ISU sued for blocking pride festival
The Pride Center is a non-profit organization that works to create a positive impact on the lives of LGBTQ+ individuals in and around Vigo County.
In 2023 and 2024, The Pride Center held its Pride Fest on ISU's campus, but in 2025 the ACLU of Indiana said 'without The Pride Center's knowledge, ISU secured an agreement from the city of Terre Haute to hold Pride Fest at a city park off-campus in 2025.'
ACLU says Loogootee Pride Fest is back on
In previous years, the festival was held in the 'Quad' on ISU's campus, and the ACLU of Indiana said this open area is designed for 'expressive activity' by both ISU and Indiana Law.
The ACLU of Indiana claims moving the festival off campus is in violation of both the university's own policies and the Constitution.
'ISU's failure to provide Pride Fest an on-campus location is directly related to the message of inclusivity, equality, and support conveyed by all Pride festivals. It is clear that the university is censoring Pride Fest because of its support of the LGBTQ+ community. The Pride Center has a First Amendment right to hold their festival in the Indiana State University Quad – a space explicitly designated as a place for free expression,' said the ACLU of Indiana Legal Director Ken Falk in a press release regarding the suit.
Rich Lowry speaks with WTWO after ISU cancels his Speaker Series event
The Pride Center also alleges that an on-campus site is essential to The Pride Festival as it is a way to show new students that ISU is a welcoming campus.
'The University's denial of a reservation for Pride Fest is part of a recent pattern of ISU preventing or discouraging actions and events that are intended to support the LGBTQ+ community,' said the ACLU of Indiana
WTWO/WAWV has reached out to ISU, the ACLU of Indiana and The Pride Center for comment.
A representative with Indiana State University has told WTWO/WAWV that the university is not able to comment on pending litigation.
We are still waiting for responses from the ALCU of Indiana and The Pride Center.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Oklahoma testing some incoming teachers to spot ‘radical leftist ideology'
A new test will be administered to out-of-state teachers coming to Oklahoma from blue states in a move the state superintendent said is meant to root out 'radical leftist ideology' from classrooms. The test, set to be administered by conservative educational platform PragerU, will be required for the teachers to receive an Oklahoma certification. 'As long as I am superintendent, Oklahoma classrooms will be safeguarded from the radical leftist ideology fostered in places like California and New York. Any teacher coming from these states will be required to pass our new PragerU assessment before receiving certification, because we refuse to let Gavin Newsom's woke, Marxist agenda turn Oklahoma into the same dumpster fire California has become,' Ryan Walters said. The test has not been administered yet but a spokesperson for Walters's office said it will be 'very soon.' While the full test was not shared, some questions seen by The Hill ask incoming teachers basic civics questions, such as the first three words of the Constitution and why freedom of religion is important in America. The move comes after other controversial initiatives by Walters in Oklahoma such as trying to put Bibles in every classroom or changing the way the 2020 election is taught to work in President Trump's baseless allegations of widespread fraud.
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
California Republicans file suit to halt redistricting plan
California Republican legislators on Tuesday announced a state Supreme Court petition, an effort to stop Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) plan to redistrict House seats in the Golden State. 'Today I joined my colleagues in filing a lawsuit challenging the rushed redistricting process. California's Constitution requires bills to be in print for 30 days, but that safeguard was ignored. By bypassing this provision, Sacramento has effectively shut voters out of engaging in their own legislative process,' Assemblyman Tri Ta said on X. The petition cites a section of the state constitution that requires a month-long review period for new legislation. Democrats are working quickly to set up a special election that would let voters weigh in on the redistricting plan. Four state Republican legislators have signed on to the petition, according to a copy for a writ of mandate, shared by the New York Times. They're asking for immediate relief, no later than Aug. 20, and arguing that action can't be taken on the legislative package before Sep. 18. 'Last night, we filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to stop the California legislature from violating the rights of the people of California,' said Mike Columbo, a partner at Dhillon Law Group, in a Tuesday press conference alongside California Republicans. 'The California constitution clearly gives the people of California the right to see new legislation that the legislature is going to consider, and it gives them the right to review it for 30 days,' Columbo said. California Democrats swiftly introduced the redistricting legislative package when they reconvened after summer break on Monday, and are expected to vote as soon as Thursday. They have until Friday to complete the plan in time to set up a Nov. 4 special election. Columbo called that pace of action a 'flagrant violation' under the state constitution. Democrats are aiming to put a ballot measure before voters that would allow temporary redistricting, effectively bypassing the existing independent redistricting commission — which was approved by voters more than a decade ago and typically redistricts after each census — to redraw lines in direct response to GOP gerrymandering in other states. California Republicans have vowed to fight back. Democrats, on the other hand, are stressing that they're moving transparently to let voters have the final say on whether redistricting happens.
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jeffries vows to call Kristi Noem to testify in long-overdue oversight push
When House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries promised that Kristi Noem would be one of the first called before Congress if Democrats take the majority in 2026, he wasn't just previewing political theater — he was signaling a long-overdue accountability moment. Because what we've seen under Noem's watch as Homeland Security secretary isn't just controversial policy, it's a collision between power and the Constitution. Listen, the government has every right to deport violent criminals. But what we're talking about here isn't that. These are families being ripped apart, U.S. citizen children deported to countries they've never known, and raids on churches, swap meets and sidewalks that read less like lawful arrests and more like kidnappings in broad daylight. Armed, masked agents storming neighborhoods — it looks less like 'law and order' and more like a scene from a dystopian movie. Except it's not fiction. It's happening here. And at the center of it is Secretary Noem, who, when asked to define 'habeas corpus' earlier this year — which, by the way, is a bedrock constitutional right — got it flat-out wrong. She described it as the president's power to deport people. That's not just a slip of the tongue; that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the very principle that protects all of us from government overreach. Habeas corpus is the right of a person to challenge their detention. Without it, the government could lock up anyone indefinitely. Even Abraham Lincoln had to go to Congress before suspending it during the Civil War. Yet somehow, Kristi Noem thinks she can redefine it on the fly. Meanwhile, lawsuits are piling up. The ACLU and others say these mass raids aren't about justice, they're about quotas. Three thousand arrests a day, demanded from the White House, no matter who gets caught in the dragnet. The result? Overcrowded, dungeon-like detention centers, families denied food, water and lawyers. That's not just cruel — it's unconstitutional. And it costs taxpayers millions to warehouse people who pose no threat to society. Jeffries is right: this calls for oversight. Not partisan point-scoring, but a public examination of what happens when immigration policy is driven by fear, politics and raw numbers instead of law, due process and human dignity. Because if the government can strip immigrants of rights today, what's to stop them from doing the same to citizens tomorrow? Kristi Noem may soon face Congress, but make no mistake — this is bigger than her. It's about whether America will continue to twist the meaning of justice until it serves whoever holds power, or whether we'll insist that justice, in this country, still means something. This isn't about Kristi Noem forgetting her civics lesson. It's about whether America still remembers its own.
