Discrimination Against Religion at the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire

From the Alliance Defending Freedom:

MADISON, Wis. – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday on behalf of two students at the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire who are being denied credit for mandatory community service simply because their activities involved religion. Under the policy, a student can, for example, earn credit for teaching unless the teaching involves religious instruction, or singing in a choir unless the choir is religious.

“No public university should ever use a community service program as a vehicle to advance and instill anti-religious bias,” said ADF Legal Counsel Travis Barham. “If the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire wants to require its students to perform community service, it must treat all forms of community service as equally valuable. The Constitution and federal court precedent prohibit it from targeting religious community service and denying students credit for it. That kind of animosity toward and discrimination against religion is unconstitutional.”

In the spring, student Alexandra Liebl sought to obtain service-learning credit for the 30 hours she spent volunteering with a second-grade religious education class at a local Roman Catholic church. University officials denied her request, citing the university’s Service-Learning Policy. Upon hearing of this decision and others like it, another student, Madelyn Rysavy, realized that she would not receive credit for the approximately 24 hours she spent volunteering in the same church’s Sunday School classes; therefore, she has yet to submit those hours for credit but would like to have them approved.

Although the Service-Learning Policy explains that “students’ sincerely held beliefs, preferences, and values will be reasonably accommodated in accepting service-learning proposals” and that “acceptance of a service-learning proposal…does not imply endorsement either of the proposed activities or of the recipient by the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire,” the policy nonetheless unconstitutionally singles out religious beliefs, preferences, and values for exclusion by specifying that “this public university will not award credit for time spent directly involved in promoting religious doctrine, proselytizing, or worship.”

Although Supreme Court precedents on government and religion are a mess, nothing in the Constitution requires any government body to discriminate against religion. When they do that, it shows their anti-religious bias, not any sort of respect for the Constitution.

As for “promoting religious doctrine, proselytizing, or worship:” are students allowed to “promote” anything else? Would they get credit, for example, for working for an environmentalist group “promoting awareness” of “climate change?” Suppose an organization was not involved in “worship” but rather Transcendental Meditation? The answers are obvious.

If they were working in a program teaching some secular subject, of course credit would be allowed. Credit would doubtless be allowed for volunteering with a local LGBT center, even if the operation worked to flatly contradict children’s religious beliefs. And “accommodating” students’ “sincerely held beliefs” would doubtless be automatic if those beliefs were of a more politically correct sort.

Conservative Campus Speaker Censored / Case 11205

We don’t actually know it’s case 11205, but you get the point. From the Alliance Defending Freedom:

LOS ANGELES – Alliance Defending Freedom sent a letter Monday on behalf of a student group to California State University, Los Angeles, for charging the group unconstitutional fees in order to exercise its freedom of speech. The university president responded immediately by cancelling the event, having “decided that it will be best” to include the speaker in a “more inclusive event” featuring “a group of speakers with differing viewpoints on diversity.” The student organization, Young Americans for Freedom, is now considering a lawsuit against the university.

University officials charged YAF $621.50 for security officers because it deemed an event that the group is sponsoring “controversial.” The university has broad guidelines for such a designation and leaves it to the whim of officials, a practice that the U.S. Supreme Court has found to be unconstitutional in other cases. After the university received the ADF letter explaining this, CSU–Los Angeles President William Covino sent an e-mail to the student group to inform them that its event has been cancelled.

“Public universities should encourage, not stifle, the free exchange of ideas,” said ADF Senior Counsel David Hacker. “YAF has every bit as much right to hold its event as any other student group does, and the university can’t stop that because it prefers to water down the speaker’s message with other viewpoints that officials find more palatable to their own political views. The courts have made it clear that university officials cannot deem an event ‘controversial’ and then weigh down students with burdensome fees to engage in constitutionally protected free speech just because some people consider it controversial, but it’s even worse to take that a step further and try to silence the speech altogether.”

YAF is a chapter affiliate of Young America’s Foundation and a registered student organization at the university. YAF followed the university’s policies and procedures for planning an event Thursday in the U-SU Theatre on campus with conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro. YAF has been promoting it through social media and fliers for several weeks.

In reaction, some university students and staff commented on the social media posts and called the YAF chapter “intolerant” and “racists.” In particular, University Associate Professor of Sociology Robert Weide called the YAF students “white supremacists” and invited the YAF students to fight him in the U-SU gym. On Feb. 18, the university told YAF that it must hire three security officers and one university police officer for the event at a cost of $621.50 because “Mr. Shapiro’s topics and views are controversial.” ADF attorneys pointed out in their letter that the U.S. Supreme Court has already invalidated that rationale and asked that the university “immediately rescind the security fees assessed to YAF for the February 25 event.”

In an e-mail to YAF late Monday, Covino wrote, “After careful consideration, I have decided that it will be best for our campus community if we reschedule Ben Shapiro’s appearance for a later date, so that we can arrange for him to appear as part of a group of speakers with differing viewpoints on diversity…. We will be happy to work with Mr. Shapiro to schedule the more inclusive event that I have in mind. I have informed the university staff involved in facilitating the February 25 event that it will be rescheduled and reconfigured for a later date.”

“The First Amendment does not require YAF to consolidate its viewpoint with others,” Hacker noted. “The number of events on university campuses with speakers who have different viewpoints from Mr. Shapiro’s and YAF’s are plentiful. No need or legitimate basis exists for cancelling YAF’s event.”

Demanding that a group pay for “security” when they bring a conservative speaker to campus is a common tactic used by university bureaucrats.  The University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee tried it when a speaker was invited to campus whom Palestinian students disliked.

This, of course, gives a “heckler’s veto” to the most intolerant groups on campus, those that will explicitly or implicitly threaten violence and disorder.

And of course, rewarding this kind of behavior results in more of it, as the intolerant campus left learns they can successfully shut up speech they don’t like.

Demanding “differing viewpoints” and an “inclusive event” are likewise merely ploys to burden the expression of speech of which the left doesn’t disapproves. It’s shame the YAF gave in on this. Often, conservative students are simply too nice.

That’s not to say that debates with diverse points of view are a bad idea. They are a very good idea, but the campus left doesn’t seem to understand that until somebody wants to bring a conservative to campus.

Update

The administration at CSU-LA backed down, and allowed the speech. But leftist protesters blocked the entrance to the venue, preventing some students from entering, and tried to disrupt the speech by setting off a fire alarm. Police had to escort Shapiro out to insure his safety.