School rebuke sends message

It is remarkable how often colleges' pursuit of nondiscrimination ends in government-sanctioned discrimination. The University of Iowa provides the latest example. The university has a Human Rights Policy requiring that all groups receiving activity funding from the school be open to students without regard to race, sex, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc. Business Leaders in Christ ran afoul of the policy because it requires its leaders to adhere to a statement of faith that emphasizes traditional Christian teaching, including the view that engaging in homosexual activity is a sin. This prompted the group to reject a gay student's bid to take a leadership role, which led to the university choosing not to recognize the group. Business Leaders in Christ sued, and a federal judge recently ruled in favor of the students. U.S. District Court Judge Stephanie M. Rose wrote that “even the most noble government pursuits are bound by the Constitution's protection of individual liberties” and the Iowa case “underscores the importance of pursuing the bestintentioned policies in an even-handed manner.” One major reason Business Leaders in Christ prevailed is the university didn't treat all student groups the same. Rose noted the University of Iowa “has approved the constitutions of numerous organizations that explicitly limit access to leadership or membership based on religious views, race, sex, and other characteristics protected by the Human Rights Policy.” Exempted groups included Love Works, which Rose noted requires leaders to sign a “gay-affirming statement of Christian faith.” Then there's House of Lorde, which interviews and may reject prospective members to “maintain `a space for Black Queer individuals.'” The Chinese Students and Scholars Association limits membership to “enrolled Chinese Students and Scholars” and Hawkapellas is an all-female a cappella group. Rose concluded that Business Leaders in Christ “was prevented from expressing its viewpoints on protected characteristics while other student groups `espousing another viewpoint'” were permitted to do so. She said the university's decision to permit some groups to limit leadership or membership based on protected traits, despite the school's Human Rights Policy, without granting the same treatment to Business Leaders in Christ was “viewpoint discrimination.” “The University allows groups to speak about religion, homosexuality, and other protected traits through their leadership criteria; but BLinC may not express its views on these subjects,” Rose wrote. Thus, she found the university violated students' “constitutional rights to free speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion.” It's welcome that courts have forced a university to stop discriminating against students based on their religious beliefs. If only such correction was not so often needed in academia.