Court: Anti-Religious Bigotry Just Might Violate the Constitution
The Sixth Circuit ruled today (in Ward v. Polite) that the First Amendment prohibits a university from expelling a student because it doesn't agree with the student's speech and faith. That might sound like a no-brainer, but in fact, the Sixth Circuit was reversing a lower court decision that had summarily dismissed a lawsuit filed by Julea Ward, a student in Eastern Michigan University's graduate-level counseling program. Ed Whelan at NRO Bench Memos summarizes the gist of Ward's lawsuit:
Ward’s Christian religious beliefs prevented her from counseling clients in a manner that would affirm same-sex or extramarital relationships. When the university asked Ward, as part of a student practicum, to counsel a gay client, she asked either that the client be referred to another student or that she be permitted to begin counseling and to make a referral if the counseling session turned to same-sex relationship issues. The university’s ultimate response was to expel Ward from the graduate program. (Emphasis mine.)
Not that the university has anything against counselors making referrals, in general. It has rules allowing referrals for all sorts of reasons, including "values." But referrals based on religious belief, evidently, are beyond the pale. Bizarrely, the university expelled Ward on the grounds that she was trying to impose her beliefs on others, when she had been scrupulously trying to avoid a situation in which she might be tempted to do so.
The district court granted "summary judgment" to the university -- in other words, the court said that Ward had no First Amendment case even if she could prove all of her allegations. So it stopped the case from even going to trial. Now, the Sixth Circuit did not say that the university definitely did violate Ward's right. But the Court did say that Ward's case deserves to go to trial because if she can prove her allegations, then she will have a valid First Amendment claim.
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Re: Court: Anti-Religious Bigotry Just Might Violate the Constitution
This is the sort of matter that it would be perfectly appropriate for a committee of the legislature to inquire into. The best antidote to skulduggery is publicity.
Oct '10
Re: Court: Anti-Religious Bigotry Just Might Violate the Constitution
Privatize education now! You know this precedent will be used for evil.
May '10
Re: Court: Anti-Religious Bigotry Just Might Violate the Constitution
Not to me. The First Amendment forbids the government from restricting or punishing speech. But it does not say that a private school may not remove a student because it disagrees with the student's speech. Now, perhaps its the case that the First Amendment has been interpreted as forbidding private schools from doing the same thing. But it certainly does not assert that private schools may not remove students because of their speech.
Now Eastern Michigan is a public university, so I suppose the First Amendment applies to it. But I don't think it "prohibits a university", any university" for removing students on those grounds.
Dec '10
Re: Court: Anti-Religious Bigotry Just Might Violate the Constitution
Adam,
This IT!!! This is the one! Thank you,
I would argue that allowing Julea Ward to be dismissed from her job constitutes a breach of her right to FREE EXERCISE OF HER RELIGION. Judging the case any other way would make it impossible for someone of either firm Christian or Jewish or Moslem faith to continue on with their faith in this society. That you could lose your job at any minute because a homosexual, without any proof, can claim that you might be prejudicial to him is totally absurd.
Adam this is High Noon. This is the right case at the right time. Either we are going to stand up in the right way and use the EXERCISE CLAUSE to defend the right to Religious Faith in this country or we can go on living in a hideous agnostic tyranny. We've been living in that agnostic tyranny for the last 40 years. This is our chance to break the chains.
Nov '10
Re: Court: Anti-Religious Bigotry Just Might Violate the Constitution
So appropriate that I should turn from Facebook, where some nasty anti-religious bigotry is really getting me down, and find this on Ricochet. Very encouraging to me to see and injustice made right. I am so just weary of people's hypocrisy when it comes to the things that are said and done to "religious people." We might as well be living in China.
Re: Court: Anti-Religious Bigotry Just Might Violate the Constitution
Reading your post, Adam, brought up a separate question for me. Everyone—the guilty and the innocent alike—is entitled to his day in court. If you're the counsel assigned to a criminal who's committed heinous acts that you can't defend because you're a moral person (religious or not), what choice do you have in the matter? I assume that you could in many circumstances decline to take on the case, right? But what if everyone else behaved the same way and declined to take on the case?
I realize that this is a pretty unsophisticated question, but it's something I've always wondered about.
Jan '11
Re: Court: Anti-Religious Bigotry Just Might Violate the Constitution
Interesting isn't it that diversity of opinion has limits in the one venue which thrives on unlimited expression of ideas; whose only purpose is to explore for understanding. The only substantiation for such limits would be a claim to already existing revealed truths - incontrovertible facts, of which there are none.
Oct '10
Re: Court: Anti-Religious Bigotry Just Might Violate the Constitution
I'm not Adam*, but you're not defending your client's acts, you're defending your client. Your job as the lawyer of a criminal defendant is to make the prosecution - the government - prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, because that is what our system of justice says the government needs before it can punish someone for committing a crime.
On a more human level, it takes special type of person to be a criminal defense lawyer (or prosecutor, or judge), and the vast majority of lawyers can't or won't be that type of person. So if you don't feel comfortable in that situation, you just don't put yourself in it.
(There are many subtleties involved in all of this, but we do only have 200 words...)
* No, really.
Re: Court: Anti-Religious Bigotry Just Might Violate the Constitution
genferei
I'm not Adam*, but you're not defending your client's acts, you're defending your client. Your job as the lawyer of a criminal defendant is to make the prosecution - the government - prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, because that is what our system of justice says the government needs before it can punish someone for committing a crime.
On a more human level, it takes special type of person to be a criminal defense lawyer (or prosecutor, or judge), and the vast majority of lawyers can't or won't be that type of person. So if you don't feel comfortable in that situation, you just don't put yourself in it.
