Many people yearn for a break from big city rat race, to return to a more simple life, full of family, community and meaningful relationships.  For most people this comes during short, one- or two-week vacations each year—temporary reprieves from life’s constant push.  Few people actually make the move to a truly simple life, trading in horsepower for horses, tailored suits for handmade garments, city life for country bliss.  Yet even for those who do make the move, the stresses and dangers of the modern world can still creep in.  This is true of former ADF client Scott Savage, who gave up a big city desk job to become a plain Christian, and eventually took a job as a reference librarian at The Ohio State University Mansfield campus, only to be ousted because of his Christian and conservative beliefs.

Some readers will remember Scott’s story.  In February 2006, as Head of Reference and Instructional Services at the Mansfield campus of Ohio State, Scott participated on a First Year Reading Experience Committee.  The committee was charged with selecting a book for the incoming freshmen to read as a part of their immersion into college life.  During the committee’s first meetings, various faculty and staff members recommended a host of leftist books, written by Richard Dawkins, Jared Diamond, Jimmy Carter and the like.  Scott believed that the book selection should not be politically polarizing, and suggested that the students read Freakonomics.  Yet committee members disagreed with Scott, and said the purpose of the book was to skewer conventional wisdom—a typical university agenda in this modern age.  Thus, Scott responded by recommending a few books that would challenge the conventional wisdom of the university:  The Marketing of Evilby David Kupelian, The Professors by David Horowitz, Eurabia by Bat Ye’or, and It Takes a Familyby Rick Santorum.  Did the committee respond with more vigorous debate about which book to choose?  No.

Two committee members called Scott “anti-gay,” said his book recommendations were “homophobic tripe,” and accused him of “homophobia.”  One member then wrote to Scott’s supervisor and questioned his ability to advise students as a librarian.  Then other faculty members, even those not on the committee, began sending university-wide emails denigrating Scott’s beliefs and stating that they felt “threatened” by his recommendation.  Two professors then filed formal sexual harassment charges against Scott (after they failed to convince the faculty senate to do the same).  All for a book recommendation.

The university eventually dropped the harassment charges after the ADF Center for Academic Freedom intervened on Scott’s behalf.  But the university continued to target Scott for his views, making his working environment unbearable, which eventually forced him to resign.  He then filed a defamation lawsuit against the university and some faculty members.

On Monday, a federal district court in Ohio dismissed Scott’s lawsuit.  This dismissal is disappointing and constitutes another troubling step in the direction of eviscerating academic freedom on campus.  But from reading news reports on the ruling, you would think nothing significant happened to Scott.

Inside Higher Ed describes the story this way:  “his [Scott’s] recommendation and the comments he made about the book led to an intense debate among faculty members at the university.”  An “intense debate”?  That is the most passive description I’ve ever heard of what amounts to demonstrably false sexual harassment allegations being lobbed around a university campus (but not the first for Inside Higher Ed).  The committee members did not “debate” Scott–they punished him, ridiculed him, ostracized him.

The Chronicle of Higher Education claims that the court rejected Scott’s and ADF’s arguments in the case.  This too is demonstrably wrong.  First, ADF is not representing Scott in his lawsuit.  We assisted him during the thick of it in early 2006, and Ohio State responded to our demand letters by dropping the sexual harassment charges.  Seems fairly successful to me.  Second, a trained lawyer would know that the court ruled against Scott on several technical and legal grounds, most of which do not reach the facts of his situation.

Ultimately, it is unclear whether Scott’s lawyers will appeal the Court’s ruling and continue his battle for freedom.  But one thing is sure for now—free  speech is dying on campus, whether being killed by committee or buried by court rulings.  Let’s hope we can return to a simpler life, where all people can speak their minds freely.

Four years ago today, Ruth Malhotra and Orit Sklar took a stand for liberty at their public university, or in this case, their Institute.  While students at Georgia Institute of Technology, Malhotra and Sklar were subject to discrimination because of their religious and conservative views.  Their experiences were not isolated, but designed by an administration hostile to free speech.  Georgia Tech policy prohibited “acts of intolerance,” limited student free speech to the small amphitheater on campus, preferred some religious denominations to others in campus training programs, and prohibited religious students from gaining equal access to student fees (even though the student fees were mandatory).  When these policies and their experiences became intolerable, they sued.

The lawsuit eventually ended, but not until the speech code was removed, the student speech zone eliminated, and the religious discrimination stopped.  Along the way, did the campus community rally to their support in favor of free speech?  No.  Instead, people sent death threats, students started a group to intimidate Malhotra, and the administration created a council called “Finding Common Ground” to dialogue about diversity and criticize the efforts of these two women.

Four years later, Malhotra and Sklar will speak tonight about their experiences and the success of their lawsuit at Georgia Tech.  Much was accomplished by these women, but there is still work to be done.  Despite Supreme Court case law to the contrary, Georgia Tech still believes it can exclude religious activities from student fee funding.  Who will be the next person to stand for liberty at Tech? Keep reading… »

Recently, Robert O’Neil commented in the Chronicle of Higher Education about the growing conflict between university anti-discrimination policies and the First Amendment rights of campus student groups to select their members according to the groups’ core religious beliefs. To his credit, Mr. O’Neil clearly grasps the critical importance of this issue. His commentary provides a detailed, thoughtful discussion of the current state of the matter in the federal court system and his call for clarification from the Supreme Court is well-taken.

