I wrote up a summary of our meeting, which I thought I’d forward on to you just for records sake. I think the stance of the university is clear to me now, though I still personally interpret it as unjust and discriminatory, I want to thank you for your help thus far.

Thank you again,
Olympia
 

June 14:  The Director of Diversity and Compliance and myself have a meeting in which she reveals to me her conclusion that although I may have the common law right to change my name, and the right to change my gender, the university is not required to honor those rights to self determination. She presented several reasons, which appeared to me at the meeting to be at their core are based on personal fears and not in law.

The first main reason she gave, was that according to a statement by the state attorney general, Bill Lockyer, they were not bound to honor common law name changes. Particularly she quoted to me the line that reads:

“Thus ‘validity,’ for purposes of a common law name change, means that one has the freedom to change one’s name and to use whatever name he or she chooses, qualified only by the proviso that the purpose not be dishonest. To change one’s name by the common law method is to exercise the freedom to unbind oneself from the given name or surname acquired through birth or prior assumption, and to identify oneself anew; it is not to unilaterally impose recognition or acceptance of the newly chosen name as an obligation incumbent upon others.”

Of greatest value to her were the words “it is not to unilaterally impose recognition or acceptance of the newly chosen name as an obligation incumbent upon others.” And because it is not “incumbent” upon them to honor my rights, that they thus have the freedom to discriminate against me based on whatever reason they have. In response to this I quoted several federal court cases which explained how a common law name change carries the exact same legal weight as a court issued name change --- and how even a court issued name change does not obligate people to recognize it unilaterally. I gave the example of someone I know on the university campus who is a very conservative Christian. His specific beliefs in God include that gender is something fixed and God assigned, so he still refuses to recognize me by my new name and gender. This is understandable. Even a court order could not force him to recognize it. And clearly the “nexus between the new name and the individual” in this case, this conceptual leap for him is just too big, and for the university --- they have assigned that certain documents to “prove” that conceptual leap for them.

Another main reason she gave was that the university was not being discriminatory because their policy was consistently discriminatory against everyone, meaning that they applied the same rules with everyone. For instance, if anyone else was coming in, they would apply the same rules of proof regarding name and gender changes, regardless of the individual, and, thus, because of their consistency in their discrimination against everyone, their policy is not considered discrimination.

As well, she also argued that if they did honor the common law rights of people to change their name and gender at will, well, then everyone might do it, and such an instance might become a security threat. It seemed that this reason was the core reason. All the rest of her quoting was hinged on the Lockyer analysis being a loophole which allowed discrimination based on whatever reason, or no reason at all -- the Lockyer report allowed them to be arbitrary and capricious. This particular excuse of my name change being a threat to security and the stability of their policies is arguably not based on law but on personal fears.

So essentially, in summary, they claim the right to regulate how fixed people’s identities will be. They claim the right to universally limit people’s rights by drawing lines concerning their own nexus based on personal fears, because it is not “incumbent” upon them to. And thus they claim that their discrimination in reference to name and gender is legal. Much at issue is, how much can a government entity infringe on the rights of the people at a policy level based on personal fears?

Consider though the numerous references in court cases and even in the statement by the attorney general about ‘honesty’ and not being involved in fraud being a hallmark of the worthiness of the common law method of name change --- such statements speak to trusting in the freewill of the people. I can understand the possibility of having a ‘reasonable’ nexus based on personal fears, but when one considers the state codes and many court cases that say that at will name and gender self-determination is legal and needs to be honored, that honest, self-determination is something to be trusted, such words evoke that it is not the place of the university to take upon themselves the act of being a policeman of name and gender based on the attorney general saying that they can out of fear of even arbitrarily ignore these laws. Though this is what they are claiming.