#

Arlene Quaratiello wasn’t going to give up when she was fired from her assistant librarian job at Raymond’s Dudley-Tucker Library for supporting conservative political candidates.

“You’ve got to fight,” Quaratiello told NHJournal.

Now, thanks to help from the American Center for Law and Justice, Quaratiello scored a major legal victory. The town of Raymond publicly admits to violating her First Amendment rights when it fired her.

“Somebody else might not fight back, but I knew what they did was wrong,” she said.

Arlene Quaratiello

Quaratiello knew that Library Director Kirsten Rundquist Corbett and Raymond Town Manager Ernest Cartier Creveling were wrong when they fired her last year. A Republican state representative in Atkinson, Quaratiello was told she was terminated for supporting conservative candidates in the Atkinson election for library trustees.

“You have not fulfilled the conditions of employment because of your lack of separation of personal/political values and agendas from DTL policies, procedures, and occurrences,” the termination letter stated. 

Quaratiello’s alleged violation of Dudley-Tucker values was to write a letter to the editor in Carriage Towne News supporting Pam Borisko and Christine Latino in their race for Atkinson library trustee. Both Borisko and Latino supported keeping age-inappropriate material away from children.

“They also believe in protecting our children from the increasing amount of inappropriate material available both in print and online without sacrificing the intellectual freedom that has always characterized public libraries,” Quaratiello wrote in her endorsement letter.

Neither Corbett nor current Town Manager Ken Robichaud responded to a request for comment. 

Quaratiello pushed back and kept her job as she looked for an attorney willing to take the case. After several lawyers declined, the ACLJ stepped up. Executive Director Jordan Sekulow said the lawsuit his organization filed is about protecting everyone’s rights.

“Our lawsuit was about protecting the rights of citizens to speak out about the issues that affect all of us and ensuring a conservative voice can still be heard,” Sekulow said.

The Dudley-Tucker Library in Raymond, N.H.

U.S. District Court Judge Andrea Johnstone issued a consent decree Tuesday requiring Raymond and the Dudley-Tucker Library to admit they wronged Quaratiello. They must also take steps to make sure they don’t repeat this treatment with future employees.

“She now has a court order explaining that her rights were violated and providing her explicit, extensive legal protection in case anything similar happens again,” Sekulow said of Quaratiello.

Quaratiello told NHJournal she was offered a lot of money to settle the case. At one point, the town dangled months of salary in exchange for a quiet resignation. But that was never what Quaratiello wanted.

“No one ever said they did anything wrong,” she said of her treatment by town officials.

The idea of any financial settlement made Quaratiello uneasy, as it would ultimately hurt local taxpayers. Instead, she is pleased with the statement from the town admitting wrongdoing.

When the Northwood School Board meets Wednesday night, it won’t be to cover the “three R’s.” Instead, they’ll be dealing with the “N-word” and other racial and obscene comments from one of their own members: outspoken progressive Gary Caron.

Caron has a history of using obscene and sexually explicit language to attack conservatives and Republicans in social posts, and the newest member of Northwood’s School Board hasn’t slowed down since taking office.

When a conservative commentator posted a meme with the message that former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) ought to be sent to the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp last week, Caron responded with a sexual threat.

“I’d love to see you in GTMO after I [explicit] your ass red raw,” Caron posted.

When another conservative account posted a photo of controversial Republican political candidate Kari Lake around that same time, Caron was quick with a misogynistic response.

“Gfyself lying c—t,” Caron wrote.

Caron posted dozens of obscene, angry, and violent messages on Twitter/X over the past few years, mostly directed at conservative and Republican figures. One post about Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) from January includes an implied racial slur targeting African Americans.

“F**king house N—a sellout coward c***suvker gfyself,” Caron wrote.

After a flurry of complaints over the Presidents Day weekend, Caron’s fellow board members had had enough. Northwood Superintendent Nathaniel Byrne told NHJournal that the board will be addressing Caron’s behavior at the upcoming meeting.

