I’ve never been in the military.  But I’ve known a few good men and women who have served our country.  And I know that when they are putting their life on the line, the comforting prayer or counsel from a military chaplain has made a huge difference.  That’s why I was disturbed to see last month that Americans United for Separation of Church and State sent a letter to the United States Military Academy at West Point.  AU wrongly claims the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is offended whenever military chaplains solemnize an event with an invocation or benediction, which only occurs at a handful of events each year.  Alliance Defending Freedom responded by sending a letter to West Point on behalf of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, confirming that West Point’s practice of solemnizing events with invocations or benedictions is completely constitutional.  Here’s why.   

The United States Army has offered soldiers the opportunity to hear solemnizing prayers since the Revolutionary Days.  General George Washington asked his chaplains to pray for the troops during those critical days at Valley Forge.  West Point has offered invocations and benedictions at important events in cadet careers since its founding in 1802.  In fact, before the ratification of the First Amendment, Congress authorized the appointment and use of commissioned chaplains, in part to offer solemnizing prayers at crucial moments in a soldier’s life and our Nation’s history.   If this tradition was established before ratification of the Establishment Clause, then the Founding Fathers clearly didn’t think it was a problem.  

The purpose of West Point’s prayers is to allow military chaplains to partner with the academy’s leadership in the development of future leaders of character and offer words of encouragement in support of the particular event’s intent.  The invocations and benedictions are opportunities to dignify milestone events in a cadet’s career, not moments to advance one religion over another.  Moreover, cadets are not compelled to participate in the prayers, or even listen to them.  But the prayers offer them time to reflect on the significance of their education and training.

One of West Point’s tasks is to help cadets learn how to celebrate the religious diversity in the Army.  This is done not by stripping “the public square of every last shred of public piety,” as a federal court of appeals said.  Learning to celebrate the religious diversity in the Army is accomplished by providing a positive view of America’s rich religious diversity.   West Point’s acknowledgement of religious and non-religious practices of various kinds aligns with the non-establishment philosophy embodied in the First Amendment.

We hope West Point doesn’t capitulate to AU’s demands, but continues this vital tradition for future soldiers.

This year, Alliance Defending Freedom has urged Universities around the country to change their unconstitutional policies. Some schools, like Virginia Tech and University of Alabama, have quickly changed their policies, making their campuses safe for free speech.

Other colleges and universities, however, refused to change, denying rights guaranteed to students by the constitution. These schools are

• Ohio University
  Coerced Association
  Speech Code
• University of South Dakota, South Dakota State, Black Hills State University, Dakota State University, and Northern State University
  Student Fee Policy
• University of Hawaii at Hilo
  Coerced Association
• Alabama State University
  Coerced Association
• University of Alaska
  Coerced Association
  Speech Code
• University of Montana
  Coerced Association

How you can help: If you attend one of these Universities, please contact us at 1.800.835.5233 or online here. We’d love to talk to you about what you or your student group can do to help challenge these policies that limit your freedom.

___________________________________
The schools all have policies that violate the rights of students protected by the First Amendment.

Among the problematic policies are various speech codes and zones that place unconstitutional restrictions on student speech, policies that force student clubs to accept voting members and officers that don’t agree with the clubs’ beliefs, and policies that allow non-religious student groups to use student activity fees but exclude religious student groups even though the students in those groups have contributed to the fees.

___________________________________

What policies are unconstitutional at my school? Read below: 

University of Alaska
The University of Alaska has a “speech code,” or policies that suppress and punish speech that some may find subjectively offensive. In one instance, they say that student groups must “avoid the use of obscene or offensive language or illustrations and demonstrate sensitivity to social concerns” in their campus postings. The Supreme Court has said that restrictions on speech cannot be “overbroad” or “vague,” which this policy violates because it likely prohibits much speech that is protected by the First Amendment and leaves terms open for individual interpretation. The constitution protects all speech, even if that speech is considered unpleasant or offensive by some.

Not only does UA have a speech code, but its policies may also prohibit religious groups from selecting their leaders based on their faith.  UA’s policies ban religious discrimination (which many universities are wrongly interpreting to prohibit religious groups from requiring their members and leaders to agree with their religious beliefs) but allow other groups to exclude members based on nonreligious belief (i.e., political or social issue groups), gender (fraternities and sororities), GPA (academic merit groups), and much more. When a school permits groups to make nonreligious membership and leadership exclusions, they violate the constitution if they prohibit religious groups from selecting co-religionists as their members and leaders.  For more information, click below for our letters to the University of Alaska.

