Christian Legal Society at the University of Montana Denied Funding

The Missoulian reports that:

The student chapter of the Christian Legal Society at the University of Montana is suing UM’s Law School because it was denied funding by the Student Bar Association. ... According to the suit, the Christian Legal Society encourages Christian law students to “grow in their faith as they learn the law, integrating their faith into their chosen profession” and seeks “to encourage all students to investigate the claims of Christ for themselves and to be a Christian voice on the School of Law campus.” To “protect” the Christian message, the organization says it requires all voting members and leaders to agree with a “statement of faith,” including its interpretations that Christians should not engage in sexual activity outside the context of marriage between a man and a woman.

The students allege that UM’s Student Bar Association granted their organization preliminary approval for both recognition and funding, but when the matter was up for final ratification, funding was denied because of e-mail objections by other students. “In response, the next day the Student Bar Association Executive Board derecognized the chapter, stating the Christian Legal Society-University of Montana’s Statement of Faith requirement and its interpretation to prohibit sexual relationships outside of marriage for its voting members and leaders violated the Student Bar Association nondiscrimination rule,” the lawsuit states.

I was involved in one of these fights back when I was at the University of Illinois, where the administration tried to kick the local Christian Legal Society chapter off campus on the same grounds. This was before City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), was decided, so we could rely on RFRA. Under threat of a lawsuit, the Illinois administration caved.

Even with RFRA having been struck down, however, I think a strong policy case can be made that a university should not deny funding and recognition to CLS and like-minded groups under these circumstances. As I wrote about the Illinois episode:

[T]here is a difference between situations in which the state requires believers to act in ways that offend their religious sensibilities and those in which the state interferes in core aspects of religious worship. A state prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation can burden religious belief in both ways. Suppose a devout Christian, who believes homosexual activity is a sin, seeks to rent out a basement apartment in his home. If the state forbids the landlord from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, the landlord’s religious sensibilities may be offended, but his core religious activities remain unaffected. If the state forbids his church from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation in selecting a minister, however, the state is now obviously interfering with the central core of religious exercise, namely, the worship experience.

Application of university nondiscrimination policies to student religious organizations falls into the latter category. While not true churches, student religious organizations engage in worship and other religious activities. The practice of meeting regularly in small Bible study groups, typical of student religious groups, is one of the hallmarks of the evangelical and funda-mentalist Christianity. Larger group meetings for prayer, song, and the giving of testimonies, which are also commonplace, differ but little from a fundamentalist or evangelical church meeting. Evangelism, an important part of the activities of student religious groups, is central to evangelical Christianity.

Courts have been sensitive to the distinction between the sorts of core religious activities at issue here and regulations that merely offend religious sensibilities. The cases in which courts have refused to exempt religiously motivated conduct from nondiscrimination laws typically involved commercial settings. Hence, for example, some courts refused to exempt landlords from laws prohibiting housing discrimination on the basis of marital status, even though being obliged to rent to unmarried cohabitants would offend the landlord’s religious beliefs. Cases denying a free exercise exemption in noncommercial settings typically involved state actions that merely require believers to act in ways that offend their religious sensibilities and, moreover, have only “incidental” effects on their ability to exercise their religious beliefs rather than burden their core beliefs and practices.

Student religious groups are often engaged in core religious activities, a crucial point because courts have routinely refused to apply nondiscrimination laws to religious organizations when doing so would intrude on core religious activities. The right of free exercise thus has been held to preclude application of Title VII to the relationship between church and clergy. A federal ban on gender discrimination was likewise held inapplicable to a religious agency. A Catholic archdiocese was exempted on free exercise grounds from the Age Discrimination in Employment Act in parochial school hiring. Most notably for present purposes, a church was permitted on free exercise grounds to discharge an organist because of his sexual orientation, despite a city ordinance forbidding discrimination on that basis. Similarly, a pastor was permitted to withdraw an offer of employment as a parochial school teacher from a homosexual, despite a city ordinance prohibiting employment discrimination on that basis.

The logic of these cases is that a church or other religious organization is entitled to have leaders and employees who share their beliefs. The same logic applies to a student religious organization’s choice of members and leaders.

Unfortunately, post-City of Boerne v. Flores, courts likely will conclude that “state laws burdening religious exercise are again valid as long as they are facially neutral. ... In other words, state university officials can now be back in the business of setting the membership policies of student religious groups.”

I don’t agree with the CLS’ position as a theological matter. But wasn’t it Voltaire who said “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”? Despite Flores, I remain convinced of what I wrote about the Illinois episode; namely, that “the existence of [a] religious organization is linked to the selection of those who teach its message and practice its doctrines. Once the state begins interfering with those decisions, the ability to exercise one’s religious beliefs freely is fundamentally undermined.”

Posted on Sunday, December 30 2007 | Permalink

Over the last 50 years the worm has turned on Christianity in this country.

Forgetting the legal argument and the propriety of the state or the school restricting funding due to religious or associational position, (Should college be funding ANY student groups?  Why not drop tuition and let ALL the groups fund themselves?) part of the job description of Christianity is that you will be ridiculed, insulted and persecuted for following it. 

Naturally as Americans this rubs us the wrong way as it is contrary to our ideals of fair play, but consider:  The constitutional right of free speech and free assembly is not being restricted only the right of public funding for the same.  It is unfair but not unconstitutional.  Moreover the students are not required to attend this particular University. 

Although I suspect if the origination was say an Islamic one the same diversity police would not have dared to make the same distinction due to liberal belief or a Lawrence O’Donnell type fear as Christians the willingness to persevere in the face of such actions is a chance to both publicly demonstrate faith and to affirm belief.  We are lucky in this sense as Christians around the world pay a much heavier price to publicly affirm their belief.

