Cohn, whose organization aims to protect free speech on campuses, said in an email that the rule “helps ensure that institutions don’t prohibit belief based student organizations from requiring their leaders to share the organization’s beliefs. We do not agree with critics of the rule who allege that it invites discrimination against LGBTQ students or that it is overly confusing.”
Charles Haynes, senior fellow for religious liberty for the Freedom Forum. Photo courtesy of Freedom Forum
Charles Haynes, senior fellow for religious liberty for the Freedom Forum, said the rule emanates from a history that includes a 2010 Supreme Court decision, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, where the justices ruled 5-4 that a Christian student group could only be recognized at a public law school if it accepted non-Christians and gays as potential leaders. It upheld the “all-comers policy” at the University of California’s Hastings College of Law, which, Haynes said, left some religious organizations with a dilemma.
“They either compromise their faith by permitting any student to be eligible for leadership, which, of course, includes leading worship, Scripture study,” he said, “or following their religious convictions, and then they might lose the benefits of being recognized as a student club.”
He added: “It goes back to this thing we’ve been doing now for a very long time: religious liberty claims on one hand and nondiscrimination for LGBTQ people on the other hand.”
Asked if any institution had lost any grant funding as a result of the rule, an Education Department spokesperson said, at the time of the Feb. 21 rule change announcement, it “has not received any complaints regarding alleged violations” of the sections it wants to expunge.
A department spokesperson said all of the more than 600 comments that had been received as of Friday (March 3) will be reviewed before a final rule is issued.
The Education Department noted in its announcement about its proposed change in the rule that courts have generally resolved disputes about these “complex matters,” and taking on their enforcement would be “overly burdensome” for the department.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, disagreed.
“It was precisely because the religious rights of students were not protected on campus that the previous administration was beckoned to act,” Donohue said in a statement. “Moreover, it is risible for an administration that is regulation-happy to start worrying about rules that are ‘unduly burdensome.’”
David Calloway, the religious freedom specialist at the Freedom Forum, told RNS that, beyond the current debate, religious liberty, along with other First Amendment rights, should be a given on campus.
“It’s important to note that these institutions, public universities and colleges, are required to uphold the First Amendment regardless of whether this rule is in place.”
This article originally appeared here.
