Ruling also references ‘Mrs. Doubtfire’: ‘Performances by men dressed as women are nothing new’
A federal judge struck down an attempt by Texas A&M University (TAMU) officials to ban drag performances across its 11 campuses, ruling that the policy is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal issued the ruling Monday granting a temporary injunction against the university’s policy while a lawsuit filed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) on behalf of the student group moves forward.
The Queer Empowerment Council, a coalition of LGBT-identified students, had faced cancellation of their event after the TAMU Board of Regents voted in February to prohibit drag performances, citing a recent executive order from President Donald Trump on “gender ideology.” The board claimed such shows were “offensive” and “inconsistent with” the university’s “core values of its universities, including the value of respect for others.”
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Subscribe to get daily/weekly email with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.
The decision ensures that “Draggieland,” an annual drag show organized by the Queer Empowerment Council at Texas A&M University-College Station, will proceed as scheduled this Thursday.
In her ruling, Judge Rosenthal emphasized the constitutional protections afforded to theatrical expression like drag, drawing on centuries of historical precedent.
“Performances by men dressed as women are nothing new,” she wrote. “Men have been dressing as women in theater and film for centuries. It is well-established among scholars of Shakespeare’s literary works that, when his plays were written and performed, female characters were played by young men dressed in women’s attire.” She referenced the Royal Shakespeare Company’s documentation, noting how this practice was standard in Elizabethan England.
Rosenthal further highlighted the evolution and persistence of performances, pointing to the Elizabethan-era works of William Shakespeare.
“Women may not have been permitted to perform themselves in Shakespeare’s time, but that has not been true for many years,” she continued. “Yet many popular contemporary musicals and films have included male characters dressed in what amounts to drag, including Hairspray (1988), Mrs. Doubtfire (1993), and White Chicks (2004). In the college campus context, organizations like Harvard University’s Hasty Pudding Club have put on performances with male performers dressed in drag in campus theaters for centuries. Those performances continue to this day.”
The court found that the Queer Empowerment Council was likely to succeed in proving the ban unconstitutional, rejecting the university’s justifications — including claims that drag could create a “hostile environment” for women — as insufficient to override First Amendment protections. The ruling cited precedent from the 2010 case, Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez, which addressed the balance between university policies and student expression.
Addressing the university’s objections, Rosenthal posed a critical question: “When do performances in which men dress as women cross the line from entertaining to demeaning? The impossibility of objectively answering that question demonstrates why such standards are impermissible as the basis for a restriction on expressive conduct.”
She concluded that the First Amendment does not bend to subjective offense, stating: “In recent years, the commitment to free speech on campuses has been both challenging and challenged. There have been efforts from all sides of the political spectrum to disrupt or prevent students, faculty, and others from expressing opinions and speech that are deemed, or actually are, offensive or wrong. But the law requires the recognition and application of speech rights and guardrails that preserve and protect all our treasured First Amendment rights. Anyone who finds the performance or performers offensive has a simple remedy: don’t go.”
FIRE, which brought the case earlier this month, celebrated the outcome. “Today is a resounding victory for the First Amendment at public universities in Texas,” said Attorney Adam Steinbaugh, who argued the case last week. “The court reaffirmed that state university officials cannot block student expression they claim is offensive. State officials should stop trying to score political points at the expense of students’ First Amendment rights.”
“Texas A&M, like any public university, has the utmost duty to respect the First Amendment rights of students,” said FIRE Supervising Senior Attorney JT Morris. “As public officials, they can’t banish speech from campus just because it offends them, any more than they could shut down a political rally or a Christmas pageant.”
The Queer Empowerment Council, which has hosted “Draggieland” — a blend of “Drag” and “Aggieland” — every year since 2020, celebrated the ruling, calling it “another display of the resilience of queer joy, as that is an unstoppable force despite those that wish to see it destroyed. While this fight isn’t over, we are going to appreciate the joy we get to bring by putting on the best show that we can do.”
The fight over drag shows in the TAMU system goes back to at least 2023, when West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler cited the Bible and other religious texts to support his decision to cancel a planned drag show scheduled to take place on campus.
At the time, Wendler compared his opposition to the drag show to not supporting “blackface” performances on campus, calling such displays “wrong.”
“I do not support any show, performance or artistic expression which denigrates others — in this case, women — for any reason,” he added.
