In June, Yeshiva University in Manhattan was involved in a court case involving the State Supreme Court that ruled that the University must recognize the LGBTQ+ student club. The club being recognized was a large celebration for the LGBTQ+ students. However several of the faculty at the university had strong opinions against the ruling. Administrators argued that the decision from the New York State Supreme Court was a violation of the schools religious freedom. The University then applied for an emergency stay late which was appealed. In recent days, Justice Sonia Sotomayor has said that the University can disregard the ruling that ordered the school to recognize the LGBTQ+ student club. Sotomayor was able to override the decision of the court because she is a Supreme Court Justice. The lower court originally made their decision because they argued that Yeshiva University was not a religious institution, but rather an educational one. Due to this classification Yeshiva University needed to follow the NYC Human Rights law which ultimately protects the civil rights of citizens. Yeshiva University argued that they indeed were a religious institution. The University's president, Rabbi Ari Berman, talks about how he wants to respect all groups, LGBTQ+ students included, however with this being said he wants the, “identity as an institution grounded in Modern Orthodox Judaism to be taken seriously.” The University practices Jewish religion in a variety of different ways. For example, they encourage study in Israel, require Torah readings, and a variety of other religious policies that are used to define their institution as a religious university. The University does have education outside of religion, but the University leads with a faith-based style of learning. An article from the New York Times states, "Yeshiva University says that its mission is to empower students to apply the values of the Torah in the modern world". In addition, the article goes into talking about how Orthodox Jews, in particular, believe the Torah promotes traditional views in terms of gender and sexuality. Therefore the LGBTQ+ club goes against the interpreted language of the Torah.
The main issue at stake here is whether the University's First amendment rights are being violated. More specifically the case is connected to the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The University is arguing that their rights are being violated, and that they have a legal obligation to deny recognition of the LGBTQ+ student group. The University is a private institution grounded on Orthodox Jewish Education, and they feel they are being forced to recognize a group not in their religious realm. It is of note that even though the school is private they still get some federal funds from the government. The overarching question is wether New York City's Humans Rights law overrides the free exercise rights of the University. In the end a decision was made that the University has a right to not recognize the LGBTQ+ group and their free exercise rights were maintained. The lead lawyer on the case, Eric Baxter, states, “the school should not have had to turn to the nation’s highest court “to receive such a commonsense ruling in favor of its First Amendment rights.”.
10 comments:
You make an excellent point about the fact if it indeed were a public university, it would have to support the lgbtq+ group. Still, since it is a private institution, they must be allowed to enforce their religious beliefs. I agree with you that although this may not be morally right, the university cannot be made to support this club. This would be going against their 1st amendment rights as a private university. It is a private institution, and the people who choose to attend are not being forced, meaning that private institutions have every right to enforce their rules.
Well written post! I agree with the institution's perspective in this case. Being that the institution is private and religious, grants them different privileges than a public institution. Although students can be unreligious and attend the institution, I see the argument similar to a Catholic high school where even the non-Catholic students are obliged to attend mass. Based off the First Amendment, it seems as if denying the institution a chance to stop the LGBTQ+ club would be unconstitutional.
Ultimately, the school is a private religious institution that also provides an education to its students, not a public educational institution. If the school chooses to not recognize a particular club because of religious objections, then this action is protected by the First Amendment's free exercise clause. It is also worth noting that MANY alternatives to the school exist, including public universities which are obligated to adhere to the state's nondiscrimination requirements.
Great post, Emma! I appreciate the distinction you made between your personal moral beliefs and your opinion based on constitutional law. I agree with your conclusion, especially your argument that the school is a religious institution and part of the reason why they’ve been able to function successfully is due in part to the religious component of the university. I agree that mandating Yeshiva University to publicly endorse a club that clearly goes against their beliefs would be a violation of the First Amendment. Making the institution approve this group would force the university to contradict its own beliefs in practice and thus lose credibility.
I like your response and see why the university wants to prevent this club from being established. However, I disagree with the idea that the first amendment of the university is being violated. First of all, the government regulates private institutions all the time; if the argument of “it’s a private university” is valid then why is the government allowed to interfere with other private institutions. An example would be a minimum wage, labor unions, FDA regulations, etc. On the other hand, the issue of putting morals aside is impossible, to begin with the university brought this issue because it goes against their morals, therefore morals are involved and it would be hypocritical to put them aside. However, the issue here is that this university failed to prove that they are a religious institution. The court upheld that because of their record of being an educational institution and not a religious one their argument was incoherent not invalid. I think that a religious university is allowed to reject clubs that go against what they preach, but in this case this university all of the sudden is claiming that they are a religious institution despite not having that record.
I enjoyed reading your court case about this particular ruling involving a private institution based on whether or not LGBTQ+ club should be allowed. Since the school is a private institution with Jewish values integrated into their teachings, I do think that it is against the Free Exercise clause to make the private institution force a club that does not align with their views. In particular, I am happy you asked the question of “If the state can limit the schools religious freedom, what else can they limit?,’ because it does raise the question if the private institution would have to have the club. I also liked how you pointed out the president’s statement about how he welcomes and respects people from all different backgrounds, but that doesn’t mean their religious beliefs can be put on hold for a particular group of people.
While I agree with you that morally I disagree with the ruling, I do also agree with the ruling from a constitutional perspective. Yeshiva University is a faith based school, established to give students an education while following the religious and moral beliefs established by the Torah. Just like Liberty University, BYU, etc, Yeshiva is a private institution that should be allowed to restrict certain groups and activities based on their founding mission. Additionally, students are not forced to attend Yeshiva. Students do so willingly, knowing what restrictions there may be.
I understand the university is private, but I do think that because they receive federal funds, they must follow federal and constitutional regulations. I'm also confused as to what specific speech under the First Amendment is being censored, other than the fact the LGBT club exists. Would the recognition of the club be the speech at question here? If so, I would consider it rather strange that the government would compel the university to speak, which is not usually the case (normally a person is defending their right to speak against censorship or the government).
I think that this post is really well written! I wish that I had a better understanding of the meaningfulness of the university accepting federal funds in this case, because I feel as though this is where the question of the constitutionality lies. As a private institution, they are entitled to censor the activities, behaviors, and types of speech that occur on campus, however, I wonder what regulations the university has to abide by due to receiving these federal funds. If the denial of this club being established does not violate any rules that come along with receiving the funds, the university is within their constitutional rights to deny the establishment of this club.
Post a Comment