STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — A Pennsylvania State University professor who objected to a public school anti-harassment policy because he said it could have kept his children from freely expressing their religious beliefs has succeeded in having the policy declared unconstitutional.

The 1999 policy of the State College Area School District targeted harassment based on race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or any other personal characteristics, but David Warren Saxe believes it could have inhibited the free speech of anyone who opposed homosexuality on religious grounds.

In a Feb. 14 ruling, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling and deemed the policy “unconstitutionally over-broad.” On Feb. 22, the school district announced plans to revise the policy to address the court's concerns.

The ruling, which applies to courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the Virgin Islands, said negative or derogatory speech about racial customs, religious tradition, language, sexual orientation and values is within a student's First Amendment rights when it does not pose a “realistic threat of substantial disruption.” The State College school district, the ruling said, failed to show why it anticipated such disruption “from the broad swath of student speech prohibited under the policy.”

According to the ruling, schools may outlaw “lewd, vulgar, indecent, and plainly offensive speech,” but may not prohibit speech based on “undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance.”

Saxe, who also is a member of the state school board, filed the suit out of concern that his children, both of whom are Catholic, be allowed to state the beliefs of the Church, which teaches that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2357).

“We make no attack on the [homosexual] individual,” Saxe said. “It's an act that is in violation of God's law. That is the teaching we give our children.”

The Saxe children are referred to in the suit only as Student Doe 1 and Student Doe 2, and Saxe has declined to be more specific in identifying them.

Neither had spoken about the Church's teaching in school, he said, but he believes they might have. “There are occasions in the classroom when I would want my children to be able to speak freely about who they are.”

Patricia Best, superintendent of the State College schools, said in passing the anti-harassment policy the school board was acting out of concern for students who are bullied or intimidated.

“Our intent was not to inhibit any student's expression of an opinion about something; however, it was to inhibit verbal harassment that would be demeaning to the extent it would interfere with learning.”

In addition to race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation and disability, the policy covers harassment based on “such things as clothing, physical appearance, social skills, peer group, income, intellect, educational program, hobbies or values, etc.”

Violation of the policy could result in a warning, exclusion, suspension, transfer, termination, discharge and counseling.

Bryan J. Brown of the Tupelo, Miss.-based American Family Association's Center for Law and Policy, who represented Saxe in the suit against the school board, argued that the policy would have discriminated against students with certain moral and religious viewpoints.

For example, he said, a student who said something negative about homosexuality because it was his religious belief could be punished while another student who openly celebrated homosexuality could speak without fear even if he offended others. “Indeed, even quoting from the Catholic Catechism under this code could have gotten a student disciplined.”

Brown, who is Catholic, cited sections of the Catechism that deal with chastity and homosexuality in his principal brief.

“Catholic students who wanted to be faithful to the magisterium really had reason to fear this policy,” he said. “For us, that was one of the bottom lines. If you're going to be faithful to the orthodox position and speak on it, you will be punished according to this policy.”

Matt Chelko, a senior at State College Area High School and a member of Good Shepherd Catholic Church, said although some harassment may go on in his school, he thinks most students are generally very accepting of each other and in no great need of an anti-harassment policy.

“I personally felt that humans are intelligent enough to understand whether a comment is over the line or not and really shouldn't need a policy to guide ourselves about it.”

Best said enactment of the policy followed a lively public discussion in the community that lasted more than a year. “There was a lot of opposition and a lot of support.”

She said that since the Third Circuit recognized the school district's interest in promoting a safe educational environment, which was the goal of the policy, the board will now proceed with a revision.

Brown said if that is the motive of school officials, he is confident they will be able to draft a code that meets constitutional muster and satisfies Saxe.

“ Saxe's concerns are no broader than the First Amendment. If SCASD [State College Area School District] is now willing to be bound by the same law, then this litigation has run its course.”

Judy Roberts writes from Toledo, Ohio.