In Doe v. University of Michigan (1989), a judge ruled that:

A) The University of Michigan's hate speech code was unconstitutional because it was so broad as to make it impossible to discern any limitation and failed to distinguish sanctionable from protected speech.
B) The University of Michigan's hate speech code was constitutional because educational institutions have a compelling interest in promoting non-discriminatory learning environments.
C) The University of Michigan's hate speech code was unconstitutional because it did not follow the requirements of the Brandenburg Test.
D) The University of Michigan's hate speech code was constitutional because hate speech is a form of discrimination.
E) The University of Michigan's hate speech code was unconstitutional because it was passed without sufficient participation from faculty and students.