content. A public university may not prohibit protected expression simply because administrators or judges find it distasteful or controversial.
B. The Ban Constitutes Viewpoint Discrimination
The prohibition on drag performances is not content-neutral.
It targets a specific form of expression closely associated with LGBTQ+ identity and culture. Viewpoint discrimination is presumptively unconstitutional, particularly in a limited or designated public forum such as a public university campus.
Allowing expressive events celebrating traditional gender norms while banning drag performances reveals that the restriction is motivated by hostility to the viewpoint expressed, not by any legitimate governmental interest.
C. The Blackface Comparison Is Legally and Historically Indefensible
Equating drag performance with blackface is a gross distortion of history and an abuse of racial trauma to justify censorship.
Blackface emerged as a tool of racist mockery and dehumanization, reinforcing violence and exclusion against Black Americans.
Drag, by contrast, is a form of self-expression and performance historically used by marginalized communities to challenge rigid power structures and social constraints.
This analogy is not only factually wrong but legally irrelevant.
Courts do not determine First Amendment protection by analogizing disfavored speech to historically racist practices.
Such reasoning imports moral condemnation where constitutional scrutiny demands neutrality.
Worse, it trivializes the specific and brutal history of anti-Black racism by weaponizing it against another marginalized group.
D. The Ruling Undermines the Role of Public Universities
Public universities are not ideological safe spaces for the state.
They are marketplaces of ideas where students are entitled to explore, challenge, and express diverse perspectives.
Endorsing censorship of student expression based on moral panic or political ideology erodes academic freedom and invites further suppression of unpopular speech, whether related to race, gender, religion, or politics.
IV. Conclusion
Judge Kacsmaryk’s decision to allow West Texas A&M University to ban drag performances sanctions unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, misapplies First Amendment doctrine, and relies on a racially offensive and intellectually unsound comparison.
If upheld, this reasoning threatens not only LGBTQ+ expression but the foundational principle that the government may not suppress speech because it challenges dominant norms or makes those in power uncomfortable.
For these reasons, the ban should be rejected, and the First Amendment rights of students at public universities must be reaffirmed and protected.
Not surprised to see this shithead's name attached to that shitty ruling. He's one of the fascists' favorite picks when they go judge-shopping; he can always be relied upon to deliver a steaming pile on demand, no matter the issue 𝘰𝘳 the facts of the case.
Somebody needs to pick through Kacsmaryk's high school and college yearbooks and find the photos of him in drag.
This judge committed perjury during his confirmation hearing when he lied about authoring a law review article that predicted his bogus ruling on RU 486. It's why they chose his district to file the case in. They knew the case would be assigned to him and that he would rule in their favor. This guy is a criminal, an unindicted felon.
Trans and gay people are created in the image of God, and therefore, a people of dignity
Not to mention that according to the Jewish Talmud and to Sufi Islam, God is non-binary, so…
The violation of the first amendment is obvious, and I definitely believe drag shows should be permitted. There is irony here. If one reads the University President's decision, and then that of the Judge, the University President's presentation of the argument is at least defensible as being coherent and internally consistent. That's way more than can be said for the pathetic Judge Kacsmaryk's ruling.
That photo of Judge Kacsmaryk SCREAMS "Toxic masculinity".
Even as someone who opposes drag and even compares it to blackface, I vehemently oppose any and all bans on it. I don't like it but many people do and it is undeniably, unarguably free speech and should only be restricted by personal conscience, not by the government or any other formal institution. Drag bans are unconstitutional, immoral and utterly reprehensible.
Kacsmaryk needs to be removed from the bench for his blatant animosity against LGBTQ rights.