MIAMI — A Florida International University student expelled over racist and violent messages exchanged in private group chats testified Wednesday that even comments about beheading Black people were intended as humor, insisting that the university misunderstood deliberately shocking jokes when it punished students for their participation.

“In this context, yes,” Dariel Gonzalez answered when questioned about whether a message advocating the beheading of someone because of their race was funny.

Gonzalez, one of four students suing FIU over disciplinary sanctions they contend violated their First Amendment rights, acknowledged that the language could appear horrifying when viewed in isolation but argued that members of the private chats understood it as provocative humor.

“If you just see this by itself, then yeah, it looks horrible,” Gonzalez said. “But if you see it within the context, it’s perfectly fine.”

The testimony came during the first day of a two-day federal trial before Chief U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga in Miami, where four students are challenging suspensions and expulsions the university imposed after racist, antisemitic and violent messages from their private conversations became public.

The case pits the students’ claims of constitutionally protected private speech against FIU’s position that the messages contained threats and caused fear and disruption within the university community.

‘Edgy humor’

Gonzalez, 24, a political science student who was expelled in July, testified that the group chats were created for friends and acquaintances who shared similar political views and an appreciation for offensive, internet-based humor.

He described the messages as attempts to provoke reactions rather than genuine expressions of violent intent. Participants, he said, were familiar with the conventions of online humor, including deliberately outrageous statements intended to shock others.

One exchange examined in court involved a lengthy message copied from the internet that contained racial slurs and descriptions of violence against Black people. Gonzalez had responded to the post with the words “How edgy.”

Asked why he had responded that way to language that appeared to advocate racial violence, Gonzalez said the purpose was to shock other participants.

“The intent of this was provocative humor, which is edgy humor,” he testified.

He also defended his use of the phrase “Total Negro Death,” explaining that he had looked up the meaning of an acronym used by another participant and posted the definition in response to questions from others.

Gonzalez said the surrounding messages included absurd references to ray guns, sending people into space, reporting them to the Internal Revenue Service and urinating in their gas tanks, which he believed made their humorous intent obvious.

But questioning by an attorney for the university highlighted the potential impact of such language on people outside the group.

Gonzalez acknowledged that the messages could offend people who did not share the group’s sense of humor. He maintained, however, that he would not have made the same comments in conversations with people who were unfamiliar with that style of joking.

He also testified that a Black female student who had participated in the chat later filed a complaint accusing him of harassment or discrimination. He denied threatening or harassing her.

According to Gonzalez, the student, whom he knew through conservative student organizations, had participated in the conversations before the messages became public. He acknowledged that she had objected to another participant’s style of humor but disputed the suggestion that his own remarks constituted threats.

Political consequences

Another subject explored during the testimony was whether participants recognized that their conversations could have serious consequences if exposed.

Gonzalez acknowledged that members of the group had discussed the possibility of the chats leaking and damaging future political prospects. In one exchange examined during questioning, a participant warned that the group would be “so cooked” if the messages became public.

Gonzalez maintained that the concern was not that anyone had made genuine threats but that outsiders would interpret the conversations without understanding their context.

The chats included messages about killing communists, racial and religious minorities and other groups, as well as discussions of drunk driving and drug use.

Gonzalez testified that he had made comments about driving a golf cart while intoxicated, running people over and smoking marijuana on campus, but insisted those accounts were fabricated for comedic effect.

He said he rarely drinks alcohol and does not use marijuana.

During cross-examination, however, the university’s attorney confronted him with messages in which he had described driving drunk and participating in other conduct that FIU subsequently treated as disciplinary violations.

Gonzalez maintained that the statements were exaggerated stories intended to entertain his friends, not admissions of actual misconduct.

The university found him responsible for multiple student conduct violations, including personal abuse, endangerment and alcohol- and drug-related offenses.

He was initially suspended for two years, a sanction that barred him from attending classes, including online courses, and participating in university activities.

His suspension later became an expulsion after FIU determined that he had violated the disciplinary order by continuing to access online coursework, submit assignments and participate in class discussions.

Gonzalez testified that he believed he was permitted to continue working until the university formally removed him from his classes. He said he did not deliberately disregard the suspension.

He also described the personal consequences of the controversy, including the loss of a volunteer-related position with the City of Coral Gables, where he had participated in historical preservation and museum activities.