The board will discuss “racist, graphic, and violent social media posts from a current school board member.” Caron plans to be at the meeting, according to Byrne.

Caron was elected to a three-year term on the board last March when he ran unopposed for the seat. The retired engineer worked for the United States Navy on submarine modernization and weapons systems, according to his resume posted on LinkedIn. As part of his work, Caron held a security clearance.

Caron could not be reached for comment as the several phone numbers publicly associated with him, including the cell phone number on his resume, were disconnected or are no longer in service.

According to a questionnaire he filled out prior to last year’s school board election, Caron is concerned with how children are taught history in school.

“Issues of importance are teaching truth, American history, civics, democracy, civil rights, and civil liberties,” Caron wrote.

There is a noticeable lack of advocacy for civil rights — or civility in general — in Caron’s public postings. And he’s made no secret of his partisan leanings, declaring his “hate” for “Trump, his supporters, White men, Christians and Conservatives.”

“This is vile and disgusting. This man makes decisions regarding the materials that will be in the hands of children and public policy,” wrote Manchester politico Victoria Sullivan, one of the Granite Staters who brought Caron’s posts to the school board’s attention.

It’s not clear what Caron will do next or what the board can do about his posts. Byrne has spoken to Caron and told NHJournal he doesn’t know if Caron plans to resign his seat, though the possibility was mentioned.

“I’m not aware of his decision. I do know he will be at the meeting this week,” Byrne said.

Wednesday’s meeting could prove frustrating for anyone hoping the board takes action. Northwood’s school board does not have a policy dealing with social media use by members, Byrne said.

“The board is not allowed to infringe on any other members’ First Amendment rights,” Byrne said.

The board does have a code of ethics policy, however, and Byrne said that will guide Wednesday’s discussion about Caron’s social media posts. But that policy, last updated in 2015, mostly concerns board member interactions with other board members. It does not address how board members conduct themselves with members of the general public.

Even if Eric Spofford is charged as part of the vandalism conspiracy targeting New Hampshire Public Radio reporter Lauren Chooljian, he still has the right to sue the broadcaster for defamation, according to Rockingham Superior Court Judge Daniel St. Hilaire. 

This week’s ruling was a setback for NHPR, which sought to head off Spofford’s attempt to revive the defamation lawsuit. Spofford maintains NHPR and Chooljian were reckless in reporting allegations of sexual misconduct and sexual assault against him.

The public broadcaster argued Spofford’s connection to Eric Labarge and the alleged criminal conspiracy showed his bad faith in the lawsuit. They wanted the court to end his quest to see Chooljian’s work product.

Spofford’s associate, Labarge, 46, was charged this month for allegedly conspiring to vandalize the homes of Chooljian, NHPR journalist Dan Barrick, and their families. Larbarge allegedly coordinated the vandalism with co-defendants Tucker Cockerline, 32, of Salem; Michael Waselchuck, 35, of Seabrook; and Keenan Saniatan, 36, of Nashua.

Labarge, himself the owner of several recovery centers, is described by prosecutors as Spofford’s “close personal associate.”

St. Hilaire denied NHPR’s request to prevent Spofford from accessing Chooljian’s notes and interview transcripts for her story. For St. Hilaire, it was about the presumption of innocence.

“Even if charges were brought against Spofford directly, the Court is not convinced that would warrant reconsideration of the balance of interest in this case given the presumption of innocence at the core of our criminal justice system,” St. Hilaire wrote.

Spofford is not accused of taking part in the vandalism conspiracy himself. According to St. Hilaire, the available documents from the federal case don’t show he was even aware of the vandalism conspiracy.

St. Hilaire dismissed Spofford’s lawsuit this year, finding he had not provided the evidence in his 300-plus page complaint to back his claims. However, Spofford is being allowed to refile the complaint. For that, Spofford said he needs to see Chooljian’s notes and interview transcripts to find the evidence St. Hilaire found lacking the first time.

