The Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) is “a national organization which supports student-athletes committed to living out their faith on and off the playing field.” Like other clubs and organizations, the FCA allows students with similar interests and beliefs to gather together. And just like other student groups, the FCA has certain expectations for those who choose to participate. While any student can join the FCA and attend meetings, student leaders are required to abide by the organization’s statement of faith, which includes the belief that sexual relations are allowed only between husband and wife. This FCA chapter functioned without any issues for over ten years in the San Jose Unified School District, until April of 2019 when a teacher raised concern about the group’s views against same sex marriage. Shortly thereafter, the school district revoked its recognition of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, stating that the organization’s requirement of the statement of faith for student leaders went against the district’s non-discrimination policy.
The Christian Legal Society filed suit in 2020 against the San Jose Unified School District, claiming that the district’s policies violated the Equal Access Act and the First Amendment rights to association, free speech and free exercise of religion. The FCA believed they were targeted because of their religious views about sexuality and not because if their violation of the non-discrimination policy. Additionally, they pointed out how secular groups in the same district were not held to the same standards as the FCA and were allowed to discriminate against potential members. Other clubs and organizations’ constitutions limited membership based on gender identity or ethnicity, yet were not subject to the same punishment as the FCA. One such group, the Leland High School’s Senior Women Club, was granted recognition despite its constitution clearly stating that only women are allowed membership. This case asks the following question: does San Jose Unified School District’s selective enforcement of its non-discrimination policy violate the students’ first amendment rights to free exercise of religion?
Ten years prior, in the Supreme Court Case Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez, the court was asked to determine if Hastings College of Law did not have to recognize the Christian Legal Society. Hastings College required that all groups on campus allow “any student to participate, become a member, or seek leadership positions, regardless of their status or beliefs,” which the Christian Legal Society did not do as it required a written statement from each member affirming their religion and relationship with God. The Supreme Court ruled that as the school’s conditions for recognition were neutral and reasonable, it was not a violation of the first amendment. Had the San Jose School District held all organizations to the same standards, this precedent would hold up and nullify the FCA’s argument. As a result of the selective enforcement and double standard of the policy, this precedent is not relevant to the matters of this case.
It is my opinion that the school district’s ban of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes does violate the student’s right to free exercise of religion. The district’s non-discrimination policy is neutral in writing, as it ensures that every club must allow any student, regardless of belief or status, to join. What is not neutral, however, is when they choose to enforce this policy. The Senior Women Club “explicitly stated its intention to exclude males from membership,” yet they faced no punishment from the district. There cannot be a double standard for who has to follow this non-discrimination policy. Either all clubs must be held to the same standards, or any club can limit membership to certain individuals, be it by gender identity, ethnicity or religion. The district chose who does and does not have to follow the policy, and the groups that did not have to follow it are secular. As such, the district was not neutral between religion and secularism. It is concerning that the Fellowship of Christian Athletes’ violation of the non-discrimation policy was only brought to the district’s attention by a teacher who found offense to the club’s leadership requirement. The activities director of the high school shared that the other organization’s, who had clear violations of the non-discrimination policy, were able to keep their recognition from the district because there had been no grievances from students or faculty.
I think it is reasonable for the FCA to require its student leaders to share the organization’s beliefs and values, as they are the ones leading the worship, bible study, and representing their schools chapter of the organization. It is also important to note that this statement of faith is only necessary for student leaders, as any student in the school is welcome to attend meetings and does not need to share any common belief or value to do so.
On August 29, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “FCA students must be treated fairly and equally and that the District could not discriminate against their religious leadership standards under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Equal Access Act.” This ruling will ensure that even in a public school setting, students are guaranteed their first amendment rights, as well as the right to participate in non-school sponsored religious organizations, as afforded to them by the Equal Access Act.
I enjoyed your blog post. I agree with you that the leadership roles of the FCA need to share the common values of the organization. There is no reason they should not be able to have these rules in the FCA as no one is forced to be a member of the FCA. Your use of the Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez example was important to show a prior case as an example. I think you did a good job of explaining how it did not apply to this case though as the San Jose school district did not hold every club to the same standard. Showing the example of the Senior Women Club is very important as it proves they have allowed other clubs to be exclusive memberships. Overall I agree with the decision that this does violate their first amendment rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument that even in a public school setting, students should be guaranteed their first amendment rights of free exercise. I think this connects to the concept of belief v. act. The FCA’s statement of faith, which is required for just the student leaders, involves a belief that sexual relations are reserved for a husband and wife. This is simply a belief, and as asserted in the majority decision written by Justice Roberts in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), freedom to believe is absolute. The teacher raised a complaint about the group’s beliefs, not their actions, as their actions were not discriminatory since they allowed any student to join their organization. Since this case involves a concern with a belief, rather than an act, the First Amendment protects this exercise of religion, and ensures that the freedom to believe remains absolute.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your view on the fact that the school district's ban of the FCA violates the first amendment in regards to being able to freely exercise religion. In my opinion a teacher having concern about the group's views of their religious beliefs and shutting down the club violates their ability to exercise religion freely. Student leaders are told they have to abide by the organization's statement of faith, and it is entirely up to them to choose to hold a leading position. They are not forced in any way shape and or form to coerce or force other members of the club to believe these things, and there is no violation of the first amendment here. They are choosing to exercise their religion, but no other member of the group is held to that standard. As Molly said, the teacher raised concerns about the beliefs of the group, and not how the groups works or exercises. I agree with Molly in the sense that she had a concern with their belief, therefore trying to shut down the group is an act being made that violates their ability to exercise religion freely. I think the teacher is acting unconstitutionally, but not the FCA.
ReplyDeleteI think that the issue which you raise here is really interesting! Although this is a private organization, how can it be integrated into public schools without violating the Free Exercise clause? I agree with the response that Anna provided, as the inclusion of FCA in public schools requires the support of a staff member, someone who may have biases with how they treat people based on their establishment exacerbated by the inclusion of this club.
ReplyDelete