Vanderbilt’s crack-down on religious groups has captured headlines and ignited controversy on campus.  Chancellor Zeppos’ recent “message” on “nondiscrimination” announced a town hall to explain everything.  At this meeting, the dean of the divinity school served as a religious stage prop while Provost Richard McCarty and General Counsel David G. Williams filled three hours with double-talk.

Both the complete footage and the highlights above expose Vanderbilt’s policy change for what it is:  a purge cloaked in a nondiscrimination guise that targets religious students who make the mistake of taking their faith and freedoms seriously.  And it is lead by people who do not understand the role of religion in students’ lives, who have little regard for basic freedoms, and who refuse to put their policy in writing.

For example, a student eloquently explained that just as it is impossible for religious students to separate their faith from the rest of life, so religious groups necessarily make faith-based decisions.  Provost McCarty replied, “Everyone isn’t as fortunate as you are to be firm in their faith.”  So what?  When students want to become stronger, whom do they seek?  People who are firm in their faith?  Or groups engaged in false advertising (e.g., Jewish groups run by Hindus, Mormon groups run by Baptists)?  Vanderbilt mandates the latter.  But this is not surprising, seeing how the Provost emphatically declared that his faith does not and should not affect his decisions at all.  That is, of course, his privilege.  It would be nice if he would allow others to choose differently.

Nor did the administrators fare any better at Freedom 101.  Mr. Williams announced that if a group does not accept everyone, it discriminates.  Actually, this is called freedom of association, which—as the Supreme Court has repeatedly declared—includes the freedom not to associate.  But then again, Mr. Williams has a strange view of this freedom, one that tells groups:  “Either you let everyone in, or you won’t exist.”  This may be many things, but free association it is not.

So what exactly is Vanderbilt’s new policy?  Well, no one knows—not even the administrators.  Mr. McCarty announced an “all-comers” policy.  But fraternities and sororities exclude people for all sorts of reasons, including sex.  Mr. Williams waffled on whether they would be exempted, but not on how this policy would apply to religious groups:  “What we’re against is you basically saying, ‘The only people who can run for leadership—or the only people who we will establish as leaders—have to share that belief.’”  Despite the overall fog of Vanderbilt’s “fire, ready, aim” approach to creating policy, one thing is clear:  religious groups will not enjoy the freedom of religious association.

This shifting double-standard irritated students, who repeatedly asked for a written policy.  But this was too much to ask of Provost McCarty, who explained that “it is virtually impossible to put down in a single document all of the permutation that we have talked about tonight in one tightly written policy.”  Somehow, the thousands of universities that dot the American landscape from sea to shining sea have all managed to create such a written policy.  For that matter, the countless elementary, middle, and high schools have too.  But it is too daunting a task for Vanderbilt.  In fairness, though, it is difficult to concoct a policy that protects favored groups (like the Greek system), targets Christians, and also appears even-handed.

However, to the Provost, all of this is much ado about nothing.  After all, as he announced to the students:  “You’re saying to me, ‘I’m making you do something that you don’t want to do.’  And I am telling that’s not what I am asking you to do.”  Really?  Then why change the policy?  Such obfuscation cannot conceal the reality.  Vanderbilt demands that Christian groups consider Jewish leaders, that Jewish groups consider Hindu leaders, etc. (thus exposing them to discrimination complaints if such students get voted down).  Students rightfully object to this violation of religious freedom.  And the University says, “Do it anyway, or go away.”

Regardless, the Provost assured students that he saw no danger that a group would be “subverted by a couple of dedicated individuals that want to somehow divert the group from its original intent.”  Mr. Provost, meet Christian Legal Society.  It exists, among other things, to hold Bible studies.  But when it said that it expected its leaders to lead these studies, “a group of dedicated individuals”—all on Vanderbilt’s payroll—“diverted the group from its original intent” by denying CLS the recognition it needs to meet freely on campus.

Fortunately, Provost McCarty accentuated his absurdity with his solution for students serious about their beliefs and their freedoms:  “We’re asking you—oh, my gosh—to take a leap of faith for one year and give it a try.”  Christians, of all people, exercise faith, but it is in the Rock of Ages, not in an administrator who articulates such a vacillating, incoherent, and dangerously unwritten policy.

