Three high schools in the San José Unified School District have had District-approved chapters of FCA since the early 2000s. During this period, no complaints were ever received from individuals who felt excluded or discouraged from seeking a leadership position due to FCA’s Sexual Purity Statement. In May of 2019, FCA became the first club in San José Unified School District history to ever lose official recognition and the privileges that came along with it. According to the District, the FCA’s Sexual Purity Statement conflicts with the District’s Non-Discrimination Policy, specifically in that homosexual students are not permitted to serve as FCA leaders.
The District’s Non-Discrimination Policy is as follows:
“All district programs and activities within a school under the jurisdiction of the superintendent of the school district shall be free from discrimination, including harassment, with respect to the actual or perceived ethnic group, religion, gender, gender identity, gender expression, color, race, ancestry, national origin, and physical or mental disability, age or sexual orientation.”
The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In this case, the free exercise clause is particularly relevant. The question here is as follows: Does the District's refusal to recognize FCA as an official club infringe upon the students' free exercise of religion?
According to the courts, yes. In 2021, FCA National, Pioneer FCA, and two of the FCA student leaders filed a complaint alleging that the District violated their right to equal access, free speech, and free exercise of religion. On August 29th, 2022, the U.S. 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals ordered the District to officially reinstate FCA as an approved club.
I believe that by derecognizing the religious group as an official club, FCA lost access to the privileges and opportunities that other (namely, secular) groups have access to. While the group was permitted to continue meeting, FCA was no longer included on official club lists, allowed space in the yearbook, or permitted to organize fundraisers on-campus... the main methods of recruitment. They also lost the ability to have an official faculty advisor, as well as priority access to meeting spaces. Thus, the District did not show neutrality between religion and secularism, but instead favored secularism. The evidence for this favoritism is that other clubs in the district receive recognition and continued administrative support, yet violate the Non-Discrimination Policy. Such organizations include Girls Who Code, Senior Women Club, South Asian Club, Persian Club, and Big Sisters/Little Sisters. These clubs determine membership on the basis of both gender identity and national origin, yet are not held to the same standards as FCA.
It is also worthwhile to consider the purpose and intended effect of the Non-Discrimination Policy. This policy is in place to ensure the well-being and acceptance of all students. Thus, the policy itself is not the issue, but rather its application. The District’s Non-Discrimination Policy has historically been selectively enforced. As mentioned previously, there are numerous other student organizations that actively contradict the policy, yet continue to receive approval and support from the District. In this case, based on the actions of the District, it could be argued that the Non-Discrimination Policy was invoked in order to target FCA for its religious views on marriage and sexuality, rather than to truly create an inclusive space in which all students are welcomed and supported.
This case parallels another involving the University of Iowa (UI) and an on-campus student group called Business Leaders in Christ. Similarly, the group initially received recognition and approval from the university, but lost that support in 2017 once they were accused of discrimination. UI first accepted the club's leadership selection process, but later claimed that the group violated the school’s Human Rights Policy for selecting leaders who embraced the group’s faith. The 8th U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Business Leaders in Christ, stating that UI discriminated against the religious student group, as the university “deliberately exempted some groups from its Human Rights Policy.” The ruling read that “state organizations can’t target religious groups for differential treatment or withhold an otherwise available benefit solely because they are religious.”
What are your thoughts? Do you believe that a public school's refusal to recognize a religious student club based on an inclusion policy is a limitation of the rights protected by the First Amendment?
6 comments:
I really enjoyed your blog post! You laid out the court case in terms that were easy to understand and gave enough detail to understand both sides of the case. My favorite part is how you compare FCA to other clubs that violate the non-discrimination policy, yet they are still in practice and have not lost privileges and opportunities. If the District is going to use the non-discrimination act as the key point to their argument, it cannot be selectively enforced, particularly for religous affilations. I believe that the school’s refusal to recognize a religious student club is a violation protected under the First Amendment. Clubs are set up that way people of similar backgrounds, interests, and hobbies can share opportunities and experiences with each other. No one is forcing anyone to join the club against their will. Students have the freedom to choose what club they want to join, therefore, the club should also have the freedom to choose its policies or rules.
