Cancellation of noncredit course on Islam remains controversial

Insider Higher Ed’s David Moltz has a report on the continuing controversy over the decision by Oregon’s Lane Community College to cancel a noncredit course on Islam. The course was to be taught by Barry Sommer, head of the local Eugene/Springfield chapter of Act! for America. The website for the national organization opens with this statement from its founder:

I founded ACT! for America because Islamic militants have declared war on America. I know what this means. For years, I witnessed first-hand how brutally jihadists treat non-Muslims.

We are in for the fight of our lives and we must ACT! – before it’s too late.

The reason Lane administrators gave for the cancellation was the recent terrorist attack in Portland and the firebombing of a mosque in Covallis. But on the same day as the cancellation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called on the college to replace Sommer as the instructor. Much of the ongoing controversy, and the threatened law suit, revolve around whether the college bowed to outside pressure from CAIR and compromised academic freedom.

Community college drops non-credit Islam course because of instructor’s history

Lane Community College in Eugene, OR, has dropped a non-credit winter course entitled “What is Islam?” after learning about the previous activities of the proposed instructor, Barry Sommer of Eugene.  According to The Eugene Register-Guard,

Sommer has given talks at the Pacifica Forum, a discussion group forced off the University of Oregon campus following a series of presentations that critics said were anti-Semitic. He also leads the local chapter of ACT! for America, a nonprofit organization that describes itself as an issues advocacy group but that opponents describe as an Islamophobic hate group.

Sommer suggested that the decision raised free speech issues and indicated that he has retained the services of the American Center of Law & Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm founded by evangelist Pat Robertson.

The course had attracted the attention of the Council on American-Islamic Relations [CAIR].

“Unless the goal of this course is to promote anti-Muslim bigotry, Lane Community College should replace Mr. Sommer with someone who will offer students a balanced and objective analysis of the subject matter,” Arsalan Bukhari, executive director of the Washington state chapter of CAIR, said in a letter to [Lane Community College President Mary] Spilde on Friday.

Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s communications director in Washington, D.C., said Monday that he applauds LCC’s decision to cancel Sommer’s class.

Sommer denied that he is Islamophobic, but said that he did have “concerns about how Islam is defined today by its leaders, and how some people respond to those leaders’ interpretations.”

[The Eugene Register-Guard via Inside Higher Ed]

Islam and alleged harassment and retaliation at Georgia State

Inside Higher Ed offers a detailed look at “an ongoing case at Georgia State University highlights the complex and difficult circumstances Muslim students can encounter in a post-9/11 world.”

U.S. Appeals Court dismisses suit over religious speech

After a Los Angeles City College speech professor allegedly shouted down a student who was giving a presentation about his Christian faith, the student sued and asked, among other things, that the court strike down a district sexual-harassment code that forbade students and employees from creating a “hostile or offensive” educational environment. Scott Jaschik of Inside Higher Ed sets the context:

John Matteson, the professor, had asked students to give a speech on the topic of their choice. [The student, Jonathan] Lopez, who describes himself as a devout Christian, spoke about issues of faith and God. According to the appeals court’s summary of the facts in the case, Lopez touched on the issue of gay marriage by reading Bible passages and quoting from the dictionary, at which point Matteson called his student a "fascist bastard" and told the class that anyone who was offended could leave. Nobody left and Matteson then dismissed the class.

A few days later, Lopez turned in to Matteson a list of possible topics for a future speech, and while Matteson gave Lopez an A on the list, he wrote: "Remember — you agree to Student Code of Conduct as a student at LACC."

A federal district judge later issued an injunction preventing the college district from enforcing the code. A panel of the Ninth Circuit noted “serious concerns raised by policies that regulate speech on college campuses,” but unanimously found that the student failed to show that he was harmed by the code and that he lacked standing to bring the case. The decision is likely to be appealed.

See Inside Higher Ed for a Jaschik’s helpful analysis of the issues involved, and The Chronicle of Higher Education [subscription may be required] for summary details and links.

UC Irvine upholds punishment of Muslim Student Union for organized heckling of speaker

The University of California at Irvine has upheld its decision to suspend the Muslim Student Union for organizing heckling during the February speech of the Israeli ambassador to the United States. The suspension has been reduced to an academic quarter, not the originally recommended full year. Muslim students denounced the action as “collective punishment.”

[Los Angeles Times via Inside Higher Ed]

Oral arguments in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (Hastings School of Law)—with links

We have been following the news regarding the legal challenge that the Christian Legal Society (CLS) made to the non-discrimination policy of the University of California Hastings School of Law. The CLS student group asserts a constitutionally protected right to limit its voting membership to those who affirm the group’s Christian faith statement. The CLS also regards "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle" as being inconsistent with its statement of faith. The decision in this case may force colleges and universities to rewrite their non-discrimination policies to let student groups reject potential members on the basis of religious belief or sexual practices.

