Wayne State Christian Group denied recognition due to non-discrimination policy

The formation of various student groups on the campus universities and colleges benefit and bring together similar individuals in a student body in a cohesive democratic manner. For many colleges and universities, the development of these groups must be paralleled by an approval process in which students apply for recognition that allows them to receive funding and other student group accommodations via the school. At Wayne State University, the intervarsity Christian fellowship holds a rule that it welcomes athletes of all faiths, but limits leadership roles to Christians only, due to the activities they must perform such as, “leading ofprayer, organization for religious outreach, and prayer vigils and other events”. When applying for the student organization status the group was denied on the basis that its policies did not coincide with the schools nondiscrimination policy which reads, “This policy embraces all persons regardless of race, color, sex (including gender identity), national origin, religion, age, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, height, weight, disability, or veteran status, and expressly forbids sexual harassment and discrimination in hiring, terms of employment, tenure, promotion, placement and discharge of employees, admission, training and treatment of students, extra-curricular activities, the use of University services, facilities, and the awarding of contracts”. There are other student groups on campus with similar principles, “Alpha Epsilon Phi has the stated purpose to ‘to inspire and support exemplary women ... while building on the vision of our Jewish founders’”. Previous to this, the group has participated as a student group on campus for more than 50 years. In response to the school’s refusal to go back on their decision, the group has now filed a lawsuit, claiming their being discriminated for their beliefs and that their First Amendment right to Free Exercise is being violated.

The court must decide if by denying Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, on grounds of the school’s non-discrimination policy, Wayne State University is substantially burdening the group to the point of violating the group’s First Amendment Right to Free Exercise. Similar in circumstance to Christian Legal Society V. Martinez, this case assesses a facially neutral policy that results in an indirect burden to a student religious group. In my opinion, the denial of the student group status is a violation of the students First Amendment Right.

The University’s decision to not approve the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship exhibits a hostility toward one specific religion, while also substantially burdening those who wish the maintain the group. Additionally, the act of discriminating against the ICF shows a disconnect in implementation of said ‘non-discriminatory’ policy. Similar to the dissenting opinion in Christian Legal Society V. Martinez, I would agree that the University wouldn’t be enacting their non-discriminatory policy by not allowing the formation of group based on their religion. Furthermore, I would argue that this displays hostility toward Christianity on the campus rather than the non-discriminations policy of tolerance. If not approved, student groups are still allowed to use school facilities to meet, although it is extremely costly, “the organization claims it paid $2,720 to reserve space it would have otherwise been able to use for free as a student organization”. As well non-approved groups can not apply for funding and certain grants. This places a substantial burden on the ICF’s ability to meet and exercise their religion as a cohesive group on campus. Likewise, logistically speaking the University’s policy states that students cannot discriminate on membership to the club or group, the nondiscrimination policy does not include leadership roles within the group. The group doesn’t discriminate on admittance into the group based on faith, it actually allows all religious faiths to be a part of the group. The part of the ICF’s policy that does not allow students other than Christians to hold leadership roles is entirely separate from the baseline inclusive policy of admittance to the group. Moreover, various other student groups are allowed to hold specific guidelines to those who join and hold leadership roles such as fraternities, sororities and religious groups, further showcasing the University’s discriminatory policy to the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship. Even more obvious, the mandating of a group to open up leadership positions to opposing viewpoints, defeats the purpose of the creation of student groups which are for the creation of unified environment amongst students. By allowing those who have different viewpoints to lead group activities, it would defeat the purpose of creating any type of club as it would undermine the group’s main purpose.

This is one of many student groups that have been effected by the decision in Christian Legal Society V. Martinez. If this case is to go to the Federal court, based on the precedent set in Christian Legal Society V. Martinez, it would most likely rule in favor of the University, despite the substantial burden placed on student organizations that are not approved per a logistically impossible policy.