Most of us are pretty firmly against discrimination by government – and are usually pretty troubled by it when it occurs in private entities as well. But are there times when discrimination is not only not a bad thing, but essential to a group’s maintaining its identity? And if so, how should laws and institutional rules deal with that discrimination? That is a key question in this Florida case – one which deals with how a university should deal with an organization that is organized to promote a certain ethic and point of view of a religious nature.

A Christian fraternity asked federal judges Wednesday to recognize the group as part of student life at the University of Florida, despite a school rule that bars Gator groups from discriminating based on religion.
Beta Upsilon Chi lawyers told a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the university's policy threatens their core beliefs and that inviting non-Christians would undermine their mission.

"They're not going to be as open if everyone in the group is not sharing their Christian values," fraternity lawyer Tim Tracy said.

University lawyer Chris Bartolomucci said student groups are an extension of the educational process and should be open to intellectually curious students. He said no non-Christians have attempted to join the fraternity to hijack it, a hypothetical concern raised by the judges during a hearing in Atlanta.

Now if this were a group designed to deal with any other sort of viewpoint, this would be an open and shut case – the group would be able to restrict its membership and leadership to those who hold to the point of view established in the charter of the organization. But we as a society tend to look at religious restrictions differently, and courts generally apply a higher standard to instances of religious discrimination than other viewpoint based restrictions. Still, when a group is formed around a religious viewpoint, limiting membership (or at least position of authority) it strikes me that it needs to be treated just as any other ideological group. Indeed, the most obvious reason for doing so is the fact that there have been efforts by some opposed to the group’s point of view to join the organization in an attempt to undermine its reason for existence. Requiring a Christian (or Jewish or Buddhist, or atheist) group to admit those who hold to other religious beliefs is to effectively neuter them.

Frankly, this case is more important than it appears at first glance. Colleges and universities across the country have attempted to impose similar restrictions on religiously-oriented groups (particularly evangelical Christian groups) over the last several years. Until and unless it becomes clear that the freedom of association rights of religious groups includes the exact same right to set belief-based membership requirements as non-religious groups, we will continue to see public institutions exhibit hostility to religiously-affiliated groups that seek to be true to their mission.

Posted by: Greg at 03:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 499 words, total size 3 kb.