Higher education is often a stronghold of liberal thought and political correctness. Students or administration officials themselves lead efforts to try to quash the religious liberty students are supposed to be guaranteed. Because they’re often in the minority, it can be an uphill battle, even if the facts, and the Constitution, are on their side. While bigotry does appear to have taken hold of secular campuses, school administrators are not always able to get away with their anti-religious crusade.
Last week, a federal appeals court ruled that University of Iowa administrators can be held personally liable for targeting and deregistering a Christian student group, Business Leaders in Christ, because it requires that all their leaders affirm basic tenets of the Christian faith.
The University of Iowa kicked Business Leaders in Christ off campus when the group failed to allow a gay student to have an executive leadership position. The University of Iowa claimed Business Leaders in Christ’s decision violated the school’s nondiscrimination policy called the “Human Rights Policy.” Most groups on college campuses have specific requirements related to their purpose — for example, only girls are allowed in sororities — but there were no charges of discrimination toward them. It was clear that Business Leaders in Christ had triggered University of Iowa officials because, in this progressive era, Judeo-Christian beliefs appear intolerant.
Business Leaders in Christ sued and, in 2019, a district court judge ruled that the university had selectively enforced its Human Rights Policy, which violated Business Leaders in Christ’s free speech and free exercise rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution. The appeal was centered on the issue of whether or not the Iowa administrators listed as defendants could be held personally liable or whether they are shielded by qualified immunity.
Judge Jonathan Kobes at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit wrote in the partial concurrence, “The law is clear: state organizations may not target religious groups for differential treatment or withhold an otherwise available benefit solely because they are religious. That is what happened here. The individual defendants may pick their poison: they are either plainly incompetent or they knowingly violated the Constitution. Either way, they should not get qualified immunity.”
The point of the ruling — and now, the case as a whole — is that from the looks of it, this appeals court is signaling that institutions of higher education cannot collectively or individually target the free speech and free exercise rights of religious groups or people on college campuses and glide away. There will be consequences.
Olivia Lamm at the Mississippi Center for Public Policy wrote about this case in 2019: “This case demonstrated the sad reality of religious discrimination in America and specifically, religious discrimination on college campuses. Few of us have heard or seen any media coverage of this case. It brings to light the fact that religious discrimination, in America and on college campuses, extends far past what our mainstream media chooses to report.”
The ruling also underscores the fact that while anti-religious bigotry on college campuses is rampant, there is a stop-gap in place by way of legal counsel and our court system, which often still recognize the authority of the First Amendment when it is under blatant attack.
“It’s deeply ironic that school officials tried using the university’s nondiscrimination policy to discriminate against religion,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, in a statement. “They knew this was wrong, yet did it anyway. We’re pleased the court has recognized that such blatant religious discrimination brings personal consequences.”
Nicole Russell (@russell_nm) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota.