He also offered some advice to students who simply want to maintain the integrity of their group and its teachings:  “You will benefit greatly from being maybe a little bit more open on this issue.”  Here is a better idea for Vanderbilt:  “You will benefit greatly from being maybe a little bit more open to religious freedom.  It has grown in these parts since the Pilgrims.  Just try it.”

In 2011, the Indiana General Assembly created the Choice Scholarship Program.  Qualifying families receive vouchers, which they may redeem at private schools, both secular and religious.  A collection of taxpayers sued, alleging that the program violated three provisions of the Indiana constitution.  The Marion County Circuit Court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all three claims.

The court first held that the program did not violate Article 8, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution, which requires the state General Assembly to “encourage, by all suitable means, moral, intellectual, scientific and agricultural improvement” and to “provide, by law, for a general and uniform system of Common Schools.”  The court reasoned that the imposition of this latter duty did not preclude the legislature from satisfying the first duty through means other than the public school system.

The court then held that the program did not violate Article 1, Section 4, which forbids “compelled support” of houses of worship and other ministries.  The court observed that this provision was primarily designed to protect citizens from forced tithing.

Finally, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that the Choice Scholarship Program violated Article 1, Section 6 of the Indiana Constitution, which declares: “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, for the benefit of any religious or theological institution.”  The court observed that the money in question was not “for the benefit of any religious  or theological institution,” but instead for the benefit of parents and children exercising educational choice.  Any benefits religious schools received were merely “incidental” to the accomplishment of the state’s educational goals.

Significantly (for Christ-centered colleges and universities and their students), the court observed that a contrary reading of Article 1, Section 6 would jeopardize higher education tuition assistance programs that allow students to direct their aid to religious colleges and universities.
The Alliance Defense Fund and its allied attorneys represent certain of the Christian schools participating in the program.  An appeal is expected.

First, the Constitution protects the rights of all Americans to advocate their beliefs.  This right even extends to atheists, a small, disgruntled minority who promote the faith-based belief that God does not exist and who regularly showcase the same kind of anti-religious rhetoric that Mr. Stefanellis spouts.  (In unpublished remarks, he even claimed that Jesus Christ never existed.  Perhaps a history lesson would be in order.)  It would be nice if these atheists would recognize that the Constitution extends the same right to the millions of Americans who cherish their religious beliefs.  Sadly, they insist instead on silencing religious expression at every turn, as if they and they alone are entitled to free speech.

Second, it would be nice if the atheists could keep their story straight.  They claim that children should not be exposed to religious views, but nonreligious (or even anti-religious) ones are welcome.  When fellow students and private ministries share their religious beliefs after school, the atheists call it “passive-aggressive proselytizing” and “indoctrination.”  But when government officials promote anti-Christian dogma during the school day, everything is just fine.  So while atheists talk about giving children “all the facts,” they really seek to advance their own values and silence all others.  Again, the Constitution allows them to advocate their faith, their values, and their morality.  But it also allows Christians to do the same.  This is what the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause is all about.

Last, these atheists need to understand that their bullying tactics will not work.  As federal courts have repeatedly confirmed, the Constitution allows religious students and organizations to use school facilities just like other students and community groups.  And it permits students to distribute religious tracts and flyers at school, just as it allows outside groups to do so if the school has opened a forum.  Atheists may not like the freedoms the Constitution grants, but they certainly have no problem with using them to advance their message.  We at the Alliance Defense Fund will vigilantly look out for any attempts from atheists to bully schools into silencing religious speech and accepting their anti-God agenda through legal threats.  And we will stand with organizations like CEF and FCA—and the countless Americans they represent—who prize both religion and freedom.

In addition to this great quote on tolerance, I also wanted to share a few quotes from the opinion that show the refreshing common sense the court applied in rejecting EMU’s arguments.

One of EMU’s primary reasons for expelling Julea was that she allegedly violated an American Counseling Association (ACA) ethics provision against imposing values on a client.  EMU alleged this despite the facts that Julea 1) never even met the client in question, and 2) asked to refer the client.  The court saw right through EMU’s odd argument that asking for a referral is tantamount to imposing your values:

What exactly did Ward do wrong in making the referral request? . . . . The point of the referral request was to avoid imposing her values on gay and lesbian clients. And the referral request not only respected the diversity of practicum clients, but it also conveyed her willingness to counsel gay and lesbian clients about other issues—all but relationship issues—an attitude confirmed by her equivalent concern about counseling heterosexual clients about extra-marital sex and adultery in a values-affirming way.

