Bill Would Prevent LGBT Discrimination at Religious Schools

[Daniel2]

On ‎7‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 10:48 PM, Thinking said:

This article is very informative.

Great article, Thinking.  Thanks for posting it.

I didn't see a date on that webpage, so it's unclear how long ago it was written, but I found the following highlighted portion interesting and worthy of note:

Quote

General Rules: Public Schools

Again, before we crack the nut and look at private schools, it's a good idea to know how discrimination is handled in public schools. Practically all public schools can't discriminate against students, or their parents for that matter. Because most public schools get money or funding from the federal government, several federal anti-discrimination laws apply to them:

• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars discrimination based on race, color or national origin in any program or activity that receives federal financial assistance. It also prohibits discrimination in public schools based upon a student's religious beliefs
• Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 bans discrimination on the basis of sex or gender in educational programs and activities receiving federal funding. Unless it's an all-boys or all-girls school, it can't deny admission to a student simply because he's of the opposite sex. It also covers sexual harassment by staff and other students. There's some debate, however, about if and when Title IX applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation, such when a gay or lesbian student is the victim of discrimination

I think it's worthy of note because late last year, a Federal Judge ruled that sexual orientation IS covered under Title IX:

Quote

Judge rules sexual orientation discrimination falls under purview of landmark Title IX law

 

Matt HamiltonContact Reporter

 

A federal judge in California has ruled that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation falls under the purview of the landmark Title IX law, giving a broader interpretation to the 1972 statute that prohibits sex discrimination in the nation's schools and colleges.

In his 22-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson said that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not a separate category of discrimination, but rather, such claims fall under Title IX's view of discrimination on the basis of gender or sex.

Judge Pregerson ruling on sexual orientation discriminationOpen link

The ruling allows two former players on the Pepperdine University women's basketball team to proceed with a lawsuit that alleges the university harassed and discriminated against them because they were dating. Haley Videckis and Layana White said that the coach wanted them off the team because their lesbian relationship "would cause the team to lose games," the complaint alleged.

Seeking to dismiss parts of the women's lawsuit, Pepperdine argued in court papers that Title IX does not cover claims based on sexual orientation and that their allegations failed to meet the law's standard for gender stereotype discrimination.

Pregerson, however, disagreed, and said the women could pursue their suit because the alleged maltreatment turned on the nature of each individual's sex in the same-sex relationship.

See the most-read stories this hour >>Read the story

"Plaintiffs allege that they were told that 'lesbianism' would not be tolerated on the team," Pregerson wrote. "If plaintiffs had been males dating females, instead of females dating females, they would not have been subjected to the alleged different treatment," he said, concluding that the pair have a "straightforward claim of sex discrimination."

Videckis and White, who left Pepperdine last year, had said team staffers questioned them about their sexual orientation, sought access to their gynecological records and refused to process White's NCAA appeal to play in the 2014 season, according to the complaint. White had transferred to the Malibu-based college from the University of Arizona.

In court papers, attorneys for Pepperdine countered that "the alleged intrusion" into the women's personal lives was untrue, and that the coach's questions stemmed from a desire to improve team dynamics. Any negative statements made about the effect of two women dating while playing on the same team were part of a call for unity and a desire to end off-court distractions, attorneys for Pepperdine wrote in court papers.

The line between sex discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination is 'difficult to draw' because that line does not exist, save as a ... faulty judicial construct.— U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson in a 22-page ruling

 

Citing nearly four decades of jurisprudence, Pepperdine's attorneys asserted that Title IX did not apply to a sexual orientation discrimination claim.

Interested in the stories shaping California? Sign up for the free Essential California newsletter >>

Pregerson had previously sided with Pepperdine and dismissed the claims made by Videckis and White under Title IX, writing that the line between gender stereotype and sexual orientation discrimination was "blurry, at best." He allowed the women to amend their lawsuit.

In this ruling, issued Dec. 15, Pregerson said he reversed his earlier decision because he found himself unable to distinguish sexual orientation from sex and gender discrimination.

"Simply put, the line between sex discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination is 'difficult to draw' because that line does not exist, save as a lingering and faulty judicial construct," Pregerson wrote.

He also faulted reasoning that focuses too much on the sexual orientation of the alleged victim, which he found to be irrelevant: "It is the biased mind of the alleged discriminator that is the focus of the analysis."

Doug NeJaime, faculty director of the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, said that the ruling is among the first to apply Title IX to sexual orientation discrimination, drawing on evolving views of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

In a landmark decision this summer, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission held that Title VII covers sexual orientation discrimination because such allegations "necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex." Pregerson cited that analysis.

"In light of there being no federal anti-discrimination law for sexual orientation, it's potentially a quite significant ruling," NeJaime said. "We'll start to see whether other federal courts start to do this and see whether they're applying the EEOC's logic."

