PROVIDENCE — In response to a First Amendment lawsuit, Rhode Island College says it is not a government entity and college President John Nazarian is not a government employee.

The public college made those claims in asking a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit that the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union filed last December. The suit charges that the college violated the First Amendment rights of a student group when it removed a series of signs reading “Keep your rosaries off our ovaries.”

Yesterday, the ACLU said it was “stunned and amazed” that the college was arguing that it’s not a government entity for civil-rights purposes.

“Rhode Island College’s position that its campus is a Constitution-free zone is shocking and preposterous, and will no doubt come as a surprise to the thousands of students and faculty members who thought they were attending or working at a public institution,” said Steven Brown, executive director of the local ACLU affiliate. “We are confident that the court will summarily reject this extraordinary position.”

Rhode Island College spokeswoman Jane E. Fusco said, “Because this is an ongoing case, the college’s position is the motion speaks for itself, and this is a matter that will and should play out in the courtroom.”

The college’s lawyer, Nicholas Trott Long, filed the motion in U.S. District Court in Providence on Friday, saying, “It is fundamental that the First Amendment is concerned with government action only.”

But, Long wrote, “The defendant Rhode Island College is not a government entity, defendants Nazarian and [Vice President for Student Affairs Gary M.] Penfield are not government employees, and any actions they took or failed to take in relation to the case at bar were not under the color of law.”

The motion described Rhode Island College as a unit of the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education, “a public corporation created pursuant to” a section of Rhode Island laws .

Long said the fact that the state created the Board of Governors for Higher Education is irrelevant “since an independent corporation is regarded as ‘private’ for these purposes even where the entity is a public creation.”

Rhode Island College “is not an alter ego or arm of the state of Rhode Island,” Long stated, citing past decisions by the U.S. District Court in Providence and the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. “Instead, it is part of a public corporation and ‘citizen’ of Rhode Island for diversity purposes, empowered to sue and be sued in its own name. It enjoys neither 11th Amendment nor sovereign immunity.”

Long said constitutional limits do apply to private entities that have exclusively governmental powers and functions. But, he said, “Obviously, the operation of an institution of higher education is not an exclusively governmental function. Indeed, within Rhode Island and throughout New England, the dominant model for post-secondary institutions has been and remains private.”

Long acknowledged that the First Amendment bars most government censorship of speech and other forms of expression. But, he said, “It is the plaintiff’s mistaken assumption that the college and its agents are arms of or the alter ego of the state, an assumption repeatedly rejected by this court and the Court of Appeals. As plaintiffs are without First Amendment rights vis-À-vis the college, their claims against defendants Nazarian and Penfield must fail as well.”

Nazarian makes about $185,000 a year, according to a database provided by the Department of Administration.

Brown said the college’s legal arguments carry serious ramifications. “Thousands of students and teachers at RIC have suddenly been stripped of any constitutional protections,” he said. “And if the arguments apply to RIC, they would apply to the other public colleges in the state — the University of Rhode Island and the Community College of Rhode Island.”

Brown said the college’s legal arguments focus on 11th Amendment issues and whether a state can be sued for monetary damages without that state’s consent. But, he said, “The fact that they are not considered an arm of the state for 11th Amendment purposes says nothing about whether they are a governmental entity for civil-rights purposes.”

The ACLU expected an answer to its lawsuit, “but not this one,” Brown said. He said the next step is to file a reply with the court.

The suit stems from events on Dec. 4, 2005, when the Women’s Studies Organization placed a series of six signs along College Road, the main entranceto the college. When read together, the signs said, “Keep your rosaries off our ovaries,” “Our bodies, our choice,” and “Brought to you by RIC Women’s Studies Organization.” The organization was preparing for a day of activism on issues such as pharmacists refusing to dispense contraception.

According to the lawsuit, a Catholic priest saw the signs a couple of hours after they went up as he drove onto campus to conduct a weekly Mass at the college president’s residence, and when the priest mentioned the signs, Nazarian contacted the campus police and ordered them to take down the signs.

The students said college officials had told them they had taken all the required steps to post the signs.

In its motion to dismiss the suit, the college said that when Nazarian phoned campus security, the officer who answered the phone apparently was unaware that the students had obtained authorization for the signs, so Nazarian ordered that that the signs be removed.

Permission to erect the signs along College Road should not have been granted in the first place, the motion said, because no signs are permitted in the specific location chosen by the students. The college said it only allows signs along College Road that direct people to specific events, that meet the college’s design standards and that are located in the park in front of Roberts Hall.

But the college said it told the students they were free to display their signs “elsewhere on the campus in those locales traditionally dedicated as [forums] for the free expression of a wide range of views.” Those areas include the college’s main academic quadrangle, the Student Union and bulletin boards in the academic buildings.

The college’s motion said that on March 8, 2006, the student group held an event in the Student Union called “Keep Your Rosaries Off Our Ovaries,” featuring an off-campus speaker, and the students were allowed to display their signs inside and outside the union and to put posters throughout the campus. The college said it offered to construct and install directional signs in the designated areas in front of Roberts Hall announcing the event, but the students declined.

Also, the motion said that on April 6, 2006, Penfield “formally apologized” to the students on behalf of the college for removing the signs in December 2005. “The letter acknowledged it was entirely an administration SNAFU within the college that caused the plaintiffs to be given authorization to erect the signs in contravention of college policy and practice.”

efitzpat@projo.com