California State University is under a lawsuit surrounding a possible violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause under the First Amendment. After updating its anti-discrimination policy, CSU’s policy now states there shall be no discrimination based on, “nationality, race or ethnicity (including color, caste or ancestry)”. The plaintiffs, two professors at CSU, sued the institution as they believe the word choice of ‘caste’ targets members of the Hindu community and faith. Since the new policy uses the term ‘caste’ it singles out certain individuals based on their religion or ethnicity. The plaintiffs also argued that this policy breached the Free Exercise as it ‘ridicules’ their religion, and falsely associates caste discrimination with Hinduism. Therefore, the plaintiffs felt that such a policy was unconstitutional on religious terms, burdening their Free Exercise and Establishment Clause.
This lawsuit presents the question; is using the term ‘caste’ in CSU’s anti-discrimination policy constitutional under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses?
The first half of understanding this case is to determine whether the anti-discrimination policy burdens the plaintiff's exercise of their religion. The Free Exercise Clause forbids any policy that “prohibits the free exercise” of one's faith. The plaintiffs allege that the policy falsely associated the caste system with Hinduism. So, does this policy word choice cause any restraint or burden on their exercise? I would say no, the policy does not burden their freedom to exercise their religion. The plaintiffs are arguing that there is a false connection between ‘caste’ and Hinduism. But, this would imply that the caste system is not practiced in Hinduism. The Hindu American Foundation stated in their lawsuit against CSU that, “Their characterization is incorrect that Hinduism mandates a racist and discriminatory ‘caste system’,” noting the separation between Hinduism and the caste system. Therefore, there can be no burden on the exercise of the caste system in Hinduism, as the two are separate. The plaintiffs can still practice their religion freely and without restraint as the caste system is not apparent in Hinduism, presenting no burden.
Next, the plaintiff's second claim is that the policy’s use of the word ‘caste’ violates the Establishment Clause as it attempts to define Hinduism as a religion including a caste system, singling out one religion in the policy, inherently targeting Hinduism. Ensuring that the government is neutral and does not endorse one religion over others, the Establishment Clause prohibits the favoritism of specific religions. The plaintiffs allege that this breach burdens their religion, as it asserts a stigmatism between Hinduism and the caste system. Further, the plaintiffs themselves are staff members of CSU and members of the Hindu religion, making this case quite personal. But, how does this anti-discrimination policy connect the term ‘caste’ to Hinduism? The plaintiffs claim this policy causes a false stigmatism between the two, but the policy never defines ‘caste’ or refers to any religion or religious practice. In my findings, this policy does not display a relation between ‘caste’ and Hinduism. The term ‘caste’ can have secular and religious definitions, but the policy does not elaborate on either, and instead only uses the word ‘caste’ along with other secular dividers in society.
Lastly, the plaintiffs claim that the policy is not neutral, as it directly targets Hinduism. Further, this policy is claimed to be coercive, as it shows the government’s disapproval of Hinduism. On the contrary, in my opinion, this policy does not breach the Establishment Clause. The plaintiff's claim that in dictionaries the definition of ‘caste’ often refers to Hinduism, therefore supporting their claim of direct targeting and neutrality. But, there are various definitions of ‘caste’, some of which do not reference Hinduism or any religion. Even if the policy used the word ‘caste’, it does not imply any connection with Hinduism.
All in all, it can be concluded that the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs have not been violated, and as a result, CSU’s anti-discrimination policy is constitutional in using the term ‘caste’. The case, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, presents a similar issue; the word choice and intent of policies concerning the direct targeting of the plaintiff's religious practices and beliefs. But, these cases differ in important ways, as the Supreme Court concluded that the policies enacted against the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. were unconstitutional. The reason why I have sided differently with Kumar v. Koester is due to key details. First, the policy in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah bans the practice of ‘sacrifice’, which according to the religion’s members and doctrines is a part of the religious practice of their faith. But, in Kumar v. Koester, the plaintiffs allege that the caste system is not practiced in their religion. This issue poses the question; how can the policy be unconstitutional if the caste system is not even present in Hinduism, as the plaintiffs claim? Additionally, it was concluded in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah that the policies enacted intently targeted their religion. But, in Kumar v. Koester, the policy does not burden the plaintiff's practice of their religion or target Hinduism. Therefore, these cases are different due to circumstantial evidence in the facts. While the decision in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah is correct, its logic cannot be applied to Kumar v. Koester.
3 comments:
Hi Alex!
This was a super interesting post. I agree with your holding that the word choice of the policy does not burden their free exercise. The caste system is exercised in Hinduism, and it is worth mentioning that it is an especially vital part of the religion, making it impossible to separate the effects of the system and the system itself. Additionally, regarding the claim that the use of the word ‘caste’ is violating the Establishment Clause, I think that your claim that caste is never defined nor mentions any specific association with a particular religion is completely valid. “Caste” is a term used in Hinduism, yes, but it is also a terms that can be applied to numerous other types of ranking in society.
Alex,
This case was noteworthy and essential to assess. Like Tess, I agree with your holding that the word choice in California State University's anti-discrimination policy does not burden the plaintiffs' free exercise. CSU's reference to "caste", at face value, is merely to respect and not discrimination against individuals on the basis of inherited status, occupation, social status, etc. I acknowledge the plaintiffs' argument in its entirety, but as the facts of the case suggest, I do not find CSU's reference to "caste" on the grounds of Hinduism.
You made strong and valid references to Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah. As you explained, the case at hand offers different evidence than that of the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah. Your overall analysis of these two cases really strengthened your argument.
Alex,
Good post! I ultimately agree with your assessment and the commenters that the anti-discrimination policy does not burden the appellants' free exercise.
However, I do think it's reasonable to suggest the language is discriminatory. The policy does not mention religion at large, but does specifically say caste - a word only used when associated with Hinduism. I think it could be argued that this is a type of discrimination -- distinguishing one religion from all others. In this way, it's not a neutral policy, because it specifically points out one group. I think this case is interesting because they argue that caste is not a part of their religion -- merely a negative and false understanding of Hinduism. A negative stereotype in your place of employment's policy meant to protect you could very well be a burden on your free excersize. Perhaps just not to the extent of criminalizeing belief, like in the case of the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc.
Again, I do agree with your reasoning, just trying to think through the other side.
Post a Comment