With the defamation case still open for now, NHPR has been broadcasting a new series by Chooljian, “The 13th Step.” The program focuses on her story of reporting on Spofford, the vandalism, and the lawsuit. It also looks at cases of sexual predators in recovery settings in other states.

Spofford has denied all wrongdoing alleged in Chooljian’s reporting. His lawsuit claimed Chooljian based her reporting on a biased source who was looking to hurt his reputation, ignored sources who contradicted the abuse narrative, and reported as fact things that never happened. 

According to Spofford’s lawsuit, Chooljian was looking for a #metoo scalp to bolster her resume, and she and the liberal-leaning NHPR targeted him because of his conservative views.

Spofford came to prominence as a recovery success story. He was an addict who got clean and started Granite Recover Centers to help others. His business grew as New Hampshire grappled with its opioid addiction crisis, and he became a leading voice on recovery initiatives. Spofford even counseled Gov. Chris Sununu on dealing with the opioid crisis.

Spofford sold Granite Recovery Centers for an undisclosed sum, thought to be in the millions, to a Texas-based company in 2021.

Granite State college students enjoy greater freedom of speech at the University of New Hampshire than their peers at the prestigious Ivy League school, Dartmouth College.

The annual college rankings released this week by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE, puts UNH third nationally, trailing only Michigan Tech and Auburn.

UNH President James W. “Jim” Dean Jr. said the school takes its responsibility to foster speech seriously.

“Free speech is one of the most fundamental American constitutional rights. As a public university, UNH protects and promotes this value by ensuring our students can be exposed to new and different ideas that will hopefully inspire growth and intellectual curiosity,” Dean said. “This new report from FIRE validates the work we have done and will continue to do to foster an environment where free speech can flourish.”

Meanwhile, Dartmouth, one of the most exclusive — and expensive — colleges in America, ranks near the bottom: 240 out of 248.

That’s a major drop-off for Dartmouth, which came in at 63 in 2021 and 83 in 2022.

According to data compiled by FIRE, a big reason behind that wide gap is UNH students don’t think it is acceptable to shut down controversial speakers, while Dartmouth students are OK with censorship.

FIRE’s Director of Polling and Analytics, Sean Stevens, said students at elite schools like Dartmouth, Harvard University (248), Northwestern (242), and Georgetown (245) are more inclined to prevent speakers they don’t like from being heard on campus The common denominator is those schools are predominately liberal

“There’s this elite culture to be tolerant, but most of those schools do poorly on the disruptive conduct survey,” Stevens said. 

As part of the review process, students were surveyed about how comfortable they felt speaking about controversial topics on campus and in class. They were also asked if shutting down speakers through protest, disruption, or even violence was ever acceptable.

“As you get more and more liberal on the spectrum (the students) are more likely to say those things are at least rarely acceptable,” Stevens said.

One of the findings: Many college students think shouting down a speaker is acceptable behavior, even at schools that rank highly. At UNH, just 44 percent of students said shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus is always unacceptable. 

At Dartmouth, however, that dropped to 26 percent, meaning most students believe in stopping speakers they don’t like. That comes as no surprise to center-right students at Dartmouth. 

Last year, conservative journalist Andy Ngo’s scheduled in-person appearance at Dartmouth was canceled after a deluge of online threats from leftwing opponents. In 2020, more leftist threats of violence forced the cancellation of Republican U.S. Senate candidate Corky Messner’s scheduled speech on the need for border security to halt the flow of opioids into the U.S.

Stevens cited the Ngo and Messner events as reasons for Dartmouth’s poor ranking.

“They can’t undo the disinvitations, but they can do better,” Stevens said.

In contrast, UNH stood by a controversial group over objections from liberal students, Stevens said. In March, students staged a walkout after the Christian Legal Society student group planned a vigil for victims of a Tennessee school shooting. UNH liberal activists accused the Christian group of engaging in anti-transgender hate. The Tennessee shooter identified as transgender.

UNH also announced Wednesday that Dean is retiring as president on June 30, 2024.