I was very interested in this case. Firstly, I was a bit shocked about the Sexuality Purity Statement requirement to be allowed into a leadership role. This shocked me because do students have to tell their supervisors about their personal intimate lives? Are students required to give out this information to join the club? I also was somewhat shocked about the strictness of this statement has to do with male and female relations. In our current social system today, I am surprised this has not been raised as an issue by Christian athletes who
identify as homosexuals. Besides this, I thought this case was interesting because why was FCA restricted and given fewer privileges than other clubs that were deemed to have acted discriminatory as well? This article by Tarzy goes over that point very well.
I agree! I thought you did a really great outline of the case, the relevant constitutional questions, and its applicability to other relevant court cases. Additionally, I agree with your overall conclusion in this case (The District does violate FCA’s First Amendment right to freely exercise). For me, the most significant issue arises in the lack of expressed neutrality by the District in their application of the Non-Discrimination Policy, like you mentioned. Seen in the allowance of clubs like Girls Who Code or Senior Women Club, the mere existence of these clubs is based on the exclusion of those who do not identify as women or in the latter case, those who are neither women nor seniors (discriminating on the basis of sex, age, or both). In the FCA case, the club does not seek to exclude homosexual students from membership, like the aforementioned clubs, but rather a specific role based on the foundational beliefs that allow for the existence and purpose of the club. Furthermore, like you said, membership in the club is voluntary and students are welcomed to start a club of their own where they can assume these leadership roles (like the creation of a club for Men Who Code). So, I agree with you that by privileging the ‘discrimination’ of secular clubs over the FCA violates the First Amendment, as the FCA is more severely restricted due to the lack of recognition in their ability to freely exercise seen in their lack of access to meeting spaces, fundraising capabilities, etc. that may be necessary to the club’s ability to continue practicing. It would be interesting to see if the school revises its application of the Non-Discrimination code based on this case, regarding membership or the roles individuals are allowed to assume within a specific clubs?
I agree that excluding this club due to its religious nature is not in the spirit of religious neutrality and directly contradicts the first amendment's right to free exercise. I am surprised that they cited the non-discrimination policy “All district programs and activities within a school under the jurisdiction of the superintendent of the school district shall be free from discrimination, including harassment, with respect to the actual or perceived ethnic group, religion,....” . This policy prevents any sort of discrimination and by arguing that the group isn’t inclusive to members who seek leadership roles not of those specific beliefs and then kicking the club off for holding those beliefs is a little hypocritical. They acted in a manner not in accordance with their own standards. Clubs who use gender, race, identity, and religion as a means of community are recognized, therefore the school district is picking and choosing which are allowed and which are not. Membership is allowed regardless of person views or identity rather leadership is restricted. People are made aware of the beliefs held by these groups and willining join. If their beliefs don’t align there are other clubs they can join and hold leadership positions in but not allowing this group to be official means the same standard isn’t being held across the board. There is now no group for those students to affiliate with therefore not remaining neutral in the clubs they allow on campus. That being said I am surprised that students must disclose their sexual history as well as orientation in order to hold leadership positions but if students who have the same faith and don’t agree with that policy are free to form their own club. It’s the fact that this club wasn’t held to the same standard as other selective clubs that are value, gender, identity, or race based.
What a great blog post! I love how you detailed such a complex issue in a digestable manner. When it comes to the First Amendment prohibiting the Free exercise of religion, I would have to say that the school district's actions to practically shut down the club did just that. By removing the club from official lists, being in the yearbook, fundraising on campus, and main methods of recruitment, they effectively discriminated against the club. If the school district wanted to ensure that they created an inclusive environment, all they would have needed to do is compel the club to get rid of their Sexual Purity Marriage affirmation for leadership members. By ensuring that everyone has equal opportunity to becoming a leader, the district would have ensured an equal and inclusive environment. However, they did the exact opposite by decimating the club; thereby discriminating against Christian students on their campus and violating the First Amendment.
Post a Comment