Political hyperbole

Abel Carvajal, an FIU law student suspended for two years over his involvement in the chats, offered a similar explanation of the offensive messages.

Carvajal testified that he did not necessarily find every message funny but consistently understood the statements as attempts at humor.

“Just because something is of a humorous nature doesn’t mean everybody finds it funny,” he said.

He characterized a message calling for the killing of communists as extreme political hyperbole familiar within parts of Miami’s Cuban American community, rather than a serious call for violence.

“That is political hyperbole to the max,” Carvajal testified.

He also addressed a message posted by another participant that contained repeated racial slurs and descriptions of violence against Black people.

Carvajal described the message as material copied from the internet rather than something the participant had written himself. When challenged about the language, he acknowledged that he did not consider it consistent with Catholic teachings.

Carvajal also rejected the suggestion that the group activated disappearing messages to conceal threats. He said the feature was intended primarily to prevent the large volume of messages from consuming participants’ phone storage.

He acknowledged that members worried about the chats becoming public, but said their concerns involved political and reputational consequences rather than criminal prosecution.

“The fear was in a political context,” Carvajal testified, explaining that participants worried about losing elections or being removed from political positions if their conversations became public.

He said he did not understand that FIU considered the messages to involve threats or the promotion of illegal violence until he received the university’s disciplinary charges.

Carvajal testified that he remains six credits short of completing law school after failing a course, which he attributed to the stress of the disciplinary proceedings.

He acknowledged that he continued participating in group chats after his suspension and still uses WhatsApp, the messaging application involved in the controversy.

Fear and campus disruption

The students’ explanations contrast sharply with the university’s account of the impact of the messages.

In court filings, FIU has argued that the conversations generated widespread fear among students and faculty after excerpts became public in March.

The university said it received more than 60 incident reports related to the messages, including complaints from students who feared for their safety or felt uncomfortable attending classes.

FIU also cited reports from professors about students struggling to concentrate because of concerns about encountering individuals associated with the chats.

One Black female law student, according to testimony from the university’s disciplinary proceedings cited in court filings, described persistent anxiety about attending classes and difficulty focusing on her education after learning about the messages.

The university said the controversy required meetings with student organizations, additional campus police patrols and other measures to address safety concerns.

FIU maintains that its disciplinary actions were based on threatening language and its consequences for the campus community, rather than disagreement with the students’ political beliefs.

The plaintiffs dispute that the messages amounted to genuine threats or caused the kind of substantial disruption that would justify punishing speech protected by the First Amendment.

Gonzalez testified that his courses continued normally after the controversy erupted and that he was unaware of any classes being canceled or other significant interruptions to university operations.

He also questioned whether students who complained about the messages had actually read the complete conversations rather than excerpts published in news reports.

University’s motives

The court also heard testimony from attorney Maya Evron, who represented two of the students, Ethan Ratchkauskas and Dante Mojena, during FIU’s disciplinary proceedings.

Evron characterized the university’s initial meetings with the students as an effort at damage control, saying officials repeatedly raised concerns about the institution’s reputation following news coverage of the messages.

She testified that university representatives focused heavily on selected excerpts from the group chats rather than examining the conversations in their entirety.

Evron acknowledged that FIU officials did not explicitly say they were punishing the students for reputational harm, but said she believed that concern influenced the proceedings.

Gonzalez similarly testified that he believed FIU punished the students because their messages embarrassed the university. He said a university media-relations representative had estimated the damage to FIU’s brand at approximately $15 million, although that figure was presented as his recollection of testimony during an earlier disciplinary hearing.

The four plaintiffs — Carvajal, Gonzalez, Ratchkauskas and Mojena — contend that FIU violated their constitutional rights by imposing sanctions over private conversations that, however offensive, did not constitute genuine threats.

Ratchkauskas was expelled, while Mojena received a suspension lasting several months. Carvajal was suspended for two years, and Gonzalez was initially suspended before being expelled following a separate finding that he had failed to comply with his suspension.

Their lawsuit seeks relief from the disciplinary sanctions and other remedies for alleged constitutional violations.

The trial is scheduled to continue Thursday before Altonaga, who will decide the case without a jury.

_____

©2026 Miami Herald. Visit miamiherald.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.