In a legal setback for the liberal news outlet, the New Hampshire Public Radio reporter behind a story targeting former Granite State Recovery CEO Eric Spofford has been ordered to hand over her reporting notes and interview transcripts in his defamation case against the station.

Rockingham Superior Court Judge Daniel St. Hilaire ruled this week that Spofford has a right to review the reporting materials NHPR reporter Lauren Chooljian created when she reported on the serious allegations of sexual assault and harassment against Spofford.

“Upon review, the Court agrees with Spofford that some of the discovery materials he requests could, in theory, include evidence that the NHPR defendants acted with actual malice,” St. Hilaire wrote.

Spofford and his legal team will be able to review notes Chooljian took and transcripts of recorded interviews she conducted with witnesses and alleged victims. The materials must first be produced for the judge to review in a non-public “in camera” hearing where it will be determined what, if anything, is relevant to Spofford’s case.

NHPR objected to the discovery request on the grounds it would ultimately have a chilling effect on speech.

The records to be reviewed include interviews and any correspondence Chooljian had with NHPR colleagues about these sources and their perceived credibility. 

Spofford maintained the sources Chooljian used for the story lied and had obvious credibility issues. He also argued Chooljian likely knew there were problems with the sources, but she and NHPR reported the story anyway.

One key source Spofford is targeting in his search for proof of malice is his ex-girlfriend, Amy Anagnost Cloutier. Spofford has claimed in court records Anagnost Cloutier was intent on ruining his reputation as part of a bitter custody dispute.

Chooljian reported allegations against Spofford last year involving women who either worked for him or were clients at his recovery centers. Spofford has maintained his denials throughout the reporting and subsequent lawsuit against NHPR.

St. Hilaire initially ruled against Spofford in April, stating the lawsuit did not show actual malice on the part of Chooljian and NHPR. The judge did give Spofford time to amend his lawsuit to add more evidence of malice, and Spofford’s quest for documents was part of that effort.

Chooljian and NHPR have not been idle in the months since the ruling. The public broadcaster is releasing a podcast this month, including a new allegation against Spofford. Spofford offered to sit down for an interview with Chooljian for the podcast, but his offer was rejected.

As part of the ruling, Spofford must pay for all the recorded interviews he requested to be transcribed. Spofford sold Granite State Recovery to a Texas company last year for an undisclosed sum. 

New Hampshire Public Radio is taking another shot at former Granite State Recover CEO Eric Spofford with a planned podcast making new allegations of sexual misconduct. But the show won’t include Spofford’s side of the story.

The new production, coming out in early June, includes a story from an anonymous woman who claims she sent Spofford “intimate photos of herself” sometime in 2009 after he asked, according to court records.

“NHPR’s reporting apparently also will feature a new anonymous accuser—who was neither a patient nor employee, and who for apparently the first time ever and with no indication of corroboration—alleges Eric, in 2009 (14 years ago), requested that she send him ‘intimate photos of herself – and she [allegedly] did,’” wrote Michael Strauss, Spofford’s attorney.

Spofford is challenging the order dismissing his defamation lawsuit against NHPR for its story published last year alleging he sexually harassed and assaulted women using his position as the founder of the drug addiction recovery centers. He is currently seeking more time to file a new complaint in the case. NHPR is fighting that motion in court.

According to Strauss’s latest filing, Spofford offered to sit down with NHPR reporter Lauren Chooljian for a no-holds-barred interview ahead of the new podcast. But the liberal media organization wasn’t interested.

“When Chooljian sprung NHPR’s plan for a new podcast series on Eric and requested he answer, effectively, 12 multi-part interrogatories, Eric offered NHPR and Chooljian something better: An in-person, unlimited-in-scope interview with him, on just two conditions: (i) Eric would be permitted to record the interview, and (ii) NHPR would publish, contemporaneously with and as part of the podcast series, the complete unedited version of the interview. NHPR refused,” Strauss wrote.

