JTA, which describes itself as “The Global News Service of the Jewish People,” has posted an article discussing the divergent choices various Jewish groups have made regarding Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.  As the article explains, some groups have filed “friend of the Court” briefs supporting CLS’s constitutional freedom to draw its officers and voting members from among those who share its religious commitments — both doctrinal and moral.  Others plan to file in support of the government or sit the case out.

The article features several remarkable statements by Deborah Lauter, the National Director of Civil Rights for the Anti-Defamation League.  First, she implicitly characterizes CLS as a group that is “opposed” to non-Christians and those who engage in extramarital sexual conduct.  It is profoundly unfair and misleading to characterize CLS’s statement of faith requirement as “opposition” to those who have different religious commitments.  The statement of faith expresses CLS’s core religious beliefs, positively articulating what brings its members together.  The idea that the founders and leaders of CLS started with some “opposition” to non-Christians and then wrote the statement of faith to express that alleged “opposition” is absurd.

Second, Ms. Lauter suggests that if CLS prevails, public universities will be rendered utterly unable to address actual invidious discrimination.  I continue to find it amusing that opponents of CLS’s position, finding themselves unable to mount a persuasive case against CLS itself, must resort to parades of hypothetical horribles.  Her remark reflects a conflation of real discrimination (invidiously taking irrelevant characteristics into account) and the means by which a bona fide religious group legitimately maintains its religious character over time.

Third, Ms. Lauter said that it is “antithetical to democracy” to allow religious groups that consider religion in their hiring decisions to participate in federally funded social service programs.  “Democracy” produced the 1996 welfare reform law, which acknowledged the right of such religious groups to participate in the provision of services to needy people with public money.  Large numbers of both Democrats and Republicans voted for this legislation, and a Democratic president (Bill Clinton) signed it.  Can one plausibly call their handiwork “antithetical to democracy”?  It appears as though “antithetical to democracy” means “stuff ADL doesn’t like.”

Hastings states that no group can deny voting membership and leadership to any student on any basis (not just on the basis of characteristics listed in Hastings’ Policy on Nondiscrimination, like race and religion).  Under such a policy, a student chapter of ADL would not be able to withhold voting membership or an officer position from an avowed anti-Semite.  Does ADL really believe that Hastings would not violate ADL’s constitutional rights by revoking its registered status under such circumstances?  Perhaps ADL is confident that Hastings would selectively enforce such a policy by, say, withholding registered student organization status from CLS while conferring such status on it.  That might not be an unreasonable assumption:  in 2004, Hastings conferred RSO status upon La Raza (“the race”) even though its bylaws expressly limited membership and leadership to those “of Raza background.”

CLS v. Martinez Debate - ADF Attorney Greg Baylor, Professor Maureen Armour , Professor Linda Eads

Earlier this week, I participated in a debate regarding Christian Legal Society v. Martinez at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law in Dallas.  I argued that the U.S. Supreme Court should rule that Hastings College of the Law violated the Constitution when it refused to recognize its CLS chapter because the chapter draws its officers and voting members from among those who share its religious commitments.  SMU law professor Linda Eads energetically but graciously advocated a contrary result.

In my prepared remarks, I shared my belief that Hastings’ disagreement with CLS’s counter-cultural positions on religious doctrine and sexual morality was at least in part behind the school’s treatment of the CLS chapter.  Professor Eads essentially agreed with me, but then said something that truly surprised me – that Hastings should have the power to punish a counter-cultural group like CLS in order to promote “the culture it wants to foster.”

As I see it, a private educational institution, such a religious one, does have (and should have) the power to foster a certain kind of culture, free from the restraints the Constitution imposes upon government educational institutions.  But the First Amendment forbids the government from using its power to restrain the expressive activity of a group whose views contradict the government’s simply because of that disagreement.

My experience has been that many public university administrators fail to adequately grasp that the Constitution limits their power – something their  private school counterparts do not experience.  A greater understanding of this reality by America’s public colleges and universities would go a long way towards restoring freedom of speech on those campuses.

As I was perusing through the Oct. 19 issue of The Daily Iowan, I was intrigued by a half-page advertisement from the Alliance Defense Fund that read “College Students Deserve An Education Not Indoctrination.” Thinking this was a very true statement and a great point, I then looked under the caption to see the following statement: “Christian students at our public universities are being denied their right to openly express what they believe.”

Gioielli continues:

Fair enough, right?  Well, stand by for the conclusion – his message to Christians and the call-to-arms for his “tolerant” compatriots:

Over at the American Thinker, (h/t Pope Center), Jon Lipsman writes about his experience as a conservative professor in academia over the course of a few decades.

He began his career as a young McGovernite, but personal experiences led him to reevaluate his political beliefs and he became a conservative.  Voicing those beliefs in opposition to all of his colleagues only resulted in a negative impact on his career, so he did what many professors in that position do—he kept his mouth shut.  Only then did he receive the promotion he deserved.  In the years leading up to his retirement, however, he decided to speak out once more.  The reaction from his colleagues wasn’t a vigorous debate, or even a mere discussion.  Instead, they essentially ignored him, dismissing his ideas out of hand.

Unfortunately, Professor Lipsman’s experience is all too common.  I know I’m not the only one who knew a conservative or Christian professor who dared not speak out until they received tenure.  And the ADF Center for Academic Freedom is currently representing Professor Mike Adams, who found out the hard way what happens to a professor who dares to convert to Christianity and speak about it prior to becoming a full professor.

Professor Lipsman’s description of his experience should send chills down the spine of any freedom loving person, conservative or liberal:

I was not the only one failing to make waves. In fact, there were no waves whatsoever. There was no debate, no controversy; just the calm serenity of a campus at peace with its almost universally accepted mind set. I attribute this to three things. First, of course, anyone raising an objection was viewed, as I was, as hopelessly out of it and worthy only of being ignored. This has a chilling effect, perhaps even more effective than derision. Second, I suspect that those who believed as I did were still in lockdown mode — for the same reasons as I was over the years. And third, I believe the liberal brainwash has been so effective on campus — and in the national educational system in general — that many in the liberal majority can’t even fathom that there is anyone who doubts the legitimacy of their point of view.

It is frightening to realize that those in academia—those charged with thinking of new ideas, challenging our assumptions, making new discoveries—are so closed-minded to any ideas outside of the accepted norm on campus that they refuse to even entertain them.

This has serious implications, not just for individual professors discriminated against because of their beliefs, or students who learn only one perspective.  As the Supreme Court stated many years ago, “[t]he essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. . . . Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.”  Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of N.Y., 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967) (quoting Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957)).

It is not overstating the case, then, to say that free inquiry in our colleges and universities has a direct impact on our democracy as we know it.  All of us, regardless of political belief, should hope that colleges and universities soon learn that “diversity” means more than skin color, and embrace their role as the marketplace of ideas once again.