Ohio University
Ohio University has a “speech code,” with policies that suppress and punish speech that some may find subjectively offensive. In the Student Code of Conduct, OU prohibits students from acting in any way which “demeans, degrades, [or] disgraces any person.” The Supreme Court has said that restrictions on speech cannot be “overbroad” or “vague,” which this policy violates because it likely prohibits much speech that is protected by the First Amendment and leaves terms open for individual interpretation. The constitution protects all speech, even if that speech is considered unpleasant or offensive by some.

Ohio University’s policies also may prohibit religious groups from selecting their leaders based on their faith.  OU’s policies ban religious discrimination (which many universities are wrongly interpreting to prohibit religious groups from requiring their members and leaders to agree with their religious beliefs) but allow other groups to exclude members based on nonreligious belief (i.e., political or social issue groups), gender (fraternities and sororities), GPA (academic merit groups), and much more. When a school permits groups to make nonreligious membership and leadership exclusions, they violate the constitution if  they prohibit religious groups from selecting co-religionists as their members and leaders.  For more information, click below for our letter to Ohio University

SD
According to the Supreme Court, all private student groups must have equal access to Student Fee Funding regardless of their viewpoint. This Board of Regents policy excludes religious groups from receiving funding, which is unconstitutional. For more information, click below to read our letter to the South Dakota Board of Regents.

University of Hawaii at Hilo
The University of Hawaii at Hilo’s policies may prohibit religious groups from selecting their leaders based on their faith.  The university’s policies ban religious discrimination (which many universities are wrongly interpreting to prohibit religious groups from requiring their members and leaders to agree with their religious beliefs)  but allow other groups to exclude members based on nonreligious belief (i.e., political or social issue groups), gender (fraternities and sororities), GPA  (academic merit groups), and much more. When a school permits groups to make nonreligious membership and leadership exclusions, they violate the constitution if they prohibit religious groups from selecting co-religionists as their members and leaders.  For more information, click below for our letter to the University of Hawaii at Hilo.

University of Montana
The University of Montana’s policies may prohibit religious groups from selecting their leaders based on their faith.  The university’s policies ban religious discrimination (which many universities are wrongly interpreting to prohibit religious groups from requiring their members and leaders to agree with their religious beliefs), but allow other groups to exclude members based on nonreligious belief (i.e., political or social issue groups), gender (fraternities and sororities), GPA (academic merit groups), and much more. When a school permits groups to make nonreligious membership and leadership exclusions, they violate the constitution if they prohibit religious groups from selecting co-religionists as their members and leaders.  For more information, click below for our letter to the University of Montana.

How you can help: If you attend one of these Universities, please contact us at 1.800.835.5233 or online here. We’d love to talk to you about what you or your student group can do to help challenge these policies that limit your freedom.

Today, Alliance Defending Freedom is launching a new tool with important information and up to date information about your rights on  campus. The Speak Up University Newsletter will cover a range of topics relevant to college students and their parents, as well as faculty and staff, keeping you informed about your constitutional right to Speak Up.

Take a look at the first newsletter here, and sign up to receive the newsletter in your inbox each month.

ADF letter prompts university to strike policy language that excluded certain religious activities from funding. Thursday, July 05, 2012 Press Release

BLACKSBURG, Va. — After receiving a legal memo from the Alliance Defense Fund, Virginia Tech has revised its student activity fee policy so that faith-based student groups can receive funding for religious worship and similar activities. Previously, faith-based groups were denied access to the funds for these activities even though all students are required to pay activity fees.

“The university is supposed to be the marketplace of ideas. America’s colleges and universities should recognize the constitutionally protected rights of religious students just as they do for all other students,” says ADF Litigation Staff Counsel Matt Sharp. “We commend Virginia Tech for taking prompt action to change its policy to allow funding for these important religious activities of faith-based student groups, as the Constitution requires.”

Virginia Tech’s Student Activity Fee Allocation Policies and Procedures originally stated that “[o]rganizations will not be provided funding to support religious worship or religious proselytizing.” After ADF informed the university that its policy violated the First Amendment, the university removed the restriction from its policies.

As the ADF letter states, Virginia Tech’s policy makes student fees “broadly available to a multitude of student groups expressing a virtually limitless range of views, yet bans the use of these funds for ‘religious worship or religious proselytizing.’” The letter explained that the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that “a public university must distribute these student fees in a manner that is consistent with First Amendment protections.”

Last year, ADF won a significant lawsuit at the University of Wisconsin in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concluded that the university could not deny student activity fee funds to a Catholic student group on the grounds that the group held to a religious viewpoint.

The ADF letter concludes that “a public university should invite robust debate and dialogue on every conceivable issue, be open to the widest possible ideas and views, and adopt policies that encourage the fullest possible exercise of First Amendment freedoms.”

ADF sent the letter to Virginia Tech as part of its nationwide effort to change unconstitutional policies at public universities. Virginia Tech joins UCLA and several other universities that have made changes in response to ADF letters.

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.”