The state of Virginia offers a Virginia Tuition Assistance Grant Program (VTAG). This grant is a non-need based grant that can be awarded to Virginia residents attending accredited Virginia colleges and universities. The only requirement for this grant is being a full time student and Virginia resident. However, in the fine print for being able to hold this grant lies an additional factor of how the grant can be used for education. Stating it’s, “...primary purpose is to provide collegiate, graduate, or professional education and not provide religious training or theological education”. This is where Bethany Hall, a student at Liberty University in Virginia, feels as though her rights have been violated.
Hall claimed that this violated her Free Exercise Rights under the Constitution's First Amendment. Hall, however, has run into trouble with moving her case forward because of the precedent established with Locke v. Davey, where a precedent was established in 2004 stating that a state does not violate one’s First Amendment rights when it provides funds to secular college majors but not religious ones. Joshua Davey filed suit after his scholarship was taken away after he had chosen to pursue a major in theology. He believed that the ban on him being able to be awarded scholarship money because of choosing to pursue a major surrounding religion violated his First Amendment Right to his Free Exercise of Religion. The court stated that this law does not violate free exercise as states have always historically had an interest in not providing public funds for religious activity. Since 2004 Locke v. Davey has been used as precedent for several cases surrounding the issues of public scholarship funds and free exercise rights; Hall wishes to overturn the ruling for this case and to establish a new precedent for cases such as hers.
One of Hall’s attorneys, Jeremy Dys, has stated that, “Excluding students from a state scholarship or grant simply because their choice of major is religious is discriminatory”, which calls into the main issue of this case, can the state of Virginia revoke and withhold earned public grant money because the college or university student has chosen to pursue a religious major?
Although this case, at face value, does seem to be infringing on Hall’s Free Exercise rights, upon further research of the VTAG program and Liberty University’s major offerings, this may not be the case. Liberty University is an evangelical Christian university which offers a variety of religious studies majors and programs, and some of these majors are eligible to be studied and have a VTAG grant. These include:
-Global Studies
-Philosophy and Religion
-Religion
-Religion: Evangelism
-Religion: Christian Counseling
-Religion: Christian Counseling
-Religious Studies: Global Studies
-Religious Studies: Old Testament
-Religious Studies: Theology and Apologetics
-Religious Studies: Jewish Studies
The ineligible programs, although a greater amount than the eligible programs, all include some form of worship, leadership, and ministry components. VTAG is not explicitly denying students who wish to participate in religious studies the right to the grant, but students who wish to study, in short, the proclamation of the Christian faith.
Although some students would not be able to pursue exactly what they are wishing to pursue through the VTAG program, their First Amendment rights are not being infringed upon because of this requirement with VTAG. Public funds should not be explicitly used to support the proclamation of any faith. In the case of many of the majors excluded from VTAG studies of how to teach and spread the Christian faith are included. Religious majors are not explicitly ineligible for VTAG, they are simply narrowed down so that public funds are not provided to students so that they can then proclaim a religion. If students were able to receive state funds to study ministry, for any religion, it could be perceived as a state supporting a religion and violating the Establishment Clause, which states that there should be no law that respects the establishment of religion.
Though the VTAG requirements seem to separate students that wish to procure religious degrees from those wishing to earn secular degrees, upon further investigation it seems that Free Exercise of religion is respected through these requirements, and ultimately, the Establishment Clause is what is being protected through the decision to deny public funds to ministerial based university majors.
9 comments:
I agree that Hall’s Free Exercise rights were not necessarily violated, especially since the grant already states that it is not meant to fund religious training or theological education. At the same time, I can understand why taking away financial assistance because of the major a student is interested in could seem unfair. I think it makes more sense knowing that VTAG does allow some religious majors that focus on studying religion and excludes majors that are training students for ministry or a religious career. Since the grant is funded by the state paying for someone’s training to become a religious leader I think could raise concerns about the separation of church and state.