Of course, this ruling is likely to be appealed, and it isn't quite final unless SCOTUS declines to modify the ruling or rules otherwise.

The type of pressure on private schools as raised in the OP is exactly what most of us have been expecting and predicting for quite some time, as we've said it would mirror the expansion of civil rights, liberties, and protections based on expanding racial equality, and such pressures for any institution what wants to use public (taxpayer) funds cannot discriminate based on legally-protected classes (given that such citizens are the ones paying the taxes).  Any private or religious organization that doesn't accept public funds can and will continue to be able to discriminate, even in the face of extracurricular and sporting event boycotts, etc. 

 

Edited August 2, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

On July 31, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Meadowchik said:

So in other words the bill seeks to enact a religious test on the users of federal grants and loans? They can use it for accredited institutions of learning but only if those institutions accept non-straight sexual behaviour.

No, not at all.  This isn't a religious test of citizens. 

Individuals who hold anti-gay religious beliefs still can apply and qualify for personal grants and scholarships even if they attend private schools, just as religiously-anti-gay individuals can apply and qualify for food stamps. The same is true for individually racist, anti-semetic, or sexist individuals.  Even the most extreme of bigots of any stripe don't have to renounce their "anti"-xxxxx beliefs or behaviors to qualify for public assistance (and yes, it's entirely possible to believe same-sex behavior is sinful without being a bigot, and I'm not indending to imply otherwise).

But organizations cannot receive federal funding if they discriminate against protected classes.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Daniel2

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

No, not at all.  This isn't a religious test of citizens. 

Individuals who hold anti-gay religious beliefs still can apply and qualify for personal grants and scholarships even if they attend private schools, just as religiously-anti-gay individuals can apply and qualify for food stamps. The same is true for individually racist, antisemetic, or sexist individuals.  Bigots of all stripes don't have to renounce their "anti"-xxxxx beliefs or behaviors to qualify for public assistance.

But organizations cannot receive federal funding if they discriminate against protected classes.

So the individuals can have the loans but only for the approved schools, on a distinct basis. Like saying for food stamps that people cannot but this or that food.

I don't see why the line would stop there, Daniel, re: institution v individual. And of course we can agree on almost all those things being bigotry. Where I disagree is whether a school should be allowed to teach against same-sex marriage or define it as against the Honor Code. 

I know the arguments for and against ssm, and so far I think I will always be quite convinced that hetero marriage is a human relationship unique from all others, unarbitrarily so. (I believe I could honestly say this whatever my sexual orientation might be.)

But, of course, that view lost. 

I suppose the Church and others are preparing other contingency plans not unlike the Perpetual Education Fund, to provide financial options for students. But then there's accreditation and collegiate sports that could be the falling dominoes later down the line.

That's the real problem for our Church if we want to both hold onto that belief about marriage while still participating fully in the mainstream of scholarship.

 

 

[Daniel2]

On August 1, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Storm Rider said:

You are playing word games and it is not helpful.

If a student wants to use a Pell Grant he is forced, under this bill, to attend a university that does not exercise, teach, celebrate her/his religious beliefs BECAUSE the Pell Grant can only be used at universities that don't "discriminate" - i.e. meets the standards of narrow mindedness of Liberals.  The 1st Amendment must be put aside for a new, much more strict, novel interpretation of tolerance and inclusiveness....the kind that demands you think like "me", act like "me", and believe like "me".  

Why isn't the student enabled to attend any accredited university of their choice?  Why must a religious student become a second class citizen by not having access to the Pell Grant to attend a university of their choice?  The reality is that they would be forced to pick another university that does not offer the same environment or standards.  Their choice has become limited in order to meet the demands of others that have no desire to attend their chosen university in the first place.

Church schools are treated no differently?  Earth to Nanoo-Nanoo - Yesterday church universities could allow a student to use a Pell Grant - this is the student's benefit not the university - and now they cannot.

It's my understanding this applies to government funding to the educational institutions, not to individual students.  Can you please point out source(s) that specify that students cannot apply for pell grants or federal or state student loans at religious schools...?

 

 

[Thinking]

37 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

It's my understanding this applies to government funding to the educational institutions, not to individual students.  Can you please point out source(s) that specify that students cannot apply for pell grants or federal or state student loans at religious schools...?

Quote

There are approximately 5400 post secondary institutions taking part in the process. The student must be enrolled in one of these institutions. Link

In other words, the institution must be on the approved list. This bill could lead a religious school being taken off the list.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

It's my understanding this applies to government funding to the educational institutions, not to individual students.  Can you please point out source(s) that specify that students cannot apply for pell grants or federal or state student loans at religious schools...?

I don't have any.  I don't have a problem with Governments not paying paying funds to keep a private school running.  I have a major problem denying students access to Pell Grants to attend an accredited university of their choice.  It appeared that others were arguing that Pell Grants should be denied students if they chose a private, religious university that may have moral standards.  

