The government has certain
expectations for institutions receiving Title VI funding, such as compliance
with Constitutional expectations, however, the ACLU claims that it also takes
pride in claiming that American universities are “free from the ideological
micromanagement of the government censor”. And while federal funds were
technically used for the organization of the conference about the Gaza conflict
(less than $200 used was from federal funding), the problem the Department of
Education had was not with the conference itself, but with its content. The
ACLU’s overall argument is that the Trump Administration is trying to restrict
freedom of speech and religion on college campuses by threatening to rescind
funding if universities do not “conform to the Trump Administration’s
ideological standards” and that universities are “under no obligation to
further the administration’s anti-Muslim agenda."
While I can see how the use of federal funding for an
“anti-Israel” conference may be considered a violation of the Establishment
Clause, due to the fact that it was a use of government money to endorse a
political and religious position, however that is not what I understand to be
the complaint posed by the Department of Education. I find this confusing
because it would have been a valid point, had the Department chosen to claim
that the conference was a violation of the Establishment Clause, but to me, it
seems that DeVos has perfectly set up the Department of Education for accusal
that they have violated the Establishment Clause.
Although I argued that the Consortium could have been seen as
violating the Establishment Clause for the convenience of the Department of
Education, that is not what I actually believe. The Consortium did use a little
less than $200 worth of federal funding but I would consider that money a
negligible amount in the grand scheme of the money that is actually awarded to
the Consortium via federal funding every year. In addition to this, the
conference was completely optional and students were not required to go,
therefore any benefits to Islam were indirect. In addition to this, we
discussed in class the fact that college students are adults that can make up
their own minds and their own opinions. So, anyone who went to the conference,
even if it had taken a stance on religion, theoretically would have taken the
information presented and done what they pleased with it -- which could
indirectly both benefit and inhibit religion.
However, the federal fund usage for the Middle East Studies
program in the Consortium could have been seen as an establishment of religion
had there been no other programs for other religions. Unfortunately, that
information was not presented in the complaints by DeVos, though I think it can
be assumed that there are other religious studies programs in the Consortium
and/or universities. This would then be considered religiously neutral because
the universities/Consortium is not favoring one religion, or no religion, over
another.
Complaints against
the letter sent by the Department of Education include those that are accusing
DeVos and the Trump Administration of attempting to limit the freedom of speech
and religious expression of students at the university. By threatening to
reduce federal funding in the Middle East Studies program, students argue that
they should be able to learn about Islam, and other religions, in an objective
manner, and that the program is not pro-Islam -- the government is anti-Islam.
With this, I would agree. While I cannot form an opinion about the stance about
Islam taken by the Consortium, as I have not attended a class there, I would
agree that the US Government has decidedly taken an anti-Islam stance.
Therefore, I would argue that the Department of Education is violating the
Establishment Clause by censoring teaching about Islam and by promoting
anti-Islam curriculum within the Duke-UNC Consortium for Middle East Studies.
3 comments:
I do not think that the university did anything that was unconstitutional. In this case, as Maddy mentioned, nobody at the university was forced to go to the program, so they were not shoving a religion on to anybody. Therefore, the Establishment Clause was not violated in this situation.
I agree with Maddy's findings on this case. It seems like this an attack on education about Islam, and should not be taken as a violation of the establishment cause. While I see that they do have some evidence leaning towards a violation of this clause, I do not see it as a real valid concern in this case. The money lended was negligible, as Maddy said, and I do not see the "anti-Israel" accusations as being very concerning either. A conference is a place of discussion and sharing ideas, it seems like any kind of bias in the speech should not be too closely regulated, or problems with free speech could arise. I feel as though the existence of other religious associations at the school receiving the same kind of funding is an important argument against a violation of the clause. A real issue would be the spreading of anti-islam ideology throughout educational systems in America, to speak on some of the governments current possible inclinations (not to say that they are anti-islam, I honestly wouldn't know enough to speak on that).
I also agree with Maddy's arguments. I do not believe that the university did anything wrong within their Middle East Studies Program. Bringing this back to Bucknell, I think about our Religious Studies Department and the purpose of the department is to educate and analyze different forms of religions, in this way there is no establishment of religion occurring because of how it is presented. I believe that the same is being done with the Middle East Studies program, with certain events like the conference being optional for students.
Post a Comment