Religious liberty and LGBTQ student rights clash
Congress is in the midst of passing a bill that could deeply impact federal funding for higher education, while condoning potential forms of discrimination on college campuses in the guise of protecting religious liberty.
Both houses of Congress are considering the renewal of the Higher Education Act of 1965, passed in the Lyndon B. Johnson administration. The act determines how federal aid is given to students and schools. Republicans on the House education committee passed the current bill without the support of a single Democrat, clearing the bill for introduction to the floor of the House.
Republicans amended the bill with a host of provisions they say are meant to protect the religious liberty and free speech of students and the religious missions of schools. However, the bill would also allow the federal government to withhold federal funding from schools who violate the new provisions and prohibit the federal government from taking any punitive measures against schools for actions or policies that lie within a school’s religious mission.
Religious colleges, then, would be protected from federal interference for policies such as the specific prohibition of open same-sex relationships, same-sex intimacy and policies that, in general, target LGBTQIA people on college campuses. Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 contains a provision allowing religious colleges and universities to apply for religious exemptions to full compliance with Title IX if compliance would constitute a conflict with religious teachings.
Since the Department of Education under the Obama administration issued guidance that Title IX of the should be interpreted to include protections for students on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation in 2013, 56 schools have requested religious exemptions, according to the Human Rights Campaign.
The Department of Education has granted 33 exemptions related to protection on the basis of gender identity and 23 related to sexual orientation. Furthermore, the number of schools requesting exemptions each year has increasing since 2013. With further protection included in this bill, more schools might consider applying for such exemptions.
Furthermore, the bill would give more protection to student groups who seek to discriminate on the basis of gender or religion, as long as the group demonstration that a sex- or religion-based qualification is reasonably related to the group’s mission. For example, a religious club could refuse to admit someone of a different religion into the group.
Another provision gives schools and student groups more rights to know their schools’ speech policies, making schools vulnerable to lawsuits if they block controversial speakers like Milo Yiannopolous, a former editor at Breitbart, and Richard Spencer, a white nationalist leader, from speaking on their campuses. Both Yiannopolous and Spencer have been at the center of controversy concerning far-right and alt-right views.
While free speech and religious liberty are admirable values that should be upheld, neither of these freedoms is a license to discriminate. Although we have a long way to go before marginalized student communities, especially LGBTQIA students, are truly included and protected on campus, at St. Joe’s we speak up about inclusion and are vigilant about ensuring nondiscrimination. We ought to be as vigilant about the rights of students on other college campuses, and contact our legislators to ask that they ensure protection from discrimination for our fellow students.
St. Joe’s has a responsibility to ensure its students’ safety. As a Jesuit university, we can’t support the use of our faith to justify discrimination and marginalization of our fellow students. If this bill is passed, the administration must remind its students of its commitment to supporting one another, and to supporting an inclusive and safe campus environment for all its students.
If the government won’t have our students’ backs, St. Joe’s itself definitely should.
—The Hawk Staff