Unfortunately though, Mr. O’Neil’s commentary concludes by providing a “how to” guide showing universities how they can apply their anti-discrimination laws to exclude religious groups from campus without violating the Constitution. While his suggestions that such policies be “clear” and administered “evenhanded[ly]” are not inherently problematic, his other proposals smack of a disdain for religious organizations that would not be tolerated if applied to other student organizations.

For example, Mr. O’Neil suggests that universities sanction student groups for the act of “refusing to sign . . . a nondiscrimination policy” rather than the “stated views of the organization” because conduct is less protected than speech. Under this formulation, student groups could hold to any religious beliefs they wanted . . . .as long as they signed away their right to act on those beliefs in the future. This proposal would render the students’ beliefs meaningless.

Similarly, Mr. O’Neil proposes that public universities utilize “creative thinking” by requiring religious groups to “acknowledge” the nondiscrimination policy, but only sanctioning them if and when an aggrieved student files a charge of discrimination. Again, such an arrangement provides no protection for the student groups whatsoever.

These and other of Mr. O’Neil’s proposals offer little in the way of real compromise. His implicit premise is clear: Universities and student organizations can get along if the student groups will forfeit any religious beliefs that do not comport with the university’s concept of “tolerance.” And by offering all the ways universities can implement their policies just shy of violating the constitution, Mr. O’Neil betrays an implicit—and sadly prevalent—bias against religious student organizations. Indeed, would Mr. O’Neil also advise universities how close they can come to the line of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, or sexual orientation discrimination? I think the answer is obvious.

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, public universities—like all government entities—need to give private organizations a wide berth for the exercise of First Amendment freedoms, rather than looking for ways to encroach as far as the Constitution will technically permit. Hopefully, university administrators will take this principle to heart, rather than skate on the constitutional thin ice provided by Mr. O’Neil. But the Supreme Court now has the chance to reaffirm this principle definitively as today it agreed to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision against the Christian Legal Society. May the First Amendment win.

The Supreme Court will decide whether the Constitution allows a public university to use a “non-discrimination” rule to punish a religious student group that draws its leaders and voting members from among those who share its religious commitments.  The Court announced today that it will review a lower court decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, a case involving the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law.

Christian Legal Society (CLS) is an association of Christian lawyers, law students, judges, and law professors.  The foundation of CLS is faith in Jesus Christ.  Like many religious organizations, it adopted a statement of faith setting forth its basic religious beliefs.  In addition, CLS has expressed its adherence to the traditional Christian view of human sexuality, i.e., that sexual intimacy should occur only within the bond of a marriage between one man and one woman.

Hastings encourages the formation of student groups by offering them numerous benefits, including access to meeting space, communications mechanisms, and funding.  A group of CLS law student members at Hastings formed a CLS chapter and sought recognition from law school officials.  CLS indicated that all are welcome to attend CLS meetings but that the chapter’s leaders – as well as those who select them – must be CLS members.  One must sign the statement of faith to be a CLS member.

Hastings concluded that CLS’s religious standards for leadership and voting membership constitute “discrimination” on the basis of religion and “sexual orientation.” In response, CLS pointed out that its leadership and membership policies are not “discrimination,” which is properly defined as the invidious reliance upon irrelevant personal characteristics.  CLS also argued that its sexual morality standards do not constitute “sexual orientation,” given their emphasis on conduct rather than “orientation” and given that all extramarital sexual conduct is considered sinful, whether same-sex or opposite-sex.

Hastings rejected these arguments, and CLS asked the federal courts to vindicate its constitutional rights.  Both the federal district court in San Francisco and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with Hastings.  And now the Supreme Court will consider the case.

Much is at stake.  CLS itself has numerous chapters at law schools across the country.  Many of them have fought successfully for their religious freedom, often through litigation.  Many other campus religious groups draw their leaders from among those who share their religious commitments.  If the Court rules against CLS, public universities could force student groups to accept as leaders and voting members individuals who oppose the groups’ beliefs.

More broadly, the freedom of all religious groups – not just campus organizations – to associate around shared religious commitment is under attack.  For example, the ACLU and its allies are working to exclude faith-based social service providers from federally funded programs on the ground that they “discriminate” on the basis of religion and “sexual orientation.”

It is no secret that theologically conservative Christianity is not particularly popular with the elites who control much of America’s higher educational system.  The traditional view of human sexuality is seen as a particularly galling departure from the prevailing campus orthodoxy.  University administrators, moreover, seem to have a lot a trouble complying with the First Amendment.  Let us pray that the Supreme Court will vindicate the foundational principles underlying our first freedom.

Who’s talking about this case?
The Volokh Conspiracy
NRO:Phi Beta Cons
The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Fire