Nobody likes discrimination.  (Except maybe when the question is whether Five Guys or In-N-Out burgers are better….  In-N-Out, clearly.)  You may be familiar with laws that protect you from unlawful discrimination.  The most common example is that your employer can’t fire you because of your race, religion, or other protect status.

But the recent movement to expand the principle of nondiscrimination on college campuses, through so-called nondiscrimination policies, has undermined the credibility of this important legal concept.

These days, colleges commonly use nondiscrimination policies to force Christian student groups to accept atheists and agnostics as members and leaders of the group.

The Evergreen State College is another recent example of a nondiscrimination policy gone wild.  Read for yourself:

A transgender woman said she was discriminated against after using the women’s locker room at Evergreen State College.

Colleen Francis was using the sauna in a women’s locker room inside the recreation center at the school late in September.

The same facility is used by two high school girls swim teams from Olympia, who also practice in the pool.

It turns out that Francis is biologically a man and was caught on multiple occasions sitting naked in the women’s locker room sauna.  What’s more, the sauna’s glass door not only allows the young girls to see Francis, but also allow him to see them while they are changing for swim practice.  When parents called the police multiple times, Evergreen responded by asserting that its nondiscrimination policy, which prohibits “gender identity” and “gender expression” discrimination, prevents it from telling Francis to leave.  Why?  Because he thinks he is a woman.

So someone who is biologically a male is using the women’s locker room while young girls, ages 6 to 18, are undressing for swim practice.  And Evergreen, a public college, is doing nothing to stop it.

That’s why Alliance Defending Freedom sent a letter to Evergreen officials and reminded them of the legal liability they may face if anything happens to these young girls.  It’s a plain example of a so-called nondiscrimination policy trumping common sense.

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.

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.”

  The U.S. Navy has rescinded an order permitting military chaplains to officiate at same-sex weddings on military bases, according to the Associated Press.    The news story states in part:

 WASHINGTON (AP) – Under pressure from more than five dozen House lawmakers, the Navy late Tuesday abruptly reversed its decision that would have allowed chaplains to perform same-sex unions if the Pentagon decides to recognize openly gay military service later this year.

In a one-sentence memo obtained by The Associated Press, Rear Adm. Mark Tidd, chief of Navy chaplains, said his earlier decision has been “suspended until further notice pending additional legal and policy review and interdepartmental coordination.”

The Navy said its lawyers wanted to do a more thorough review of the legal decision that allowed Navy chaplains to receive training to perform civil unions on military bases, but only in states where same-sex unions are legal.

The full AP story is here.  

This news story shows that last December’s repeal by Congress of the federal law prohibiting people who engage in homosexual conduct from serving in the military (sometimes called Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell or DADT) raises major questions on how it  interacts with the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriages as one man and one woman for all purposes of federal law.  And Congress never really debated or discussed the possible ”domino effect” of repeal of DADT on DOMA.  The hasty and rushed Congressional debate on repeal of DADT described the people affected as individuals who engage in homosexual conduct, and did not examine how the repeal would affect same-sex couples.  This narrow casting of the debate on the DADT repeal obscured important legal and practical questions. For example, if the military allows open homosexuals to serve in the military, must the military open base housing for married couples to same-sex couples if they are legally married in one of the states or nations that allows same sex marriage or same-sex civil unions?  Must it extend military benefits to same-sex couples?  What about allowing same-sex weddings in military chapels?  Federal DOMA would seem to prevent those changes, but  Congress never debated how the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would affect federal DOMA.  The Navy’s earlier order permitting same-sex weddings in military chapels shows the consequences of rushing through the repeal of DADT. Congress should not fully implement the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell until it has fully investigated how it will affect federal DOMA.

Last week I participated in a discussion sponsored by the Federalist Society at Stanford Law School in California on redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, and its collision with the First Amendment rights of those who define marriage as one man and one woman only. We had a great discussion on some of the cases we have described here, like Elane Photography in New Mexico (who was sued for discrimination for declining to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony), Jen Keeton in Georgia and Julea Ward in Michigan (who were expelled from graduate school programs in counseling from Augusta State and Eastern Michigan University, respectively, for refusing to change their beliefs that same-sex behavior is morally wrong). 

What I did not expect at Stanford was a debate on the relevancy of the 1967 Supreme Court decision striking down Virginia’s law banning interracial marriage, Loving v. Virginia.   Many who support redefining marriage to include same-sex couples are convinced that this case greatly supports their position.  It does not.  I have found that many people have not read the decision, or do not understand what the Supreme Court ruled in that case.  The decision doesn’t help them.  So it is a dreadfully flawed argument and a non sequitur to argue as many do that ”just as a ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional, so a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.”

I have earlier discussed the deficiencies in analogizing a law defining marriage as one man and one woman as the law struck down in Loving v. Virginia. Because so many find the argument persuasive, let me state here what I said to the law students at Stanford:

The Virginia law only banned white people from having an interracial marriage. An African American man could marry a woman of Asian descent under the Virginia law struck down by the Supreme Court.   That interracial marriage was OK because it did not include any white people.  The obviously uneven application of the law based on race is why the Supreme Court struck it down.  These despicable laws did not say, “whites can only marry whites, blacks can only marry blacks, Asians can only marry Asians,” etc., but many wrongly assume that is what those laws said.

Race is different than sex. It would have been unconstitutional too if the miscegenation law said, “whites can only marry whites, and blacks can only marry blacks, ” etc.  But that’s not what the Virginia law struck down by the Supreme Court said.  That hypothetical does not provide any precedent for striking down a regular marriage law.  Even if the law did say that, it’s not important, because race is different from sex.  Only one man and one woman can produce a child, and the parents can be of any race.  Two men together or two women together will never produce a child. So having an opposite sex couple is essential for producing children.  What is critical is having one man and one woman.  The parents’ race is irrelevant in their ability to reproduce.   It is rational, in fact, it is wise for a society to urge men and women to get married in order to produce and raise their children, because they represent the next generation of their society.

Race has never been a universally-accepted element in the states’ definition of marriage. States generally have agreed that people seeking marriage must meet several criteria.  For example, the two people seeking marriage must be a man and a woman, they cannot be married to anyone else, they both must possess the mental capacity to consent to marriage, they cannot be near relatives (like brother and sister) and they both must be above a certain age.  Race has not been a universally-accepted part of the definition of marriage.  For example, not all states banned white people from having an interracial marriage.  Some states, like Virginia, allowed whites to marry nonwhites for many decades before imposing a ban on whites marrying nonwhites.  The existence of miscegenation laws is a sordid historical fact.  The court decisions striking down those laws offer no principle of law that compels legalizing same-sex marriage.

Some states did not ban interracial marriages consistently. Virginia was faced with the dilemma that one of its founders, John Rolfe, married a nonwhite woman, the famed Pocahantas. Virginia resolved this dilemma by making Pocahantas an honorary white person, and exempted marriages (in some circumstances) where a white person married a Native American.

I hope I convinced at least some of the law students at Stanford to stop embracing the false parallel between Loving v. Virginia and the efforts to legalize same-sex marriage.