The University of Montana’s actions are injurious to the body public, but may in fact be of benefit to the souls of the students in question and as Christians that should be the bottom line in everything.

Posted by  on  12/31  at  09:19 AM

Agreed.  Its time to stop taking funds coercively from students to fund all these groups.  Let the Gay-Lesbian-Transgendered Law Students, the Palestian Law Students, the PETA students and the Christian groups equally find funds among their supporters.  Survival of the fittest.

Posted by  on  12/31  at  10:29 AM

The issue at hand isn’t whether universitites should fund any students groups at all. The issue is that the university has made the decision that it will fund student groups, and it is saying that since a Christian student group is asking its members to sign a statement of faith, it won’t. To use Peter’s argument, the students are not required to join this particular group.

This is a case of the University discriminating against a group because of what the group believes.

Posted by  on  12/31  at  11:18 AM

I’m sympathetic to the no-funding-for-anybody argument-- hey, this is why we have the antiestablishment clause-- but the other issue is that a university essentially shows favor to some ideas and not to other by granting of meeting rooms, office space, ability to place materials on campus, etc.  Groups can do all these things off campus but universities often have a monopoly on real estate within walking distance that makes creating a student-focused group off campus a practical impossibility.  More to the point, there’s no reason to believe that other groups would move their activities off campus, since they believe that the university has an important mission to communicate their ideas.  Like it or not, Christian groups are stuck with Caesar and fighting him for access and rights.

Posted by  on  12/31  at  11:27 AM

I don’t understand exactly how they called this group on discrimination. They allow everyone to join. Everyone is allowed in. In fact, they would probably be extremely happy if everyone joined, as that is kind of their point. But they just ask that people who join agree to follow the rules. Since the rules are things that everyone can follow, if they choose to, then everyone can join. I suppose you could say that they discriminate against people based on their choice. Ie: They want to have sex before marriage and be in the group at the same time. But, that seems like a stretch of the term discrimination. And if the people don’t want to follow the rules of the group, why do they even want to be in the group?

Posted by  on  12/31  at  02:07 PM

I agree with the decision to deny this group funding. Had it been a group which simply advocated issues that overlapped with the general Christian message that would be one thing, but this was/is a blatantly and openly religious group. Now, if there are funded clubs for Muslims or Zoroastrians, I will revise my opinion, but until then the agreement we’ve made in society is to keep public funding out of religion (yes, I know there are myriad attempts to change this and I oppose them all.)

One thing to remember is that whoever controls the purse strings is in control. From this perspective, it is a very bad idea for religious groups to be entangled with government. Sooner or later, they will have to compromise to maintain that funding.

Lastly, a major tenant of Christianity is that you are supposed to “pray in secret”. You are to live your religion by example and gentle persuasion. The Christian message needs no protecting; it needs no support from a public institution. From a purely Christian perspective, I find this club utterly offensive.

Posted by  on  12/31  at  04:15 PM

Joe,

You may be partially right in your first 2 paragraphs, but your flat-out wrong in your last.

All Christian religions - Catholic or Protestant - have as a main part of their doctrines that you are to go out and proselytize.  That means try to tell people about the “good news”, to try to convert them.  The idea that one must keep his Christianity secret so as not to offend seculars is ridiculous.

It sounds as though you’re coming from an unrecognized Christian religion - or one that you made up.

TV (Harry)

Posted by  on  12/31  at  05:06 PM

Joe et al.,

“Now, if there are funded clubs for Muslims or Zoroastrians, I will revise my opinion...”

Here are some of the other religious groups on the University of Montana campus, taken from
http://www.umt.edu/asum/government/studentgroups.htm#RELIGIOUS :

- Buddhist Club
- Hillel ("Provide Jewish students a way to share their culture at UM")
- Muslim Student Organization
- Pagan or Wiccan Education, Resources, & Support
- University of Montana Campus Sangha ("Discuss Buddhist philosophy, group meditations, link between campus and Missoula community Buddhists")

These are in addition to ten other Christian organizations other than CLS. Usually organizations that appear on a university’s web sites are ones that are approved and funded by the university.

Posted by Robert Talbert  on  12/31  at  10:01 PM

Hard to believe they can find any college students willing to join a group that requires abstinence.

Posted by  on  01/02  at  04:00 AM

I think every public law school has this problem at some point.  I’ve always failed to see the difference between funding a Muslim studen group and a Christian one.  Both groups profess certain beliefs that are inherently exclusionary for those not of that religion.  One could, in theory, join one of these groups, but if you believe in a religion that worships multiple god, you will, no doubt, feel excluded.  By this logic since most public law schools prohibit discrimination based on religion (as well as sexual orientation) shouldn’t all these groups be banned?

The answer is actually “no.” If a group espouses certain beliefs but doesn’t require them to be a member (as is the case with this Christian group) then it should in theory be acceptable or all such groups should be banned.  If making people feel excluded because they have different beliefs in a group setting based upon those beliefs is discrimination we are in BIG trouble as a country.

On the other hand, why doesn’t this group save itself the trouble and invite it’s members to follow the statement of faith, rather than requiring it.  I doubt a group of Christians would support an openly gay individual in a leadership position as much as I doubt that such a person would actively try to obtain such a position. 

This is merely a compromise position; however, the University is in the wrong here.  At best it is not following it’s own policies, and at worst it openly discriminating against Christian students.

Posted by  on  01/02  at  04:29 PM
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: Chiappinelli to Helm Creighton

Previous entry: Are Law Professors Unhappy? And, if so, Why?

Introduction


Recent Law & Business Entries


Hot Topics on Food & Wine

Hot Topics on Punditry


Punditry RSS Feed

Archives

My Books




Blogroll