The United States Supreme Court has now heard oral arguments in the case, and a variety of news organizations have reports:

• Perhaps the most helpful for the purposes of this blog is the account offered by The Chronicle of Higher Education [subscription may be required]. It offers more summary of the oral arguments, analysis, and expert opinion than the other links collected here.
• The Associated Press piece in The New York Times has some details not found in the Chronicle.
• Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly offers an interview of two of the principals: Leo Martinez, Dean and Acting Chancellor, Hastings College of the Law; and Greg Baylor, Attorney, Christian Legal Society.
• The official transcript of the oral argument is here.
• Here is CSL’s key public page on the suit, and
• Here is Hasting’s page linking to other reports and opinion pieces.

Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (Hastings School of Law)—possible consequences

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life offers a useful overview and analysis of the issues to be debated before the Supreme Court on 19 April, 2010. At issue is whether a public institution—in this case, the University of California’s Hastings College of Law—may refuse to recognize a religiously based organization—in this case, the Christian Legal Society—that effectively bars non-Christians and non-celibate gays and lesbians from becoming voting members or assuming leadership positions.

This is an issue that Religion on our Campuses has been following for several months now. Particularly worth pondering in this instance: the Pew brief suggests possible ramifications depending upon how the case is decided:

If the justices rule in favor of Hastings and determine that its anti-discrimination provision does not burden CLS’s First Amendment right to expressive association, the decision is likely to have a limited impact outside of educational settings. At publicly funded educational institutions of all kinds, however, a ruling in favor of Hastings might embolden some schools to enact tighter restrictions on eligibility for student activity funding and resources. At these institutions, a decision for Hastings might give officials greater confidence that when they set conditions on groups that accept public money, they will not be violating their First Amendment freedoms.

If, however, the court finds that the non-discrimination rules impermissibly burden CLS’s rights, then the decision could have a broad impact that extends beyond educational institutions. Not only would this ruling protect the right of religiously based groups, like the Christian Legal Society, to receive support at places like Hastings, it might also allow groups that discriminate based on other criteria, such as race or gender, to gain equal access to public forums. Furthermore, if the court extends the reach of this decision to all government funding programs (as opposed to only those, like the one at Hastings, that concern public forums for speech) then its potential impact would be very significant. Such a ruling could lead to dramatic changes in this area of law by inviting courts to much more thoroughly scrutinize the conditions that accompany government aid programs, ranging from public welfare funding to higher education scholarships.

Update on Supreme Court case pitting Hastings School of Law against Christian Legal Society on school’s anti-discrimination policy

The Chronicle of Higher Education [subscription required] has another article on the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case on whether the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law acted legally when it refused to recognize or fund a student group, the Christian Legal Society, because the student group excludes lesbians, gays, and others whose sexual behavior it considers immoral. Oral arguments are scheduled for April 19.

The  article offers background and analysis, as well as summary and links to the many amicus briefs.

For earlier RooC links on this litigation, see especially here and here.

Jewish groups seek protection for Jewish students

According to its press release, the Anti-Defamation League, together with several other Jewish organizations, has written a letter to the Secretary of Education Arne Duncan,

…urging him to interpret existing law to ensure that Jewish students are protected against anti-Semitic harassment, intimidation and discrimination on campus.

The League urged Secretary Duncan to clarify the authority of the Department’s Office for Civil Rights to protect Jewish students who are threatened, harassed, or intimidated on their campuses because of their religion or ethnic identity.

The ADL said that it had “significant concerns about harassment and intimidation of Jewish students on college campuses – including in the context of heated debate over Israel.”

[Anti-Defamation League via Inside Higher Ed]

Calvin College job listing flagged by APA for bias against practicing homosexuals

In an earlier post I linked to a report in Inside Higher Ed that the American Philosophical Association (APA) had decided to flag job listings posted by institutions that discriminate against applicants on the basis of sexual orientation. Now, Inside Higher Ed reports, that the first flagged job listing is one from Calvin College. For Calvin College’s policy, see the online “FAQs about Calvin College and Homosexuality.” Here is perhaps the key paragraph:

Calvin College affirms the position of the Christian Reformed Church on homosexuality, which distinguishes between homosexual orientation and homosexual practice. While the orientation seems usually to lie outside the scope of an individual’s will, by God’s power and grace, behavior lies within it.  All people, gay and straight, are responsible for their actions, sexual or otherwise.  It is the position of the church, and by extension, Calvin College, that sexual activity belongs exclusively within the covenant of (heterosexual) marriage.

Inside Higher Ed reports that the APA anti-bias policy “specifically states that it is not acceptable for colleges to say that they welcome gay people, but only if they are celibate.”

A request: If any reader has a link to the APA anti-bias policy, please pass it on in a comment to this  post.