This case involves Gordon College which is a private Christain university and a professor of theirs DeWeese-Boyd. Gordon College is a Christain university who wants their students and employees to have the same values as them. The article, Religious Liberty Initiative Files Amicus Brief in Gordon v. DeWeese-Boyd, states that the university, “Requires students and faculty to sign a statement of faith and agree to live by the standards of their Christain faith.” We automatically see the layout of their intrinsic belief and how important it is for the university that their students and faculty share that belief. The article also mentions something called the “ministerial exemption.” Which was explained to be, “The ministerial exception generally protects the freedom of religious institutions - including religious schools - to select individuals who play certain key roles in service of the institutions’ religious mission.” This is important because it shows how the religious institutions need to be protected under this and the religious actors who are important to drive their message.
Now looking at DeWeese-Boyd she was a professor at this college who they did not promote from her former position, associate professor of social work, because the university felt as though, “her performance fell short of Gordon’s standards for faculty scholarship and institutional service.” As a result of this she decided to sue them with their state court. The college argued this by saying they are protected under the ministerial exemption which the article says that the court needs to remain out of this matter. Looking at another article from Alliance Defending Freedom, Can a Court Dictate How a Christain College Carries Out its Mission?, states, “The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that the Christain college could not make employment decisions based on its core religious mission. But it is Gordon College that gets to make that call, not a court.” Then they say this is why they have petitioned the supreme court. The main issue here is the question asked by Alliance Defending Freedom: can the court weigh in on the hiring in a private religious institution when it is based on their beliefs and message they are wanting to send to their students.
Here now we are looking at the universities freedom to exercise their religion. While the court isn’t denying them their ability to practice their religion they are in a way punishing them for not promoting someone who doesn’t live up to their standards. The court should not have the ability to force the university to hire or promote someone that doesn’t fit their standards or reach the requirements they are wanting their faculty to meet. The court shouldn’t have a say in this because it is a private religious university that wants to hire based on their religious belief and the government shouldn’t be able to interject in that. This is a threat to freedom of religion because this private religious university now runs the risk of the court telling them who they can and cannot hire. They want their employees to be of their faith and the court is saying they cannot do exactly that which is a threat to their freedom of religion. The university wants all of their students and faculty to share the same religion that is known by the students and the people who are employed there. DeWeese-Boyd doesn’t have the right to work at this university so if she doesn’t want to live up to the standard that this university has she has the right to go to another university. Their standards are clearly laid out in the statement of faith the university has all students and faculty have therefore they are aware of what they are getting themselves into.
I believe that the university should have the ability to hire people that share their beliefs. I think especially because it is a private religious institution that wants to spread that message should be allowed to have the standard that their employees are of that faith. I believe that the court overstepping and attempting to dictate who this university can hire is a slippery slope. Although I do see the compelling state interest where this could be seen as the university discriminating based on religion while this is a Christain university who believes specific things and they want their belief to be intertwined with their message therefore I believe they have the right to hire and promote people who share that belief and meet their standard.
https://law.nd.edu/news-events/news/rli-amicus-brief-gordon-college/
https://adflegal.org/blog/can-court-dictate-how-christian-college-carries-out-its-mission
8 comments:
I agree with your position on this case which is that the court should not get involved. The university is private, which means there is not a compelling state interest to get involved. The teacher was also not discriminated against because of their religion, but rather do to a lack of performance. I think there is a good argument that this could lead to a slippery slope where the courts could become overly involved in how the university hires faculty. The fact that this is a private, religiously based university makes this different than if it were a state university, in which the court would need to get involved.
I can understand how DeWeese-Boyd would wish to seek full-time professorship and take this case to court. However, since the Gordon College is a private Christian institution, the university is subject to operate and hire whoever they please under the Ministerial Exception. The exception should be adhered to in this case, for reasons of why it is in place. This protects institutions from any government intervention in regard to the hiring, how and what they teach, the type of curriculum they promote, and have complete control over the schools religious operations. We must not forget that private institutions are not government funded, and this exception prevents any type of government involvement. Once again we can point to the Ministerial Exception as a good precedent as to why the government does not have a role in this case, despite how the professor would be fighting for their religious rights. Being the Plaintiff did not exhibit the ideal performance, the school has the right to not grant DeWeese-Boyd with full professorship.
I am going to agree with Libby's Assessment here as well. The key for me is that it is a private business and Libby points out well that DeWeese-Boyd can always work at another university. I do find it concerning that she was hired and is now being denied advancement. It feels as though if the school knew she would not live up to their standards and advancement was impossible that should have been communicated to her. One glaring issue is obviously the slippery slope, private businesses are not given total control over what they can do and this could certainly be viewed as an example of discrimination. In this case, however, the standards of the school's belief system and goals in relation to it are laid out clearly and at the end of the day, those are the requirements for the job. In every line of work, there will be people that do not live up to the requirements of the job and that is not inherently discrimination.
Overall, I do think I agree with your assessment of the case. The main reason is that this is a private institution and they should be allowed to choose who works for them and who doesn't based on the standards they set. DeWeese-Boyd knew what the standards and requirements were before she was hired. Therefore, if she truly didn't live up to them then it makes sense to me that she wasn't promoted. I do, however, question how the university decides whether or not the standards were met. Was DeWeese-Boyd made aware of the fact they didn't think she was meeting standards before this instance? This is the type of case that can lead to a slippery slope. However, because it is a private institution with rules that were laid out ahead of time, I find that the school's actions were constitutional in this case.
This is a tricky case because I can see both sides almost. I think I would tend to agree more with the stance you took, in stating that the court would be overstepping in this instance. I agree with this because the School is privately funded and, from what we know, is not receiving any money from the state; Therefore I think that they should be able to make whatever decisions they want when it comes to hiring. On the other hand I think this could be a slippery slope when it comes to discrimination. Would they be allowed to discriminatorily hire based off of race or gender? This is where I sway, and even typing this, I begin to think the other way. A very interesting case!
I believe that Libby's position is correct. I stand with her in her opinion that the court should not have a say when it comes to the internal hiring matters of a religious University. The University is private, and its students and teachers can choose to teach elsewear, therefore the state would not find a compelling interest in stepping in and forcing the University to make decisions. It is also important that the state maintains neutral here, and in order to accomplish this goal and not take up a position against religion, the court must stay out of this private matter.
it is also important to note that a teacher successfully overturning the Universities decisions may incidentally undermine the legitimacy of the Universities promotion process. if the court were to step in and force a decision, it may create the idea that teachers can sue in order to gain a promotion whether or not they actually believe they were wrongfully denied such promotion.
I agree with Libby's position on this case. I believe that there is no compelling state interest in regulating the internal practices of a private institution, and doing so would be an example of government overreach. The university was clear about its core mission and the standards that they expect their faculty to adhere to as members of their community and representatives of the university. Peyton's question of the way in which the University determines whether or not the standards were being met and Tommy's point about the potential to undermine the University's promotion process if a professor is promoted after a lawsuit are both really interesting to me. Further, I do see both sides of slippery-slope arguments. Although I believe there's a valid concern that if the university is allowed to discriminate based on a religious mission they could discriminate for other reasons like race or gender, I think the more compelling slippery-slope argument is that if the government interferes with the hiring and firing decisions of a private religious university, where else would they interfere? Although it's impossible to truly separate church and state, it's important to prevent the government from clearly and strongly overstepping into the details of private religious institutions. The professor was aware of the university's mission prior to her teachings and it's up to the private university to decide if she reflects their mission properly, not the government.
Post a Comment