The
Supreme Court agreed to review an appeals case from the Christian Legal Society
who had been denied recognition by the Hastings College of Law on grounds of
discrimination. The Christian Legal Society (C.L.S) allows all students to
participate in their activities but only those who “disavow ‘unrepentant
participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle” may assume
leadership positions or becoming voting members in the group. Because Hastings
has an open membership rule regarding student organized groups which requires
all groups to accept all new comers as voting members regardless of their acceptance
of the groups’ mission, Hastings withdrew recognition from the C.L.S as they
didn’t comply with the school policy. The US states court of appeals for the
ninth circuit ruled in favor of Hastings and Judge Diane S. Skyes wrote to the
court arguing for C.L.S by stating that the group would cease to exist if it
couldn’t convey its message effectively because it had to accept members which
didn’t agree with its mission. Judge Diane P. Wood argued that there would be a
lack of diversity in American universities if exclusionary groups, such as
C.L.S which accepted members upon conformity, were existent on campuses.
The main
issue is that of discrimination against certain students due to their sexual
orientation, and to a certain degree, also due to their religious beliefs.
C.L.S required students to hold orthodox Christian beliefs, in particular, the
C.L.S orthodox Christian beliefs, without which they would be unable to fully
participate in the group. According to the School Policy, no student can be
restricted from voting membership into a group solely due to their beliefs or
sexual orientation. As a student from C.L.S states in the article, it’s hard to
“reconcile anti-discrimination principles with religious freedom in the context
of public higher education.” Ultimately, the court must decide whether to
uphold anti-discrimination principles or uphold the religious freedom at the
cost of infringement of student and human rights.
In my
opinion, The Court of Appeals for the ninth circuit was logically and
constitutionally right to rule in favor of Hastings. This case is like many
others which debates over the importance of religious freedom versus anti-discrimination
principle which both hold a significant place in the American legal system and
History. America, as many argue, is a land of freedom and such cases challenge
the American legal system to choose between certain types of freedoms such as
religious and human rights (sexual orientation/lifestyle/etc.). One is allowed
to exercise one’s own freedom as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of
others, and in this case, C.L.S fails to abide by this criterion. C.L.S allows
for all students to participate but only those with a certain set of beliefs
and lifestyle can hold leadership and be voting members. This is similar to the
Bob Jones vs. US(1983) where the university stated they allowed
African-Americans to go to school but only if they abided by certain rules like
no interracial relationships. An institution cannot refuse membership due to
things like sexual orientation, lifestyle, relationship status, race, because
such things are the basis of discrimination as most are unchangeable by
individuals. Also, Judge Diane P. Wood has a good argument concerning diversity
and its importance to current American universities. Hastings sought to protect
the rights of the students which C.L.S infringed upon while exercising
religious freedom, and if the supreme court rules in favor of C.L.S, it is
sending the message that religious freedom holds more importance in American
law than human rights do.
2 comments:
I agree with your assessment of the case. The article states that the law school is a part of the University of California, which is a public school. Public schools (whether university level or lower) should not allow groups that discriminate for any reason (sex, race, religion, sexuality, etc.). Public schools receive public funding and should follow the anti-discrimination laws set by the nation. If a group is allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation, it is as if the country is regressing back to the times of racial segregation.
I also agree with your original opinion on this issue and with Catherine S. This issue of discrimination is one that is interesting because there is a challenge between religious belief and those members desiring to participate. In this case there is a question of environment and within a system of higher education, there are state regulations regarding funding and public meeting space for the club. Many of these regulations describe policies that do not allow discrimination due to their place within the public sphere. Religious freedom is something many claim but it also comes into question when it infringes on the practices of others, especially when their money is going to funding these organizations they cannot participate in.
Post a Comment