The U.S. Supreme Court has officially refused to
consider a request by Christian fraternity and sorority groups at San Diego
State University to allow them to limit membership based on religious beliefs.
The court case filed in 2005 said the plaintiffs, The Alpha Gamma Omega-Epsilon
Chapter fraternity and the Alpha Delta Chi-Delta Chapter sorority which
required members to be Christians and to refrain from sex outside marriage,
including same-sex relationships. This requirement of the Christian fraternity
violated the school’s non-discrimination policy, which made the groups
ineligible for promoting themselves on university webpage, student funding,
using school name in any place, reserving office or meeting space. The Federal
Appeals court ruled in the case that San Diego state university can deny
funding and recognition to students groups that discriminate on the basis of
religion and sexual orientation and did not violate the US constitution.
The Supreme Court’s decision to stay out of the
case was due to the Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez 2010 decision that
said a law school can deny recognition to a Christian student group that
wouldn't let gays join. The Supreme Court ruled then that University of
California's Hastings College of the Law could refuse to recognize campus
groups that excluded people due to religious belief or sexual orientation and
the school’s Non-discrimination policy did not violate the student groups First
Amendment rights.
San Diego State University was happy with the
Supreme Court’s decision because they didn’t want any kind of discrimination on
the college campus.
Religious discrimination is very common in this
country and it’s solely because we are a big melting pot in my opinion. I see
the issue here as one religion (Christianity) wanting to show superiority over the
other religions. It’s the West vs. The Rest. Christians have the need to
separate themselves from the pack, why do they have that need? What makes Christians
more superior from other men or women of faith?
I totally agree with Federal Appeals court’s
decision that discrimination on the basis of religion and sexual orientation does
the not violate the US constitution and the schools have the full right to
enforce their non-discriminatory policy. Wanting religious freedom is a right,
but wanting religious discrimination is a violation in my opinion. Supreme Court
also made a good choice by not adopting a very similar case like Christian legal
society vs. Martinez in which they clearly ruled that the non-discriminatory
policy did not violate student group’s first amendment rights of association,
free speech, and free exercise. We may be a Christian nation, like John Fea
would argue but that does not give Christians the right to discriminate other
religions.
9 comments:
I’m not sure that this ruling is consistent. It took me about 2 minutes to find, “As the premiere Jewish Fraternity, Alpha Epsilon Pi and our official partners offer countless opportunities for students to explore their Jewish heritage both culturally and/or religiously” linked off of their fraternity page. Though I didn’t see anything that non-Jewish people could not join it did not seem geared toward it. They list several others that though they do not say specifically people of x religion or y ethnicity cannot join do seem geared toward members of that subgroup. Personally though, I don’t see a problem with optional groups discriminating based on what ever criteria they chose, but I do have an issue with a University allowing some groups to discriminate while others are not.
http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/cfsl/ChapterDirectory.html
Angela I think the concern with the Christian frat and sorority was that they were discriminating against people who were not Christian and required members to refrain from pre-marital sex. I can see both sides to the argument both for allowing the group and not allowing the group. However, that being said, I do think that the decision for the court to not hear the case was valid because it essentially had already been decided in a similar case, which Sachin did point out.
I respectfully disagree, Sachin, with your interpretation of the issue at hand. I do not believe that it was the students' intent to flaunt some kind of perceived religious superiority. The policy of religious discrimination was most likely an attempt to create a uniform group of Christians with a common set of beliefs and values. The issue here is one of the school's right to refuse any endorsement for the group based on their religious discrimination policy. I completely agree with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case, as the precedent set in the 2010 case clearly states that a school cannot not be forced to endorse a group which practices discrimination. This decision could easily be extended to include the religious discrimination issue for the Alpha Delta Chi-Delta Chapter sorority.
I think that the Supreme Court's decision to refrain from this case was a step in the right direction. The right to religious freedom is a given to individuals but the school here maintains the right to deny funding if an organization violates a policy such as a non-discrimination policy. By the Supreme Court denying the case, the school maintains the power to govern the atmosphere of their campus and thus the policy can be enforced by the school. In class we have seen this issue of funding and those who have claimed to have the right of religious freedom but much of the time that right has come with no pay.
My issue is that most if not all fraternities and sororities discriminate based on gender. The website for the university listed fraternities/sororities for Jewish, African American, and Asian/ Pacific Islander Based. Why are those allowed while the Christian one is forbidden? Why are they allowed to say we only accept men or women when I bet the University also has a policy against discrimination based on the sex of the individual?
I think the supreme courts decision to not get involve in this case was smart. Discrimination in schools is a serious manner and can get ugly. The university has a reputation to protect because it is not a private institution; therefore they really have no lead way for any type of discrimination. However, sororities and fraternities are not unfamiliar with discrimination, considering they often do it, but discrimination against religion is harder to over look.
I agree with the Court’s decision to remain out of this case. By the court deciding not to revisit the 2010 case, it reinforces their prior decision which struck down a similar discriminatory policy of a student group on a university campus. The Court has demonstrated numerous times that it wishes to distance itself from religion and does not want to become entangled in religious discriminatory practices.
I see a larger issue with groups being able to discriminate based on someone's religious, sexual, gender, etc identities. Regardless of this specific case in California, there is an overwhelming notion that Christian is THE way, when that is not the case at all. I'm tired of people using religious justification to their advantage.
Preston L.
Post a Comment