Consider this scenario: Imagine that you and your friend are both practicing Christians. You are both in high school and decide to join your school's Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) student club. You are both active members of the club, but you participate even more often than your friend in helping to plan and organize several events for your high school. After spending your first year being very active in the club, you and your friend decided that you want to apply to be leaders in the club for the following year. But, because you are a member of the LGBTQ community, you are not eligible for leadership in the club. In contrast, even though your friend was less active in the club, she can apply for leadership because she is heterosexual.
This scenario illustrates the case of Sinclair v. San Jose School District (2020). At the Pioneer High School in San Jos, California, Elizabeth Sinclair and Charlotte Klarke were the co-presidents of the Pioneers Fellowship of Christian Athletes, an organization committed to supporting student-athletes in practicing their Christian faith. The club meetings were open to all student body members, but only those who shared in FCA's beliefs were allowed to be leaders of the group. In 2019, after complaints from a teacher at Pioneer High School, the San Jose Unified School District derecognized the group and forced the student group off of campus.
In the case of Sinclair v. San Jose School District, their policy states in section BP0410 that "District programs, and activities [clubs], and practices shall be free from discrimination based on gender, gender identity and expression, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, immigration status, ethnic group, pregnancy, marital or parental status, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation or the perception of one or more of such characteristics" (San Jose Unified School District Policy Directory, 2018). This policy seems to be the equivalent of an "all-comers" policy even though it does not bear the same name.
Furthermore, there is no one preventing the students in the Christian Athletes club from creating their own club, not affiliated with the school and not on school grounds. If the students were to create their own private club, they would have the constitutional right to enforce their own beliefs and regulations within the organization. However, as stated earlier, the San Jose school district states that their programs "must be free from discrimination…based on sexual orientation" (San Jose Unified School District Policy Directory, 2018). Overall, since the organization has ties to the public school system, it is perfectly constitutional for the school to de-recognize groups who do not follow the rules outlined in their school district policies.
8 comments:
I believe that the ‘all-comers’ policy and section BP0410 are valid and important to follow. Both of these policies attempt to prevent discrimination based on any characteristic. Disobeying a school policy is grounds for being denied registration as a student organization. I agree with your assertion that there is a greater state interest in developing inclusive school programs. It would be wrong for any school to promote discrimination, but this club is more than welcome to create their club outside of the public school system (therefore, not creating a substantial burden on free exercise).
I think that because the club was created within a public school that had specific rules about being inclusive to people regardless of their sexual orientation they must follow the rules that have been created. This once again brings up the issue of whether the rights of religion or the rights of the LGTBQ community should be secured. I think in this case it is clear that the group does not have the right to discriminate because the rules clearly state that they can not discriminate. In most cases like this it is hard to come to a clear agreement, but there is a school policy that is important to look at here. Based on the fact that there is a policy already in place I think the group must allow people to participate or face the consequences of not being recognized.
I agree that because this club is affiliated with the public school they should follow the 'all comers' policy that was enacted. I like your point in how these students who disagree could create their own club not affiliated with the school and could choose who they wish to be the leader and that would be protected under the constitution. The state interest to prevent discrimination should be held in the upmost importance. I also believe that it is important to have those policies in place in order for them to counter act the possible protection under the free exercise clause. I also see the interest of the club and this is what they believe, but because there is policy against discrimination I believe they need to follow the policy and like you said if they don't like it they can create their own club.
I disagree with most here, and believe that the the club should be left to abide by their rules, and that the state has a greater interest in allowing religious practice to take place in religious school clubs. Simply because the religious practice of the religious club takes place in school should not mean that the religion must abide by a set of outside rules. Although these rules may be discriminatory, it is no secret that discrimination takes place throughout a wide variety of religions and religious practices. By allowing the discriminatory practice of the club to continue, the school would simply be acknowledging the Christian views that are so widely held in regards to the LGBTQ community. The student has no right not be offended, and the club's ability to operate how it seems fit should supercede the students feelings. It is important here for me to make the distinction between acknowledgment and establishment. The school acknowledging the club's need to abide by its religious bindings is simply an allowance for religion to coexist with schools, not an establishment of one certain religion. If other religious clubs, as long as they only discriminate within their club, should be allowed to do so. This entire argument hinges on the presence of religious clubs in schools. I believe the school has every right to not allow religious clubs in schools, but as long as they do, they must let the club operate how it seems fit as to avoid state entanglement.
I agree in saying that the organization should not be allowed on campus in regards to the school district's section BP0410 which basically highlights an "all-comers" policy. With this, I do not believe that this is discriminatory to Christians. A policy is a policy, and needs to remain neutral whether or not it is a minority or majority group. In doing this, I believe the school is remaining as neutral as possible and is protecting student's rights.
I believe that the "all-comers" policy should be upheld in this case. School clubs should be more inclusive and not discriminatory. I agree with the point that the students that disagree could create their own club, not involved with the school. It is important to follow the policies set by the schools to avoid acts of discrimination, and this policy was previously in place. Therefore, it should be followed. Because of the free exercise clause, this club could create their own club outside of school like Emily said. I think abiding by the policy is the compelling argument here.
I agree with Tommy that the club should be allowed to operate how it wants to. If the district has decided to allow religious groups onto its grounds, you cannot then decide which of the religion's beliefs to let them practice. The Constitution offers no protections to members of the LGBTQ community, but does to religions, and therefore has an obligation to protect the rights of those groups. Just as members of the government cannot decide which religious beliefs are sincere and which are not, they cannot choose which religious beliefs people decide to abide by once they allow those groups onto government property. This group did allow LGBTQ people to join, but why should they be forced to elect a person into a leadership position that, in their mind, violates one of the group's core religious beliefs?
I think that I agree with Gen and many other commenters in this case. I believe that that this religious club should not be allowed to operate in this scenario. This is a public school and we can see clearly that discrimination is taking place. I think it is important to note that theis club would probably be using school funds and meetings held on school grounds. I think if this club wants to operate that they should disaffiliate from the school as Sam said. The school should not promote this discriminatory club. I am taking a very separations stance in this case due to the severity of discrimination in this country.
Post a Comment