I agree with this assessment of the VTAG program. I think VTAG acts in a completely neutral way, in terms of free exercise. The program never says one can not practice a certain religion but it also doesn't endorse it. I think that giving public funds specifically to support religious training or ministry could be potentially viewed as a government endorsement of a religion. At the same time VTAG attempts to remain neutral by applying restrictions to religious training in general rather than targeting one particular religion. Where I think this case could get a little hazy is the part of the establishment clause where the government can't endorse religion over non-religion. I think that could be called into question. In general I do agree with your analysis and do not think the state should endorse religious studies of any sort as that could be an overlap of church and state.
I also agree with the notion that Hall’s scholarship should not be restored. As you noted, the VTAG qualifications do state that her eligibility for the grant is lost if she chooses to pursue a future in theological instruction. I concur that if the grant were used for students pursuing a ministerial career, then perhaps the US would be guilty of violating the Establishment clause by indirectly supporting a church. Moreover, this is not in violation of the Free Exercise clause, as there were options available to pursue a Bachelor’s degree in numerous other versions of religious studies. While I do sympathize with Hall, the existing precedent should not be overturned.
I agree with your point that the VTAg requirements can be seen as protecting the Establishment Clause rather than simply restricting religious students. Hall can still study religion and practice her faith, but the state does not necessarily have to fund every religious program she chooses. I also think the distinction between studying religion academically and training for ministry matters because public funding for direct religious training could raise concerns about government support for religion.
I agree with the idea that the VTAG program is not violating the rights of Hall. I believe that one of the biggest pieces of this is that the grant program is a public program funded by the state of Virginia. Since this is a public program and clearly states that it will not support religious training or theological education, I do not believe that it violates either the free exercise clause, or the establishment clause. Hall is not being stopped from practicing her religion, she is simply getting a state funded grant taken away that clearly states it cannot be used towards any religious training or theological education.
I concur with your response that Hall’s right to exercise religion has not been infringed upon by taking away the scholarship. The most important fact of this case is that scholarship does not apply to general religious study majors, only those which prepare students for a career as a worker of a religious organization. Hence the scholarship is just ensuring that public funds do not favor one religion over another by not paying for education of future religious workers.
This is a great post—very thought-provoking! I find it hard to reconcile that all ineligible programs "include some form of worship, leadership, and ministry components" juxtaposed with Chrisitan Counseling being listed as an eligible program. Christian Counseling inherently blends psychology and theology to support mental health using Christian beliefs and principles—is that not government funding being allocated to promote religion? Furthermore, from a Christian theological perspective, ministry is not limited to a specific occupation; all believers are called to minister and spread the gospel in some capacity. VTAG itself therefore seems internally inconsistent. If the concern is that public funds should not support religious activity, why is one from of Christian service eligible, whereas Ministry is ineligible? I argue that VTAG is demonstratively non-neutral—either all religious studies should be eligible for the grant, or no religion should be subsidized. That being said, I am unsure of which option would best support government neutrality.
I think an important distinction here is that public funding of a theological/religious training major is not against the first amendment; students in those majors can receive the Pell grant if they meet other eligibility requirements. Rather, the issue is whether or not public funding can exclude religious training at all. Based on the facts of the case, it is reasonable for a state to interpret the first amendment in a more restrictive way.
I agree with your argument because the VTAG program doesn't seem to exclude religious education entirely. Like you pointed out, majors such as Christian Studies, Religion, Jewish Studies, and Theology and Apologetics can still qualify for the grant. The excluded programs seem to be those that focus more directly on ministry, worship, leadership, or spreading a specific faith. Because of that distinction, I think your point about the Establishment Clause is important. Virginia is not necessarily telling students they cannot study religion, but it is trying to avoid using public money to directly support training for religious ministry. I also think the comparison to Locke v. Davey strengthens your argument because it shows the Supreme Court has already recognized a difference between funding general education and funding specifically religious training.
Post a Comment