Students from Bob Jones University, Liberty University, Baylor University and other federally funded Christian universities have filed a class action lawsuit against the United States Department of Education for unconstitutionally funding institutions with discriminatory policies against members of the LGBTQ+ community. In Hunter v. U.S. Department of Education, the plaintiff, Elizabeth Hunter is a graduate of Bob Jones University who became suicidal after being grilled for, “tweeting, ‘happy Pride,’ and for writing a book with lesbian characters.” Other plaintiffs involved in the case claim the harassment from their institutions caused them shame and depression. Students all over the country have been fined, harassed, and penalized by Christian universities for being part of the LGBTQ+ community.
The plaintiffs argue that government funds being allotted to Christian universities via federal tuition assistance empowers the universities to discriminate against people in the LGBTQ+ community. Religious exemptions are built into Title IX, which prevents gender- or sex-based discrimination in educational institutions that receive public funding. They believe the religious exemption is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and their due process rights. Additionally, since federal financial aid is paying for the tuition of some students in-need, the government is aiding these religious institutions. The complaint filed by Hunter and the other plaintiffs suggests this violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Interestingly, the Christian universities involved in the case argue that if the Court sides with the LGBTQ+ students, their First Amendment rights would be violated. The Alliance Defending Freedom argues that, “students who attend religious schools largely do so because they wish to attend schools that share and support their beliefs. If students lose federal aid simply because they decide to attend a religious school, hundreds of thousands of them nationwide would be forced to make a choice: lose their student aid or attend a different school altogether.” One could argue that revoking federal funding from religiously affiliated universities is hostile toward religion and denies students in-need of tuition assistance their free exercise rights.
In Bob Jones University v. United States, the Court upheld the rights of the IRS to revoke Bob Jones University’s tax-exemption status since the Christian fundamentalist values did not align with the national goals of anti-racism. The Court compared the potential burden of revoking Bob Jones University’s tax exemption to that of the United States if racial discrimination continues to perpetuate. The Court decided the United States has greater interest in abolishing racial discrimination. In United States v. Lee, Old Order Amish Edwin Lee argued that the federal requirement to pay Social Security tax was unconstitutional. Since the Amish faith believes it is a sin to no care for the elderly, Lee believed the required Social Security tax interfered with his religious obligations and therefore violated the free exercise clause. In the majority decision, Justice Burger writes, “While there is a conflict between the Amish faith and the obligations imposed by the social security system, not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional. The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest.” Both these cases exhibit limitations on the free exercise clause for the benefit of greater society and for the pursuit of national peace.
This decision is one between the existing burden on the LGBTQ+ students who suffer discrimination at religiously affiliated universities and the potential burden on students at the religious universities who could lose federal financial aid. As I discussed in my last blog post, under ministerial exception, religiously affiliated institutions have the constitutional right to select their ministers as directed by their religious beliefs. However, this does not give any institution the right to harass or torture a minister if his or her identity counters the institution’s religious beliefs. Furthermore, the institution has the constitutional right to admit students with religious beliefs aligned to that of the institution, but they cannot intimidate and harass students for their gender, sex, or sexuality, and they cannot protect students who do. I believe schools have an obligation to protect all students by addressing incidents of discrimination or harassment regardless of the role of religion. As upheld by Bob Jones University v. United States and United States v. Lee, the federal government has the right to revoke fiscal support to an institution that goes against a national interest. Thirty-three plaintiffs share their stories of discrimination at religiously affiliated schools because of their gender, sex, or sexuality. The United States has taken steps in recent years to protect individuals from discrimination based on gender, sex, and sexuality under the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 requires all federally funded organizations to abide by the Civil Rights Act. Furthermore, the Title IX Religious Exemption perpetuates discrimination abolished by the Civil Rights Act. The government continuing to fund the institution via federal student loans violates the Civil Rights Restoration Act. Because of this, I believe the Court should declare the federal funding an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause.
References
Alliance Defending Freedom. 2021. Christian colleges fight lawsuit designed to strip their students of financial aid. April 12. https://adflegal.org/press-release/christian-colleges-fight-lawsuit-designed-strip-their-students-financial-aid.
Boorstein, Michelle. 2021. Dozens of LGBTQ students at Christian colleges sue the U.S. Education Dept., hoping to pressure Equality Act negotiations. March 30. https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/christian-colleges-lawsuit-lgbtq-equality-act/2021/03/29/39343620-90af-11eb-9668-89be11273c09_story.html.
Gilreath, Ariel. 2021. Bob Jones University graduate one of dozens of LGBTQ students suing U.S. Department of Education. March 30. https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/education/2021/03/30/bob-jones-university-graduate-lawsuit-us-department-education-lgbtq-students-title-ix/4808380001/.
Kramer, Sarah. 2021. This Lawsuit Threatens the Rights of Faith-Based Schools to Operate According to Their Beliefs. April 12. https://adflegal.org/blog/lawsuit-threatens-rights-faith-based-schools-operate-according-their-beliefs#close.
Payne, Kate. 2021. Two Iowa Students Among Plaintiffs Suing U.S. Department Of Ed Over LGBTQ Discrimination. April 1. https://www.iowapublicradio.org/ipr-news/2021-04-01/two-iowa-students-among-plaintiffs-suing-u-s-department-of-ed-over-lgbtq-discrimination.
Redden, Elizabeth. 2021. Religious Freedom vs. Freedom From Discrimination. April 6. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/04/06/lgbt-students-sue-education-department-over-title-ix-religious-exemption.
Unites States House of Representatives. n.d. Constitutional Amendments and Major Civil Rights Acts of Congress Referenced in Black Americans in Congress. https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Data/Constitutional-Amendments-and-Legislation/.
West, Charlotte. 2018. How Title IX Exemptions Allow Religious Colleges to Discriminate Against LGBTQ Students. October 15. https://www.teenvogue.com/story/how-religious-colleges-discriminate-lgbtq-students-title-ix-exemptions.
3 comments:
Especially when taking into account the precedence set by the Bob Jone's University case, I agree with Mason's conclusion on this case. While these universities are constitutionally allowed to hold the religious beliefs that they do and subsequently act on them, this does not give them the right to endanger the lives of students though harassment. If government funding enables this sort of threatening behavior, I do believe that there is a compelling enough state interest to withdraw the funding in order to preserve peace and order within the communities of the schools. I do not believe the school's argument is valid, as taking away government funding does not present a substantial burden on their religious practice or the religious practice of their students, it merely puts them on the same playing field as all other schools that do not receive governmental aid, just as was the case with Bob Jones U.
I agree with the author in this case. Schools are allowed to have their own religious beliefs; however, they cannot put the students at risk. By providing student loans to allow students to go to these schools, the government is in a way condoning these actions. If the government continues to provide funding to these schools in a way it is showing that they are okay with the inappropriate behavior that members of the LGBTQ+ community experience there. There is not a substantial burden placed on these universities because if they are still able to express their beliefs, funding will just no longer be provided.
Post a Comment