Rockingham Superior Court Judge Daniel St. Hilaire ruled in NHPR’s favor in March, stating Spofford failed to show that anyone at NHPR engaged in malice when reporting about the sexual assault allegations, despite the claims of bias and shoddy reporting in the lawsuit. Spofford maintains he never engaged in the sexual misconduct alleged in NHPR’s coverage.

Spofford claimed in his original lawsuit that Chooljian targeted him because of his Republican politics, and the public broadcaster used the story to raise money from donors.

“Chooljian viewed Eric as her opportunity to ascend the journalism ranks. To Chooljian, a #MeToo-styled report about a white male, Republican donor, and bold and successful businessman, who made money in the substance use disorder treatment business, had all the markings of a career-defining piece,” the lawsuit states.

In subsequent filings, Spofford went on to allege Chooljian relied on biased sources, like his ex-wife with whom he was engaged in a bitter custody dispute, and reported on nonexistent facts, such as a Snapchat photo of his penis sent to one victim. Spofford claims the photo does not exist and that Chooljian never saw the photo before reporting on it.

According to the filings, Chooljian and the station ignored witnesses who contradicted the story and refused to run statements that Spofford believed cleared him. 

In a sign the lawsuit accusing New Hampshire Public Radio of #metoo inspired defamation isn’t over yet, former Granite Recovery Centers CEO Eric Spofford is demanding access to evidence, including reporter Laura Chooljian’s notes.

Spofford claims NHPR ruined his life when it broadcast stories about his alleged sexual abuse of women connected to his drug-action recovery centers. Spofford says those stories were based on statements from openly biased sources and used phantom evidence that did not exist.

Rockingham Superior Court Judge Daniel St. Hilaire sided with the public broadcaster in dismissing Spofford’s lawsuit last week, finding that he failed to establish that anyone at NHPR engaged in malice when reporting about the sexual assault allegations. 

That dismissal, however, gave Spofford 30 days to amend his lawsuit to keep the complaint against NHPR alive in court. On Wednesday, Spofford’s attorney Michael Stauss filed a motion for evidence and a delay in the deadline to refile the lawsuit with an amended complaint that lays out evidence of malice.

“Because the New Hampshire Constitution entitles Eric to his day in court to hold the NHPR Defendants accountable for defaming him, he should be given a fair opportunity to sufficiently allege actual malice,” Strauss wrote.

Spofford wants any recording Chooljian made with the sources she used for the story, any emails she sent to NHPR colleagues about the credibility of those sources, and her reporting notes from the story. The also is also seeking recordings, notes, and communications between Chooljian and Amy Cloutier, formerly Amy Anagnost, who is Spofford’s ex-girlfriend. 

Spofford maintains the stories the sources told were not only false, but Chooljian likely knew there were problems with the sources and reported the accusations anyway. Getting access to the recordings, notes, and communications will allow him to show NHPR broadcast the story with a disregard for the truth, according to the motion.

St. Hilarie ruled Spofford’s complaint needs to show ‘clearer indicia’ of a reckless disregard for the truth to show NHPR acted with malice.

“If this story, as the NHPR Defendants have ardently claimed, were meticulously investigated and reported, then this discovery would only serve to enhance their defense. If, alternatively, the NHPR Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the falsity of their reporting, then this discovery would fairly enable Eric to allege, with the ‘clearer indicia’ desired by the court, their actual malice,” Strauss wrote.

Spofford has claimed in court records that Cloutier/Anagnost made up the story as part of an effort to hurt him during a contested child custody issue. According to court records, she served as a major source for Chooljian and connected her with other sources as part of her scheme to harm Spofford.

“The NHPR Defendants relied on Amy and the sources she cherry-picked for Chooljian, despite her obvious unreliability (after years of long-term recovery from alcoholism and addiction, she has relapsed, and that relapse occurred at or around when she started as a source for the NHPR Defendants) and notwithstanding her known and unmistakable bias against and ill-will toward Eric as reflected in publicly available records,” Strauss wrote in a motion filed last year.

