Discrimination In Religious Colleges

I remember sitting in that office, with all the little crosses and religious knick-knacks and shelves lined with endless religious texts. Today was the day I would figure out how well I could survive college life. Today was the day I would figure out how well a religious college could practice tolerance. My hands turned white as I gripped the chair, my heart beating ever faster as the moment slowly approached. Father Hart proceeded to clear his throat and an eerie, long silence hung in the air. “The College’s President says it can’t happen.”, Father Hart managed to start, “He’s concerned that it will affect the Monastery.” There it was. After the endless talks of compromise, toiling work of religious research, and tapping all the right people

on the shoulders, I would face another four mediocre years where being myself wouldn’t quite be good enough for everyone. I had hoped so hard, hard enough that I even convinced myself, that my college would have an LGBT Support group. I somehow believe Catholicism could change, that such a group could help educate a campus on both the realities of and love within religion, and I wouldn’t face the sly slurs and passive-aggressive attitudes of my peers, teachers, and administrators because I was gay. I somehow believe that Catholicism’s heart had grown enough sizes to welcome, accept, and protect all of us who’d flocked away because we’d been demonized into the incarnation of the worsts of sins - love.
In the United States, religion and sexual orientation is considered one of the most fiercely debated topics within religion, especially after the Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage nationally.

Unsurprisingly, the issue has made it way to our classrooms - specifically in higher education institutions providing two and four year study programs. Although discrimination and harassment traverses gender, age, religion, and socio-economic class at universities nationally, there is a markedly higher number of cases centering around private institutions with strong religious affiliations. This can generally be observed by the fact that public universities accepting federal funds are required to Title VI of the Civil Rights act which bars discrimination based upon sex, race, and religious beliefs and Title XI of the Educational Amendments which bars discrimination and sexual harassment based on gender and sexual orientation. However, private universities, as has been proven in decisions such as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and passage of the Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, many of these private institutions with religious affiliations are exempt from these anti-discrimination laws based upon their religious beliefs. This becomes increasingly concerning as LGBT targeted hate crimes are on the rise after the Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision. Further, and even more alarming, is the fate of college students, who often make easy targets at colleges which may

already ostracize them and silently condone the harassment perpetrated against them.
Within both academic and popular discussion, It has generally been agreed upon that education is the best solution for changing anti-LGBT attitudes, especially on the college campus. The solution mimics many of the past “diversification” measures colleges have taken in the past - such as introducing Women’s, Latinos, and African American studies alongside prevention programs, such as sexual assault educational training, which require students to complete yearly compliance courses informing them on a particularly prevalence college issue. Unsurprisingly, both these fields of study and compliance programs have led to increased tolerance towards these minorities and a decrease in related crime. Therefore, I intend to explore the legality of Federal government in mandating and enforcing queer studies as a sub- requirement within the general educational requirements present at most national universities. While universities retain a right to religious expression and curriculum choice, the equality guaranteed to all students, in contrast, remains paramount. Further, these protections, of religious freedom and curriculum choice, afforded to higher education institutions exist to cultivate diversity rather than maintain a culture of hatred and discrimination. Therefore, the Federal government retains both a duty and right to mandate queer studies as a general education requirement at federally supported and accredited colleges and universities based upon the notion of the federal aid program, the constitution equality afforded to LGBT students, the inclusivity and open-mindedness of higher education, and the precedent of the Supreme Court to strike down minority targeted discrimination. It is my intent to prove that by legally requiring universities to adopt a curriculum which necessitates students to take courses in queer studies, that both the climate of harassment, discrimination, and violence against LGBT college communities will decrease as people become more educated and may empathize and understand their LGBT peers.
However, what the Federal government must first consider, and what has widely been touted by universities wishing to maintain control over their curriculum and enforcement of religious beliefs, revolves around the process and operation of college attendance. Within the United States, it’s not uncommon for prospective college student to apply to a multitude of colleges, be accepted to some of these institutions, and then make a choice in attending their most favorable choice. Students make these decisions willingly, taking into account their financial ability, travel distance, housing options, and campus social climate. Therefore, many universities and proponents of private, religious colleges reason that students who attend their college are fully aware of the institutions religious views and university policy and can thereby be expected to adhere to both. For example, Wheaton College, a Christian college in Illinois, requires students sign the Community Covenant, which expects students refrain from sexual intercourse, pornography, and other behaviors and lifestyles which the bible prohibits. This includes aversion of “homosexual behavior”. Further, they reason that students who don’t agree with these policies may attend another college. Some of the universities, particularly in the case of Wheaton College, stipulate a breach of the college’s covenant agreement may result in punishment and even expulsion.
Yet, many of these arguments fail to account for the reality of college attendance. While it remains true that students have a degree of choice in attending colleges, these choices are often limited by financial obligations and the ability to obtain student loans. This becomes especially true when the rising cost of tuition is realized. Nationally, tuition rose 13% from 2010 to 2016 and continues to rise (College Board). Therefore, it cannot be appropriate to students to attend other colleges if they don’t agree with university policy, because it’s not always financially possible.
Further, federal funding a large contributor to keeping colleges operating and open. In fact, only seven colleges nationally do not accept federal funding, and over 85% of students make use of federal funding, including grants and loans from the U.S Government, to pay for undergraduate education. It’s reasonable to believe, therefore, that most colleges and universities in America receive some degree of funding from the U.S Government. Colleges accepting these federal funds are expected to follow the curriculum and educational requirements set forth by the U.S Department of Education(us dept of education website). Therefore, it remains these universities legal obligation to institute, and provides a legal basis for the Federal Government’s mandation of, queer studies as a general educational requirement.
The story, however, does not end there.