The court also relied on common sense in rejecting EMU’s claim that Julea violated an ACA provision that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation:

Here too, what did Ward do wrong? Ward was willing to work with all clients and to respect the school’s affirmation directives in doing so. That is why she asked to refer gay and lesbian clients (and some heterosexual clients) if the conversation required her to affirm their sexual practices. What more could the rule require? Surely, for example, the ban on discrimination against clients based on their religion (1) does not require a Muslim counselor to tell a Jewish client that his religious beliefs are correct if the conversation takes a turn in that direction and (2) does not require an atheist counselor to tell a person of faith that there is a God if the client is wrestling with faith-based issues. Tolerance is a two-way street. Otherwise, the rule mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination.

In addition to our strong First Amendment claims in the case, we had argued all along that simple common sense defeated EMU’s claims that Julea had violated the ACA ethics code.  Seeking to refer a client is the exact opposite of imposing your values on them.  And a nondiscrimination rule interpreted to require students to promote ideas that violate their most sincerely held moral and religious convictions is nothing more than an ideological sledgehammer for compelling thought conformity.  I was very pleased the court shed some much needed common sense on the matter.

_______

We praise God for this encouraging victory!

Your support can make all the difference

ADF is committed to reclaiming and preserving religious freedom on public university campuses. By God’s grace, and with the prayers and financial support of Christians like you, we will continue our winning record of success—defending the constitutionally protected rights of students, like Julea Ward, to freely live out their faith.

Campus officials are taking a wait-and-see approach.

“We’ll be monitoring it and making decision based on the overall best interest of the university,” said Claudia Morain, a spokeswoman for the university.

If this had been a Christian or pro-life student group, you can be sure that campus police would have moved in immediately.  Universities barely let Christian and pro-life students hold signs or hand out leaflets on campus without threatening arrest, let alone occupy an entire building.

Maybe one day campus administrators will wait-and-see that Christian and pro-life speech isn’t so bad after all.

Striking at the very heart of Ms. Ward’s lawsuit, the court said that: “A university cannot compel a student to alter or violate her belief systems based on a phantom policy as the price for obtaining a degree.”

We are certainly pleased the court recognized this important First Amendment principle and highlighted many of the facts in the the record showing that this is precisely the demand Eastern Michigan made of Julea.

For more information about the Sixth Circuit’s ruling and other information about this case, please see our press release.

We praise God for this encouraging victory!

Your support can make all the difference

ADF is committed to reclaiming and preserving religious freedom on public university campuses. By God’s grace, and with the prayers and financial support of Christians like you, we will continue our winning record of success—defending the constitutionally protected rights of students, like Julea Ward, to freely live out their faith.

Even at the time of Roe, some were concerned that legalized abortion would lead to compelled participation in abortion, a concern that was not misplaced as ACLU attorneys were working in Montana to force Catholic hospitals to perform sterilizations.  The Supreme Court acknowledged but dismissed that concern, holding only that “the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, … the patient’s pregnancy should be terminated.”  The Court cited favorably the resolution of the AMA House of Delegates stating:

RESOLVED, That no physician or other professional personnel shall be compelled to perform any act which violates his good medical judgment. Neither physician, hospital, nor hospital personnel shall be required to perform any act violative of personally held moral principles. In these circumstances, good medical practice requires only that the physician or other professional personnel withdraw from the case so long as the withdrawal is consistent with good medical practice.

Similarly, in Doe v. Bolton while the Supreme Court struck down some parts of a Georgia abortion law, it left standing a provision that allowed any medical professional or hospital to decline to participate in abortions, saying that this provision was an “appropriate protection to the individual and to the denominational hospital.”  Thus, in the seminal abortion decisions that President Obama and the abortion industry celebrate this weekend, the same Court acknowledged the right NOT to assist in abortions in violation of conscience.

To be absolutely sure however, the U.S. Congress passed the Church Amendments, turning back ACLU efforts to treat Catholic hospitals receiving Medicare funds as public hospitals and force them to perform sterilizations (and ultimately abortions), and prohibiting recipients of certain federal funds from requiring medical professionals or any person to participate in abortions, sterilizations, or other procedures in violation of conscience.  This was so uncontroversial it passed with only a single vote against in either house – a vote total unthinkable even for a bill to honor mom and apple pie today.  In fact, noted right wing extremist Senator Ted Kennedy spoke in favor of the law on the floor of the Senate, saying that it protected the constitutional right not to participate in abortion and he supported the “full protection to the religious freedom of physicians and others.”  In 1973, as the opinions reflect, there was no doubt that whatever right the penumbral emanations of the constitution gave to women and doctors to participate in abortions, it certainly protected the right not to participate in abortions or other medical procedures that violated one’s conscience.