Spofford claims the liberal-leaning NHPR targeted him because he built a politically-connected profile with Granite Recovery Centers. As the drug abuse recovery centers became the largest recovery facilities in New Hampshire, Spofford even counseled Gov. Chris Sununu on the response to New Hampshire’s opined epidemic.

Last year, Spofford sold Granite Recovery Centers to BayMark Health Services, a Texas-based treatment company. The sale price wasn’t disclosed.

Rockingham Superior Court Judge Daniel St. Hilaire is siding with New Hampshire Public Radio, dismissing the defamation lawsuit brought by Eric Spofford over stories alleging he engaged in sexual misconduct while he was Granite Recovery Centers’ CEO.

Spofford filed the suit against NHPR in October, claiming the public radio station ruined his life and career when it reported a story in which women accused him of sexual harassment and assault. Spoffird claimed the reporters and editors involved in the story relied on biased sources and scant evidence.

St. Hilaire’s ruling, released this week, said Spofford failed to establish proof of actual malice by anyone at NHPR reporting on the sexual assault allegations, despite whatever bias and shoddy reporting Spofford claimed.

“Absent clearer indicia that the NHPR defendants acted in bad faith in relying on these sources, or were subjectively aware that the information provided by these sources was probably false, (the lawsuit) failed to allege actual malice,” St. Hilaire wrote.

In the landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled public figures can only claim defamation when they can prove reporters acted with malice, “that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.” That would include reporting facts the reporters knew were untrue or acted with reckless disregard for truth.

St. Hilaire also ruled Spofford could be considered a limited-purpose public figure and therefore held to the Sullivan standard.

“By outwardly presenting himself as a national figure in the fight against opioid addiction and emphasizing the inspirational nature of his own story of recovery, Spofford voluntarily stepped into the midst of an ongoing controversy and assumed the risk of public discourse surrounding his conduct and his fitness as a leader in the field,” St. Hilaire wrote.

According to St. Hilaire’s ruling, Spofford has 30 days to file a new, amended complaint to allege actions that would qualify as actual malice. Absent that, the case will be dismissed.

Spofford claimed in his original complaint that NHPR reporter Lauren Chooljian targeted him because of his Republican politics and that the station used the story to raise money from its left-leaning audience.

“Chooljian viewed Eric as her opportunity to ascend the journalism ranks. To Chooljian, a #MeToo-styled report about a white male, Republican donor, and bold and successful businessman, who made money in the substance use disorder treatment business, had all the markings of a career-defining piece,” the lawsuit states.

Spofford went on to allege in subsequent filings that Chooljian relied on biased sources, like his ex with whom he was engaged in a bitter custody dispute, and reported on nonexistent facts, like a Snapchat photo of his penis sent to one of the victims. Spofford claimed the photo does not exist and that Chooljian never saw the photo before reporting on it.

Chooljian and the station further ignored witnesses who contradicted the story and refused to run statements that Spofford believed cleared him, according to the filings. 

Spofford maintains he never engaged in the sexual misconduct alleged in NHPR’s coverage. Spofford sold Granite Recovery Centers to BayMark Health Services, a Texas-based treatment company, last year. The sale price was not disclosed.

When the University of New Hampshire Students for Life planned an event on campus, opponents of their pro-life politics took action. They planned their own event in the same building and simultaneously as a counterprotest to the Students for Life event.

This counterprogramming is significant because it was launched not by the pro-lifers’ fellow students but by UNH administrators — specifically the UNH Health and Wellness Center. And it is part of what pro-life UNH students say is a culture of opposition and intimidation at the Durham campus.

Katelyn Regan, president of the UNH pro-life group, said issues started soon after flyers went up advertising a talk by Kristan Hawkins, president of the Students for Life of America, called “Lies Pro Choicers Believe.”

Hawkins’ speech also features Isabel Brown, a conservative commentator with Turning Point USA. The event is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 18.

“We started to advertise and spread the word, and it didn’t take long for the UNH Health and Wellness Center to announce plans to host their own event. It’s in the exact same building at the exact same time,” Regan said.

