Supreme Court Upholds Anti-Bias Rules

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (Hastings School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley) that public colleges and universities may require religious organizations that seek school recognition and funding to comply with the school’s anti-bias rules. In this specific case, Hastings bars discrimination based on sexual orientation while the Christian Legal Society claimed that the bar infringed on its First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

For initial details, see Inside Higher Ed’s initial post. Inside Higher Ed plans to offer more extensive coverage tomorrow. Here at  Religion on Our Campuses, I’ll aggregate links to further coverage and analysis as they become available.

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]

College modifies policy banning facial veil, now allows veil for religious reasons

Inside Higher Ed does a fine job (here, here, and here) tracing the controversy surrounding a ban on “any head covering that obscures a student’s face…either on campus or at clinical sites” introduced in December by the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences. The security policy initially had an exemption only for “medical reasons.” After a federal civil liberties complaint and extensively publicity, the College added a religious exemption.

The second and third posts offer sufficient background and detail to undergird a useful campus conversation. Recommended reading.

Air Force Academy Says Religious Tolerance Has Improved at Academy

Academy officials say that religious tolerance has improved dramatically since reports five years ago that evangelical Christians harassed cadets who did not share their beliefs. The chief critics agree.

"This is the first time we feel positive about things there," said Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which battled the academy in court over claims that evangelicals at the school were imposing their views on others.

The academy superintendent, Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael Gould, says the improvements are the result of a topdown campaign to foster respect and a commitment to accommodate all cadets, even nonbelievers and an "Earth-centered" religious group that needed a place for a stone circle so it could worship outdoors.

The story reports on a new Cadet Interfaith Council that tries to be proactive about meeting the religious needs of cadets and maintaining a supportive atmosphere on campus. It also offers background both on the earlier charges and on the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which was formed to combat the alleged harassment.

[The Associated Press via The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, Religion News]

Christian Group to Defend Expression of Socially Conservative or Religious Views on Campus

The Alliance Defense Fund, a non-profit Christian organization, is undertaking a special initiative to defend against what it sees as widespread and unconstitutional restrictions on free speech at public colleges.

That organization, the non-profit Alliance Defense Fund, is now undertaking a special campaign on a familiar front of the culture wars. Armed with a $9.2 million donation from an anonymous family plus its own matching funds, the group is stepping up efforts to combat what it says is widespread and unconstitutional censorship at public colleges.

With an estimated three years of funding, the University Project, as it is called, will deploy more attorneys to defend students or student groups that feel they are being prevented from expressing socially conservative or religious views.

The article in The Arizona Republic describes some of the currently active cases, interviews several supporters and critics, and gives useful information for evaluating the effort.

[The Arizona Republic via The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, Religion News]

College bars talk on gay rights

Faculty and students at Hope College in Michigan invited screenwriter Dustin Lance Black to make a class visit to discuss screenwriting and participate in a roundtable on sexuality. Black won an Oscar for his screenplay for the 2008 film “Milk.” After discussions with students and faculty, the Hope administration barred Black’s participation in the roundtable and disallowed the campus screening of “Milk.” The invitation for a class visit may go forward.

Hope College Dean of Students Richard Frost said that from past experience, strongly-opinionated speakers usually don’t further academic discussions about gay, lesbian or transgender issues.

“We had tried to do that in the late ’90s, with little success,” Frost said. “Students and faculty on either side of the campus felt extremely hurt and marginalized.”

“We are willing to do these things, but for the college to do this, we have to be sure it’s educational,”  he said. “It’s back-and-forth and educational. It’s not advocacy.”

The news article makes no explicit mention of religious objections. In its Vision statement Hope describes itself as aspiring “to be a leading Christian college, ecumenical in character and rooted in the Reformed tradition.”

[The Holland Sentinel via Inside Higher Ed]

Calvin College, trustee prohibitions, and faculty consultation (continued)

Friends of the faculty at Calvin College report that nothing in recent memory has united the faculty—liberal and conservative alike—as much as what is being seen as a “unilateral imposition” by the Calvin Board of Trustees of a policy stating “that advocacy by faculty and staff, both in and out of the classroom, for homosexual practice and same-sex marriage is unacceptable.” While faculty are divided on the Christian Reformed Church’s policy regarding homosexuals (summarized by one faculty wit as “we welcome you! but no sex!”), they are reportedly united in insisting that the Board of Trustees needs to consult with the faculty and to allow for faculty discussion.

Calvin College’s Board of Trustees, advocacy of homosexual practices or same-sex marriage, and academic freedom (continued)

In an earlier post, I  pointed to an article in the Grand Rapid News that reported faculty requests for a campus discussion on academic freedom after being told by the Calvin Board of Trustees that it is “unacceptable” for them to advocate “both in and out of the classroom” for homosexual issues and same-sex marriage. There is now a follow-on article that summarizes some of the response to the first article and offers helpful background to the controversy.

Calvin College faculty want discussion on prohibition against advocating for homosexual issues

The Grand Rapids News reports that Calvin College faculty want a campus discussion on academic freedom after being told that it is “unacceptable” for them to advocate for homosexual issues and same-sex marriage. The main faculty concerns expressed in the article were for how the matter was handled:

About 130 of the campus’ 300 faculty attended a meeting this week to discuss the memo. Karin Maag, vice chairwoman of the Faculty Senate, said there are concerns about both the content of the letter and the process by which the policy was determined.

"We see this as an opportunity for a discussion on campus about these issues, for which there is a range of opinion," she said. "We’re really at the very start of that process."

Maag said professors are concerned about how the policy was created.