It is in the face of this history that the Obama Administration announced on Friday that it will, with only a 1 year reprieve, fine virtually every faith-based ministry in the country that does not pay for contraception and abortifacients (Plan B, Ella, IUD, etc. included).  This decision is certainly an affront to religious liberty –perhaps the greatest in our nation’s history.  But it is also completely unsupported, indeed rejected by the very cases that the Obama Administration would use to support its cause.  Roe and Doe, as bad as those decisions are, reject the Administration’s claim that a woman’s “right” to contraception and abortifacients justify the federal government compelling Christ-centered ministries to violate their conscience by buying these for them.  When you hear abortion industry supporters rely upon those decisions to justify this assault on conscience, don’t believe it.  Even Roe itself is conservative compared to the radical anti-life advocacy of the present Administration.

In 2010, Congress passed and President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as “Obamacare.”  The Act requires group health plans to include certain preventive health services.  The law gave HHS’s Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) the power to determine what “preventive services” had to be covered.  HRSA decided that plans would have to include “[a]ll Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.”  The FDA has approved the sale and marketing of Plan B and ella as contraceptives, even though both can function as abortifacients.

Many religious organizations believe that abortion is morally wrong.  Some also object to contraception and sterilization.  The religious exemption in HHS’s contraceptive mandate, however, is shockingly narrow.  To avoid being forced to pay for morally problematic drugs, devices, procedures, and counseling, a religious organization must convince the federal government (1) that its purpose is the inculcation of religious values; (2) that it “primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization”; (3) that it “serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization”; and (4) that it has a particular tax status with the IRS — one that most non-church religious organizations do not have.  Given the narrowness of the objection, most religious schools, colleges, universities, and social service ministries are covered by the mandate.  Moreover, individuals who pay premiums into group health plans (or who will utilize the “exchanges” envisioned by Obamacare) will be forced to financially contribute to the purchase of abortion-causing drugs.

A host of religious organizations and religious freedom advocates have urged the Administration to abandon the mandate or, barring that, substantially broaden the religious exemption.  To date, those efforts have not borne any fruit.  Legislators in both houses of Congress have introduced bills designed to remedy the Administration’s unprecedented violation of the right of conscience.  So far, those bills have not advanced.  Two lawsuits have been filed, and more are expected.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in its recent ruling in favor of Ms. Wagner, stating that her lawsuit could proceed to trial on her claims that the University of Iowa violated the First Amendment by refusing to hire her.  The Eighth Circuit’s opinion states: ”No more direct assault on academic freedom can be imagined than for the school authorities to [refuse to hire] a teacher because of his or her philosophical, political, or ideological beliefs.”

Wagner’s lawyer, quoted in a New York Times article, said “It’s gotten to the point where the law school’s diversity efforts are to eliminate everyone from the mainstream,” he said. “They espouse cultural diversity, but won’t consider the conservative viewpoint.”

The ADF Center for Academic Freedom has been fighting for academic freedom for conservative, Christian and pro-life faculty members who are frequently denied hiring and tenure because of their beliefs in such cases as Mike Adams’ lawsuit against the University of North Carolina-Wilmington.

If you have been censored or punished because of your faith give us a call at 1-800-TellADF or Tell us your story of injustice.  We are here for you!

_____

Speak Up for LIFE! Envision… a World Without Abortion! RSVP to watch the nation’s largest pro-life conference LIVE online on 1/22/2012 at http://adf.am/SFLArsvp

Also, I found the mere fact that so many pro-life young people are gathered in one place to be one of the most encouraging things I saw last year at the conference.  We are not alone, and everyone draws energy and encouragement from the fact that there are so many of us working together for life.

And they served great pizza, too.  Pizza and pro-lifers – who could ask for anything more!  See you Sunday!

Don’t forget to RSVP to watch the nation’s largest pro-life conference LIVE online on 1/22/2012 at http://adf.am/SFLArsvp. Stay informed! Envision… a World Without Abortion!