The Health and Wellness Center is part of the UNH administration and is funded by taxpayers and student fees. It is not a student organization or a stand-alone entity.

The Health and Wellness Department’s “Choice & Cupcakes” is advertised as a “joyful celebration of abortion as healthcare.” The joyful abortion event also promised to give students safe sex supplies. Regan said the college was obviously trying to mute the pro-life event.

“There’s no way this was a coincidence,” Regan said.

And it’s not.

Erika Mantz, UNH’s executive director for media relations, confirmed the Health and Wellness Center planned their “Cupcakes & Choice” specifically to counter the pro-life speeches. After NHJournal and students began asking questions about the timing, the event was postponed.

“The ‘Cupcakes & Choice’ event was planned by a university office in response to student concerns,” Mantz told NHJournal. “Once the university learned the event had been planned for the same time as the Students for Life event, the decision was made to postpone it to avoid any perception that the university opposed a student event.

“UNH supports and is committed to protecting the principles of free speech, free expression, and the free exercise of religion,” Mantz added.

Not long after finding out about the school’s counterprogramming, Regan got an email from Patrick O’Neil, chairman of the UNH Student Activity Fee Committee, demanding that UNH Students for Life take down all the advertising for the event.

Regan told NH Journal that due to a mistake, the UNH Students for Life flyers included a disclaimer that the Student Activity Fee funds the event. That is not accurate, though the fee funds the printing of the flyers.

Because of that error, O’Neil wanted UNH Students for Life to take down all the flyers and replace them with copies with the correct disclaimer. All advertising materials for student club events that the college prints are required to have a disclaimer under school policy.

The school print shop had already approved the flyers, with no one catching the error. The demand to have the flyers removed clearly came after people on campus started to complain about pro-life speakers coming to the school, Regan said.

Regan told O’Neil in an email that he was free to find all of the erroneous flyers and replace them himself.

“Given that our flyers went through the approval process and nothing was flagged, we will not be taking down our flyers and will continue to use the flyers we have left over. Our event is a week away, and the incorrect print is so [small] that no one will pay too close attention to it anyway,” Regan wrote.

“Given that the mistake was overlooked by your office, if it is as big an issue as you make it seem, please feel free to take them down yourselves and replace them with the proper wording.”

Mantz said the mistake with the disclaimer should have been caught by the Student Activity Committee during the printing process. The UNH administration was not involved.

Regan has pushed against the UNH Health & Wellness pro-abortion culture for years. Health & Wellness staffers make referrals to the nearby abortion clinic for students seeking the procedure, but it does not refer pregnant women to the pro-life pregnancy center, which is closer to campus, she said.

In a podcast interview with NHJournal, Regan revealed that the Health and Wellness Center won’t allow students to even post information about crisis pregnancy centers on the same bulletin board covered with material from Planned Parenthood.

“Health and Wellness has refused to let us put up any life-affirming resource materials,” Regan said. “They have a brochure wall, and half of those brochures have a lovely little Planned Parenthood stamp on the bottom of them. They won’t let us.”

The UNH administration’s response to the pro-life event could be seen as a contradiction to its celebration of success supporting free speech on campus. UNH is ranked the third-best school in the U.S. for protecting and promoting free speech by FIRE, a national watchdog organization.

A Christian student organization has filed a complaint with the federal Department of Education over alleged unfair treatment on the campus of UNH Law School, largely at the hands of their fellow students who want the group shut down. Another group is facing protests over an email invitation to a vigil for the victims of the mass shooting at a Christian school.

It has become part of a larger national debate over the Biden administration’s decision to end a policy protecting religious liberty on campus.

According to the complaint, the Free Exercise Coalition (FEC) was denied official recognition as a student group at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law by the Student Bar Association (SBA) last year. While the group met all the requirements, SBA members attacked its leadership as “hateful bigots,” “oppressors,” and “a problem for the law school.”

