A Columbia State Community College psychology professor did not infringe on students’ First Amendment rights or discriminate against religious beliefs when she asked her classes to wear gay pride ribbons as part of an assignment.

That was the conclusion of an in-house investigation into complaints about the classroom activities of Dr. Linda Brunton, who made the assignment for students to experience prejudice against gays and report on the experience.

A Columbia State spokesperson said there would be no comment on the findings other than a written statement released Thursday.

“A thorough investigation of the allegations of first amendment issues and discrimination by Dr. Brunton in regard to her psychology assignment has been completed. The college is satisfied with the investigation which yielded that the ribbon assignment was not mandatory, that the student’s first amendment rights were not infringed, and that there was no evidence of discrimination based on religious beliefs,” the statement read. “Issues of clarity of the assignment, expectation, and advocacy of subject matter that is controversial but appropriate for the course content were identified as areas of consideration in lesson plan development and delivery.”

The investigation was made in response to a letter sent in June to CSCC President Janet Smith by the Alliance Defending Freedom, which described itself as an “alliance-building legal ministry that defends and advocates for free speech, religious freedom, and other fundamental rights.”

The group alleged that Brunton violated her students’ constitutional rights when she made the assignment during the spring 2012 semester in her General Psychology 1030 class.

The investigation was conducted by Randy Elston, director of the Columbia State Human Resources Department, whose findings were submitted to the college in a document dated Aug. 26.

Elston wrote that his conclusions were based on documentary evidence and testimony provided by Brunton, additional testimony by 34 students and copies of the assignment papers written by three students.

Among his findings:

◆ There was no evidence that Brunton “brushed off” some students’ concerns that their religious convictions prohibit them from showing support for “unnatural and immoral” homosexual conduct;

◆ The preponderance of evidence shows Brunton did not violate either Tennessee Board of Regents policies or those of the college;

◆ The evidence shows that the rainbow ribbon assignment was not mandatory, and students who objected were given options;

◆ Only four of the 43 students who participated in the assignment received a grade of zero. Two of them “who allegedly received a zero because of their religious beliefs” turned in an optional assignment that they knew was not written according to instructions;

◆ There was no connection between a student’s overall class grade and his or her choice not to do the assignment for religious reasons or failing to follow instructions for turning in an optional assignment;

◆ As an example, one student who turned in an optional paper that she knew did not meet the requirements got a zero for the assignment but an overall class grade of A;

◆ While many students in all three classes were uncomfortable with the assignment for religious reasons, “I also believe that (Brunton) in some cases did not consider those beliefs and the impact on students when she was dealing with this subject matter.”

Elston noted, however, that the issue of homosexuality is part of the course content and appears in several textbook chapters. Brunton’s comments in class could have been tempered with “more sensitivity,” he added, but were within the bounds of academic freedom.

The findings also pointed out that the class syllabus details student grievance procedures for a formal complaint about academic issues, but there was no evidence or record that any student took advantage of the process.