This doesn’t explain why ‘nothing is off limits’ should not be interpreted as exactly what it clearly states.
The woman is at fault. If she is sexually prudish, she can’t take the responsibility for her own mistake. If it’s about gun ownership it is clearly political harassment in addition (in universities it is often the case that white males become demonized after being invited in class to be ‘honest’).
The problem was easily avoidable in advance by the teacher stating in the assignment that nothing is off limits but guns and sex.
Most collegiate flimflam is excused by putting form over function. This is an extreme of form over function. Somehow the student is expected to know some writing is off limits even when it is explicitly stated nothing is off limits. If nothing means something as in this case, then something can mean just about anything, and the entire exercise becomes arbitrary.
It is slippery slope. The judge is pandering to the university and the emotions of some of the university staff. What if the guy had written about lacrosse and the teacher had a severe emotional aversion to lacrosse? Or about Republicans winning elections? (well, no, that would be clearly off limits)
However, some things couldn't reasonably be anticipated.
Yes, I know that teachers need to anticipate consequences in advance. Yes, I know that teachers need to anticipate that students will look for loopholes. And yes, I know that an attractive female teacher needs to recognize that young male students may be “thinking with the wrong head,” so to speak.
But I still think that a student writing paper on this topic is so far out of the range of predictable responses that the teacher can be excused for not anticipating this as a possibility. For this to come from an older male student who is married and in his late 50s is even worse.
I do think that cases like this should serve as a warning to teachers about the dangers of open-ended “write about anything” assignments.