The March 23 complaint was filed by First Liberty Institute, a non-profit legal organization promoting religious freedom in public spaces. It reports the attacks on FEC students were so heated that “the FEC’s faculty advisor withdrew as advisor following the meeting. As of the date of this letter, the Coalition is still seeking a faculty advisor.”

When the organization’s application for recognition came up again in January, the SBA simply refused to hold a vote. While UNH Law has a range of student organizations, from the Diversity Coalition to Secular Students Alliance to the UNH Law Pond Hockey, the SBA would not even consider the Christian group’s application.

This apparent discrimination created a legal issue for UNH law, and the administration was forced to step in and grant the FEC’s request for recognition. But the trouble didn’t end.

In February, FEC members noted other campus groups were flying flags expressing political messages, such as the Pride flag or the Black Law Student organization’s flag, and asked permission to fly the Christian flag. They were denied and told instead they could post the flag on a “display board” instead, according to the complaint.

“The Free Exercise Coalition merely seeks to be treated like other student groups on campus. Instead, they are held to a different standard and, along with other people of faith in the community, are left feeling ostracized and insulted because of their religious beliefs.”

It’s not just the FEC. UNH Law students marched in protest last week over an email from the school’s Christian Legal Society calling for a vigil in the wake of the March 27 shooting at a Christian elementary school in Nashville, Tenn. The invite included details about the attack, noting the school shooter was a transgender person who intentionally targeted Christians.

“Nashville school shooter Audrey Hale identified as transgender and had a detailed manifesto to attack the Christian academy. By all accounts, this terrorist attack on a Christian school was motivated by anti-Christian hate,” the Christian Legal Society invitation stated.

In fact, the contents of Hale’s manifesto or the nine journals police found at Hale’s home have not been publicly disclosed.

The email went on to reference rising violent rhetoric coming from those in, and aligned with, the transgender community, often directed at Christians and used to intimidate people who disagree.

“Unfortunately, these tactics and rhetoric are not isolated to the national conversation. At UNH Law, students and others have similarly maligned Christian students and CLS as bigoted, hateful, or unfit for public recognition or acceptance,” the invitation stated. “If this tragedy was animated by such ideas and rhetoric, there needs to be much soul-searching by those who endorse similar ideas. Giving into these ideas is not compassionate; it is dangerous.”

Some students complained to UNH administrators and urged them to take action against the CLS. When the administration refused, citing First Amendment protections, students staged a walkout, chanting, “UNH stands against hate!”

“These statements were violent, and the university has only had quiet responses up until this point,” said law student Sydney Reyes in the Concord Monitor. “Without recognizing what has been experienced on campus as violent, I don’t think quiet responses are addressing it; it’s time to be loud.”

But in a written response, UNH Law School Dean Megan Carpenter defended the school’s free speech stance.

“As a guiding principle as an institution of higher education, we are committed to the free and open exchange of ideas, active discourse, and critical debate. All members of our community have the right to hold and vigorously defend and promote their opinions,” Carpenter wrote. “The exercise of this right may result in members of the community being exposed to ideas that they consider unorthodox, controversial, or even repugnant.”

Carpenter went on to write that the Christian Legal Society has the right to exist as a recognized entity on campus, though the administration does not necessarily endorse its views. She wrote that students have to learn to live with people with whom they disagree.

“The university and UNH Franklin Pierce honor sexual and gender diversity, and we also support the right for our members to freely express their sincerely held religious beliefs. Sometimes these principles and beliefs will come into opposition,” Carpenter wrote.

The University of New Hampshire has one of the highest rankings in the nation from the free-speech organization FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.)

Still, supporters of religious liberty remained concerned about what they see as an anti-First Amendment ethos on college campuses nationwide. Last month a group of congressional Republicans wrote to the federal Department of Education asking it to end plans to rescind a rule making it easier for faith-based student organizations at public colleges to raise discrimination claims.

The 2020 rule established a hotline where free exercise violations could be reported, and committed the department to act on complaints.