Monday, October 7, 2019

Anti-Islam Government or Pro-Islam University?

In September 2019, the Federal Department of Education, headed by Betsy DeVos, threatened to cut federal aid to a university consortium whose Middle East Studies program was not in line with the ideals of the Department. The Duke-UNC Consortium for Middle East Studies receives federal funding under Title VI of the Higher Education act, but the Department of Education is threatening to cut their funding if they do not remake the Consortium’s curriculum and program to the standards and satisfaction of the Department. Some of the criticisms posed by DeVos were that the Consortium views Islam too positively and does not want them to “promote the ideological priorities.” In addition to this motion to restructure the curriculum of the Consortium, DeVos also accused them of misusing their Title VI funds in June. She claimed that the Consortium used its federal funding to sponsor a conference about the Gaza conflict and a member of Congress claimed that the conference had a strong “anti-Israel bias”.

The government has certain expectations for institutions receiving Title VI funding, such as compliance with Constitutional expectations, however, the ACLU claims that it also takes pride in claiming that American universities are “free from the ideological micromanagement of the government censor”. And while federal funds were technically used for the organization of the conference about the Gaza conflict (less than $200 used was from federal funding), the problem the Department of Education had was not with the conference itself, but with its content. The ACLU’s overall argument is that the Trump Administration is trying to restrict freedom of speech and religion on college campuses by threatening to rescind funding if universities do not “conform to the Trump Administration’s ideological standards” and that universities are “under no obligation to further the administration’s anti-Muslim agenda."

While I can see how the use of federal funding for an “anti-Israel” conference may be considered a violation of the Establishment Clause, due to the fact that it was a use of government money to endorse a political and religious position, however that is not what I understand to be the complaint posed by the Department of Education. I find this confusing because it would have been a valid point, had the Department chosen to claim that the conference was a violation of the Establishment Clause, but to me, it seems that DeVos has perfectly set up the Department of Education for accusal that they have violated the Establishment Clause.

Although I argued that the Consortium could have been seen as violating the Establishment Clause for the convenience of the Department of Education, that is not what I actually believe. The Consortium did use a little less than $200 worth of federal funding but I would consider that money a negligible amount in the grand scheme of the money that is actually awarded to the Consortium via federal funding every year. In addition to this, the conference was completely optional and students were not required to go, therefore any benefits to Islam were indirect. In addition to this, we discussed in class the fact that college students are adults that can make up their own minds and their own opinions. So, anyone who went to the conference, even if it had taken a stance on religion, theoretically would have taken the information presented and done what they pleased with it -- which could indirectly both benefit and inhibit religion.

However, the federal fund usage for the Middle East Studies program in the Consortium could have been seen as an establishment of religion had there been no other programs for other religions. Unfortunately, that information was not presented in the complaints by DeVos, though I think it can be assumed that there are other religious studies programs in the Consortium and/or universities. This would then be considered religiously neutral because the universities/Consortium is not favoring one religion, or no religion, over another.

Complaints against the letter sent by the Department of Education include those that are accusing DeVos and the Trump Administration of attempting to limit the freedom of speech and religious expression of students at the university. By threatening to reduce federal funding in the Middle East Studies program, students argue that they should be able to learn about Islam, and other religions, in an objective manner, and that the program is not pro-Islam -- the government is anti-Islam. With this, I would agree. While I cannot form an opinion about the stance about Islam taken by the Consortium, as I have not attended a class there, I would agree that the US Government has decidedly taken an anti-Islam stance. Therefore, I would argue that the Department of Education is violating the Establishment Clause by censoring teaching about Islam and by promoting anti-Islam curriculum within the Duke-UNC Consortium for Middle East Studies.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I do not think that the university did anything that was unconstitutional. In this case, as Maddy mentioned, nobody at the university was forced to go to the program, so they were not shoving a religion on to anybody. Therefore, the Establishment Clause was not violated in this situation.

Brendan B said...

I agree with Maddy's findings on this case. It seems like this an attack on education about Islam, and should not be taken as a violation of the establishment cause. While I see that they do have some evidence leaning towards a violation of this clause, I do not see it as a real valid concern in this case. The money lended was negligible, as Maddy said, and I do not see the "anti-Israel" accusations as being very concerning either. A conference is a place of discussion and sharing ideas, it seems like any kind of bias in the speech should not be too closely regulated, or problems with free speech could arise. I feel as though the existence of other religious associations at the school receiving the same kind of funding is an important argument against a violation of the clause. A real issue would be the spreading of anti-islam ideology throughout educational systems in America, to speak on some of the governments current possible inclinations (not to say that they are anti-islam, I honestly wouldn't know enough to speak on that).

Jemmy M said...

I also agree with Maddy's arguments. I do not believe that the university did anything wrong within their Middle East Studies Program. Bringing this back to Bucknell, I think about our Religious Studies Department and the purpose of the department is to educate and analyze different forms of religions, in this way there is no establishment of religion occurring because of how it is presented. I believe that the same is being done with the Middle East Studies program, with certain events like the conference being optional for students.