Universities Can’t Hold Christian Clubs to a Different Standard than Other Clubs.
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled for the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship against the University of Iowa, calling the university’s decision to deregister a Christian student group one of the most obvious examples of discrimination that it has ever seen.
The case is Intervarsity Christian Fellowship v. the University of Iowa. https://becketnewsite.s3.amazonaws.com/2021-07-16_IVCF-Iowa_Opinion.pdf
Intervarsity is one of several faith-based groups that organizes local chapters at colleges and universities around the country, holding worship services and conducting Bible studies. It had been a registered campus club at the U. of Iowa InterVarsity for over twenty-five years.
Unequal Application of Anti-Discrimination Laws and Policies.
As is often the case, people who are hostile to the Gospel use a facially-neutral anti-discrimination law as a vehicle for harassing Christian businesses, churches, and clubs. The people who serve on the government enforcement commissions are quite likely to share the same worldview as the people who file the complaints.
The Colorado Human Rights Commission has on multiple occasions pursued complaints against Jack of Masterpiece Cakes. Christians who filed similar complaints were summarily dismissed by the commission.
Intervarsity Becomes Collateral Damage.
Intervarsity became collateral damage in 2017, when a student filed a complaint against a different club, Business Leaders in Christ. He was denied a leadership role after refusing to affirm the group’s belief that same-sex relationships were against the Bible.
The University ruled in favor of the student and de-registered BLIC. BLIC filed for and received a preliminary injunction.
In response to the injunction, the University, through its Center for Student Involvement and Leadership, began a “Student Org Clean Up Proposal” and reviewed all student organization constitutions to bring them into compliance with the Human Rights Policy. several were deregistered for requiring their leaders to affirm statements of faith.
It appears from the language of the case that only Christian groups were deregistered.
Constitutional Law Summary.
This is from the final paragraph of the case:
“What the University did here was clearly unconstitutional. It targeted religious groups for differential treatment under the Human Rights Policy—while carving out exemptions and ignoring other violative groups with missions they presumably supported. The University and individual defendants turned a blind eye to decades of First Amendment jurisprudence or they proceeded full speed ahead knowing they were violating the law. Either way, qualified immunity provides no safe haven.”
Qualified Immunity.
According to Cornell Law School, “Qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity. Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably”.
“Specifically, qualified immunity protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff‘s rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a clearly established” statutory or constitutional right.”
Conclusion.
If this reasoning applies in a religious liberty setting, might it also apply when government agents violate one’s Due Process and Equal Protection rights protected by the 5th & 14th Amendments? I’m thinking of all the business owners whose companies failed after government actors proclaimed them to be “non-essential.”
I asked a civil liberties lawyer about qualified immunity, and he replied: “The whole qualified immunity issue needs to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Lower courts have been too aggressive with it in letting government actors off if there is not an exact rule on point.”
Thank you!
Michael Oswald
Michael Oswald is a follower of Jesus who lives in Boise, Idaho. Unless otherwise specified, the opinions expressed in this article are his own.
© 2021 Michael S. Oswald
“Reasons for the Faith, aka Apologetics” 