(There are many subtleties involved in all of this, but we do only have 200 words...)
* No, really. · 1 hour ago
Couldn't have said it better myself. Are you sure you're not me?
Re: Court: Anti-Religious Bigotry Just Might Violate the Constitution
genferei
I'm not Adam*, but you're not defending your client's acts, you're defending your client. Your job as the lawyer of a criminal defendant is to make the prosecution - the government - prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, because that is what our system of justice says the government needs before it can punish someone for committing a crime.
On a more human level, it takes special type of person to be a criminal defense lawyer (or prosecutor, or judge), and the vast majority of lawyers can't or won't be that type of person. So if you don't feel comfortable in that situation, you just don't put yourself in it.
(There are many subtleties involved in all of this, but we do only have 200 words...)
* No, really. · 1 hour ago
Thanks for the explanation, Genferei.
Apr '11
Re: Court: Anti-Religious Bigotry Just Might Violate the Constitution
Depressingly, this case had a whole lot of publicity. I got news about it on feminist lists and Democrat lists alike. Facebook loved it. There was enough crowing and cheering about it, and they were tacky enough about it, and there has been a small enough amount of coverage about the reversal, that I think that I will have several really enjoyable moments dropping the outcome of the appeal.
Apr '11
Re: Court: Anti-Religious Bigotry Just Might Violate the Constitution
Michael Labeit
Not to me. The First Amendment forbids the government from restricting or punishing speech. But it does not say that a private school may not remove a student because it disagrees with the student's speech. Now, perhaps its the case that the First Amendment has been interpreted as forbidding private schools from doing the same thing. But it certainly does not assert that private schools may not remove students because of their speech.
Now Eastern Michigan is a public university, so I suppose the First Amendment applies to it. But I don't think it "prohibits a university", any university" for removing students on those grounds. ·
With 14th Amendment incorporation, the First Amendment prevents federal, state, and local state actors from legislating religion. Government schools, government post offices, government swimming pools; they don't get to act like they're private entities. They're owned by, and subject to the people, for all the troubles in the ownership structure that obscure this.
Mar '11
Re: Court: Anti-Religious Bigotry Just Might Violate the Constitution
James Of England
With 14th Amendment incorporation, the First Amendment prevents federal, state, and local state actors from legislating religion. Government schools, government post offices, government swimming pools; they don't get to act like they're private entities. They're owned by, and subject to the people, for all the troubles in the ownership structure that obscure this. · 6 minutes ago
Actually, it doesn't just apply to public entities either. Courts have ruled than any entity... even private ones... that take public money in some form are bound to the government in many ways. We saw this when feminist groups sued colleges over Title IV. This is why Hillsdale College won't even accept Pell Grants. It gives the government that one foot in the door. Interestingly, I can see where a right-wing government could use that same principle in cases like these: "Violate the student's religious rights, and poof, there goes your federal funding".
Apr '11
Re: Court: Anti-Religious Bigotry Just Might Violate the Constitution
Douglas
Interestingly, I can see where a right-wing government could use that same principle in cases like these: "Violate the student's religious rights, and poof, there goes your federal funding". · 22 minutes ago
And conservatives have to be very clear that the issue is that public funding equals less freedom, since you will be accountable to all taxpayers.
This must not devolve into an attempt to impose more restrictions on private entities.
Apr '11
Re: Court: Anti-Religious Bigotry Just Might Violate the Constitution
Douglas
James Of England
With 14th Amendment incorporation, the First Amendment prevents federal, state, and local state actors from legislating religion. Government schools, government post offices, government swimming pools; they don't get to act like they're private entities. They're owned by, and subject to the people, for all the troubles in the ownership structure that obscure this. ·
Actually, it doesn't just apply to public entities either. Courts have ruled than any entity... even private ones... that take public money in some form are bound to the government in many ways. We saw this when feminist groups sued colleges over Title IV. This is why Hillsdale College won't even accept Pell Grants. It gives the government that one foot in the door. Interestingly, I can see where a right-wing government could use that same principle in cases like these: "Violate the student's religious rights, and poof, there goes your federal funding". ·
No, accepting government money doesn't make you a state actor. It does allow the state to condition the acceptance of funds. In other words, you're bound by the whims of the bureaucrats, but not by the whims of the founders.
May '11
Re: Court: Anti-Religious Bigotry Just Might Violate the Constitution
Diane,
I am a criminal defense attorney who works on a contract, meaning I don't get to decide who to represent. A large part of my job is negotiating, so arguing on behalf of my client, but mostly over sentencing. Not defending actions, or even the client, but almost acting as a mediator between client and prosecutor. When I encounter situations where an obviously guilty client wants trial, I tell the client that we cannot (and I will not) lie to the court or jury. We proceed with the best, honest defense that I can formulate. Often times, holding police/prosecution to operating standards is enough. p.s. if you ever want to hear about being a conservative Christian criminal defense attorney, just private message. I'm too long winded for 200 words!
But what if everyone else behaved the same way and declined to take on the case?
I realize that this is a pretty unsophisticated question, but it's something I've always wondered about. · Jan. 27 at 1:10pm
May '11
Re: Court: Anti-Religious Bigotry Just Might Violate the Constitution
"special type of person" = unemployed attorney who would rather work than join OWS
(I couldn't agree more about the 200 words. But I'm the sort of person they had in mind when they set the limit - wisely so.)
genferei
On a more human level, it takes special type of person to be a criminal defense lawyer (or prosecutor, or judge), and the vast majority of lawyers can't or won't be that type of person. So if you don't feel comfortable in that situation, you just don't put yourself in it.
(There are many subtleties involved in all of this, but we do only have 200 words...)