Letting the facts do the talking seems to be a lost art among university bureaucrats today, at least at Georgia Tech. Honesty takes a back seat to misinformation, distortions of the truth and the assumption that those with opposing views are inherently wrong and deserving of retribution. It doesn't help when some members of the media leave this unchallenged. But now a federal judge has made note of Tech's apparent "lack of candor."

In March 2006, the Alliance Defense Fund —- Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith —- filed a civil rights lawsuit against Tech officials on behalf of conservative students Ruth Malhotra and Orit Sklar, who suffered harassment, discrimination and violations of their constitutional rights at the hands of Tech faculty, students and administration.

In one incident that ultimately led to the filing of the lawsuit, Tech forced Malhotra to cover up quotes she placed on placards objecting to the perverse feminist play "Vagina Monologues" performed during Women's Awareness Week. The quotes were from the play.

In the name of tolerance, a campus group called CLAM (Conservatives and Liberals Against Malhotra) formed, and an anti-Malhotra Web site featured her swastika-covered "christo-fascist" face.

But many in the public would have no idea about such events. Tech will support what's politically correct even in the face of criminal harassment. They would have you believe Malhotra's and Sklar's intolerant "hate speech" is what creates the "hostile environment," not the university's policies and practices, even when they've been struck down by a court. Yes, Malhotra and Sklar sued over the policies that led to this environment, and they won.

A focus of the lawsuit was the unconstitutionality of a portion of Tech's "Safe Space" training manual, which endorsed some religions and denigrated others, based on their stance on homosexual behavior. In an April 2008 ruling, the court ordered Tech to eliminate that part of its "tolerance" training manual because it violates the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the government from this sort of politically correct denominational persecution.

The lawsuit also successfully forced Tech to discontinue its "free speech zone" —- which, despite its name, was designed to limit speech and functioned as a corral for students who wanted to express views with which Tech disagreed (read, conservative and Christian speech).

An earlier victory for the students came in August 2006, when a federal judge ordered Tech to repeal its unconstitutional speech code and prohibited Tech from changing it without court approval for five years.

Unwilling to concede a loss and admit to a decisive free speech courtroom victory for ADF and two of Tech's own students, Tech issued a press release May 1 that led many to believe the falsehood that Tech scored a major win. Some media outlets did not bother to question it. But the truth is now impossible to ignore, following another ruling from the court on July 23.

Instead of disclosing the plaintiffs' success in changing Tech's policies and practices for the benefit of all students, the May 1 Tech press release brazenly claimed, "Georgia Tech will not be required to take any actions as the result of today's court ruling. . . . The judge ruled in favor of the Georgia Tech free-speech-zone policy. . . . Georgia Tech practices are exactly the same as before the suit was filed."

But in his July 23 decision refusing Tech's request to reconsider the court's ruling against the school, U.S. District Court Judge J. Owen Forrester noted "the lack of candor of Georgia Tech throughout the litigation of this case."

Forrester wrote, "Anyone with passing familiarity of the instant litigation would not be faulted for questioning the accuracy of numerous portions of this short press release.

"In fact, all three of the four challenged policies are materially different than they were before the suit. As to the fourth, although the court did not order a change, the court did not discuss Georgia Tech's student activity fee program for 23 pages in any way to 'rule in favor' of the program."

Let's cut to the chase. Malhotra and Sklar won, Tech lost. Tech lost big. And considering what these two young women have been through, no one should be too gutless to say it.

> Jonathan D. Crumly is a Marietta attorney. He is not representing any party in the Georgia Tech litigation.