[Storm Rider]

The California bill being discussed in this topic address Cal Grants used by low income students:

"They're putting a gun to our head: 'Either change the way you believe and practice your faith, or you won't be able to participate in Cal Grant,'" said John Jackson, president of William Jessup University, which has campuses in Rocklin and San Jose. "We want a license to be faithful and don't want the state to have a license to discriminate."

"Patti Colston, a spokeswoman for the California Student Aid Commission, said nothing in the bill would explicitly prevent a religious institution from voluntarily participating in Cal Grant. It would, however, create a path to legal recourse for allegations of discrimination."

The purpose of this bill is specific - to force religious, private universities to abandon the free exercise of their religion in favor of the new secular morality or deny poor students from attending their schools if they intend to use Cal Grant funding sources. 

[california boy]

Pepperdine voluntarily decides to quit discriminating against gays.  

One of America's Least Gay-Friendly Universities Drops Its License to Discriminate (But Why?)

[kllindley]

On 8/1/2016 at 6:37 AM, california boy said:

  On 7/31/2016 at 10:56 PM, Storm Rider said:

Nope, not that easy.  The "government" does not exist by itself.  It exists because we pay taxes in exchange for being treated fairly.  What you are saying, Cal, is that only that special group of people have rights.  

Where did I say that?  On the contrary, what I said is that everyone is being treated equally  the criteria for government aid is exactly the same for everyone  to qualify for government aid the institution cannot discriminate  

 

All the religious people, you remember those poor degenerates that are guaranteed the right of free exercise of religion and have paid the same taxes - those people cannot choose to attend the university of their choice

Yes they can attend any institute they want

 

and get their Pell Grant that they have paid for and their parents have paid for and their grandparents have paid for.  

Yes they can. They can also get those pell grants just like everyone else, by attending a college that does not discriminate and qualifies for those grants

I understand that there is still some uncertainty whether an individual student can apply for Federal Pell Grant or Stafford Loans while attending one of these schools.  With any common sense that will be allowed, which does make the issue a non-issue in my mind.  If not, I am appalled by the double standard at play here.  This is exactly the same kind of conversation that was had years ago about gay marriage.  "Defenders of the Traditional Family" would often make statement that not allowing gay marriage was not discriminatory, Every gay person was free to enjoy the benefits of marriage by marrying an opposite sex spouse.  The criteria were the same for everyone.

Proponents of gay marriage didn't buy the argument back then.  But now that it suits them . . . I guess it's ok? 

[Gray]

33 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I understand that there is still some uncertainty whether an individual student can apply for Federal Pell Grant or Stafford Loans while attending one of these schools.  With any common sense that will be allowed, which does make the issue a non-issue in my mind.  If not, I am appalled by the double standard at play here.  This is exactly the same kind of conversation that was had years ago about gay marriage.  "Defenders of the Traditional Family" would often make statement that not allowing gay marriage was not discriminatory, Every gay person was free to enjoy the benefits of marriage by marrying an opposite sex spouse.  The criteria were the same for everyone.

Proponents of gay marriage didn't buy the argument back then.  But now that it suits them . . . I guess it's ok? 

I noticed the same thing. The same argument is being used in reverse. I don't think it's a good argument in either direction. 

[bsjkki]

Here is an update on the bill.  http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-updates-senator-drops-proposal-that-had-angered-1470853912-htmlstory.html   The controversial provisions were dropped.  I also read this piece in The Atlantic.  It is a very balanced look at the conflict between religious freedom and non-discrimination policies.  It does not mention BYU but many of the topics discussed are concerns for all religious colleges and universities.  I agree with their three recommendations to help navigate these conflicts.  

First, schools must be very open about their values and codes of conduct. Students should understand the kind of religious community they are joining when they enroll so that they can make a prudent decision about what is best for them.

Second, state and federal governments should continue to provide aid to students who attend religious schools because, in most cases, they are receiving a quality education which will help them become better citizens and workers. This aid largely supports low-income students, and often minorities. Cutting off these funds might mean that only wealthy, non-minority students would be able to afford to attend religious schools, which, according to critics of SB 1146, could be the case if government aid were prohibited.

Third, religious schools should help students who enroll and later decide they can no longer attend in good conscience. These students should be able to transfer to another school with the administrative, emotional, and practical support of the religious school. In addition, religious schools must be vigilant about dealing with bullying and abuse and create an environment in which students who have suffered feel safe to report these incidents without fear of expulsion or retribution. Many religious schools are working toward these kinds of practices; the challenge for all of them is to go beyond policies and rhetoric to ensure the safety of all students.

[Guest]

Easily solved, Reglious School...don't accept mony Friday m the Fed's or the State. If they don't already and this law is meant to compel them to do something against their own beliefs...then they fight it to the death. Church Schools are an extension of the Church.