There exists a legal precedent in the U.S to give autonomy to employers, schools, and institutions which affiliate and practice religious beliefs. This often means anti-discrimination laws often don’t apply as the freedom and expression of religious guaranteed in the first amendment provides exemption. Supreme Court decisions, such as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a case in which a chain of craft stores with Catholic affiliation was able to ignore federally mandated access to contraceptive options under Obama Care due to Catholicism rejecting the use of contraceptives based upon biblical teaching, has upheld this standard. Further, colleges and universities have, in general, been recently able to shift responsibility of student safety from themselves to local law enforcement in terms of protecting their students from violent crimes, sexual assault, and forms of harassment. Most recently, a California court ruled in October 2015, in the case of Rosen v. UCLA, ruled the university was not responsible for a student undergoing psychiatric treatment at the university who stabbed a fellow

classmate.
Universities have often used these forms of precedent to create and uphold policies which may be viewed as “anti-LGBT”. Gordon College, when confronted about its ban on “homosexual practice” in March 2015, affirmed its commitment to historic Christian values. By claiming a religious belief, Gordon College set itself up to legally maintain the policy since intervention through judicial mediation would most likely to lead to an affirmation of first amendment religious freedoms. Further, the passage of court decisions abstracting university responsibility from student welfare will allow for the continuation and future violent assault, humiliation rape, and other physical harassment of the LGBT community, considered to be at an all time high with FBI questionnaires estimating the amount of reported and unreported LGBT hate crime to be between 250,000 and 260,000 cases, with little to no consequence for the college.
However, as previously established, most of these institutions accept federal funds, which happen to carry a few requirements in order to remain an accredited college and the ability to continually receive and use these funds. Firstly, colleges are responsible for upholding Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Often referred to by many college students as the “rape clause”, Title IX requires institutions do not, on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, deny participation in, denied benefit of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal assistance. This, thereby, allows the Federal government a legal basis to both strike down and circumvent university policy which would contradict and enforcement of queer studies and education surrounding LGBT issues. It further extends an obligation to these universities to protect these students from both its own discriminatory policies, as well as acts perpetrated by any under students which participate in the educational environment. This further becomes reinforced by another requirement - adherence to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. To clarify, Title VI bars any use of federal funds in a manner which would oppose public interest and openly discriminate against religious beliefs, race, sex, or sexual orientation.