In recent years, there has been a
rise in the limiting of free speech and free association on college campuses.
There has also been one particular type of community that has been hit hard:
Religious groups. One case that is particularly interesting is that of
InterVarsity Christian Fellowship vs. Wayne State university.
InterVarsity took their case to court and the result was perplexing. InterVarsity was reinstated; however, the school attempted to maintain the ability to exclude religious groups from campus. On September 20, 2019 InterVarsity experienced a large victory as the courts decided to allow another lawsuit against Wayne State University to go forward. This suit is an effort to remove the clause allowing religious discrimination. This case is incredibly important as it will likely influence many other public universities’ religious policies across the United States.
Because Wayne State University is a public university, I believe the school should not have the right to discriminate simply on religious grounds. Public schools should be operating under similar guidelines as the states that fund them. The first amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The allowance of Wayne State to exclude groups on religious grounds is a clear violation of the exercise clause. By allowing the school to have the ability to exclude religious organizations, the school is clearly inhibiting the exercise of certain religious groups based on the discretion of the school administration. When asked about the case, Lori Windham of Becket Law (the firm representing InterVarsity) states, “Christian students have the constitutional right to run their group according to their mission and identity” (Becket). The school is hindering that right.
Looking to another similar case, in Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez, The Christian Legal Society Chapter of the University of California, Hastings College of Law (CLS) attempted to file suit against the university for violating First Amendment rights. Similar to the case of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship vs. Wayne State University, CLS was not allowed on campus because it held discriminatory practices in electing leaders. The school’s statement said that student organizations must allow “any student to participate, become a member, or seek leadership positions, regardless of their status or beliefs” (Oyez). CLS required its leaders to sign a Christian mission statement that nearly mirrors InterVarsity’s, thus making Christian beliefs a requisite for leadership. In a Five to Four decision, the court ruled that the first amendment rights of the CLS college students were not violated and the ministry was required to stay off campus. One justice did critique the court's decision saying that allowing this type of policy to continue is a "handy weapon" for suppressing students’ free speech of minority groups: something that many feel is occurring at certain institutions of higher education.
Additionally, Widmar v. Vincent is an incredibly relevant case. In this case, the University of Missouri at Kansas City denied the use of its facilities to a Christian group of students known as Cornerstone. These facilities were publically available for any secular student group. The court ruled in an Eight to One decision that “UMKC ha[d] discriminated against student groups and speakers based on their desire to use a generally open forum to engage in religious worship and discussion.” The university was infringing on students’ First Amendment rights.
While I see the cases of Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez and Widmar v. Vincent as very similar to that of InterVarsity, I predict InterVarsity’s case will proceed in a way similar to Widmar v. Vincent. Because the courts of Michigan already ruled that Intervarsity must be reinstated on campus, I believe the public university will be required to change their constitution. Large inconsistencies exist in the language used to discriminate against religious groups when compared to that of secular groups. In order for the campus to be truly neutral, religious communities must be treated equally to secular groups particularly in the use of public spaces. Allowing Wayne State's constitution to exist in its current state would be evidence of public institutions of higher education favoring secular practices over religious exercise which, in my opinion, is unconstitutional.
4 comments:
I agree with the author's point that getting rid of this organization would be infringing upon the right to free speech. So often we think of being religiously neutral by not having anything related to religion, but it is in fact not neutral when you compare how secular groups are treated. Additionally, the point the university made about the leadership role being discriminatory does not make sense. There are a lot of groups/organizations for specific groups of people where only those people in that group should be the leaders. I also like the examples the author used with the democrats club and the other organizations.
I also agree with the author's viewpoint, that this Intervarsity group should be allowed to stay on this campus. The fact that it is a public university, this group should have the right to continue, especially if so many other groups are given this right as well. If this one group is discriminated against because of their requirements for their leaders, but other groups with the same requirements are not, then that is simply not neutral. Only not allowing this group because of its religious views, and not political or greek groups, favors religion over non-religion. Not allowing them on campus would be unconstitutional.
I completely agree that Intervarsity was wrongly discriminated against purely for their religion. Having requirements in place for leadership positions is acceptable for secular groups, but not allowing it to be acceptable for religious groups infringes on the values and practices of the club. I also like Jala's point that being neutral does not mean banning all religion. In order for the public school to be acting in a neutral manner, they must hold the religious clubs to the same standards as secular ones like political and Greek life, which the author pointed out.
I agree with Will on his opinions in these cases. What I found very interesting was the comparison to secular groups, in the differences present in how these religious student groups are ostracized from public universities for reasons such as those presented. This is a difficult problem in general for public universities, though the question shifts to the leaders of these groups for this case. I feel as though the comparison to secular groups is useful, though it may not always be applicable in the same way that we might look at religious groups. I would say that there can and should exist neutrality in these religious groups at state universities, but this neutrality might not be so easily reflected in secular groups of similar nature regarding their comparison. Either way, this case is fairly clearly a wrongful attempt by the University to impede on religious freedom.
Post a Comment