By failing to protect a university’s religious liberty, the Supreme Court has inconvenienced every student club at that university. For shame.
I wrote last week that the high court had erred in refusing to intervene to protect the free exercise of religion by Yeshiva University, the national flagship college for Modern Orthodox Judaism. New York state had ordered Yeshiva, against its religious convictions, to provide full recognition to a homosexual “pride” group on campus. Yeshiva already was committed to “an environment that welcomes all students, including those of our L.G.B.T.Q. community,” but had merely stopped short of providing the same recognition and whatever presumed administrative support for the club that it provides other student groups.
<mediadc-video-embed data-state="{"cms.site.owner":{"_ref":"00000161-3486-d333-a9e9-76c6fbf30000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b93390000"},"cms.content.publishDate":1663708114098,"cms.content.publishUser":{"_ref":"0000017c-2d9c-d084-a3ff-2ffce5bc0000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"cms.content.updateDate":1663708114098,"cms.content.updateUser":{"_ref":"0000017c-2d9c-d084-a3ff-2ffce5bc0000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"rawHtml":"
var _bp = _bp||[]; _bp.push({ "div": "Brid_63707064", "obj": {"id":"27789","width":"16","height":"9","video":"957579"}t}); rn","_id":"00000183-5cbb-de57-a1fb-5efb21860000","_type":"2f5a8339-a89a-3738-9cd2-3ddf0c8da574"}”>Video Embed
New York courts ruled that wasn’t enough, bizarrely claiming that Yeshiva was really more of a secular college than a religious one.
But as Justice Samuel Alito wrote for himself and three other dissenters, “a state’s imposition of its own mandatory interpretation of scripture is a shocking development that calls out for review. … [It would] force Yeshiva to make a ‘statement’ in support of an interpretation of Torah with which the university disagrees.”
Alito was right. And that order remains a bridge too far for Yeshiva to make, based on its clear interpretation of its own faith requirements. Therefore, reasoned the school administrators, if the college cannot be allowed to recognize some groups without recognizing the “pride” group, then it won’t recognize any group at all. This week, Yeshiva canceled all recognition and support for all clubs on campus.
For anybody who understands sincere faith-based prohibitions, this was an entirely predictable response by the university. One cannot do what one’s faith says not to do. So, rather than violate their faith, school administrators were forced to inconvenience all student clubs.
Granted, this is not a huge burden. Clubs can still meet informally, just as any collection of students can. Then again, that’s one of the points: Even without recognition, nothing would have kept the “pride” students from joining together, associating with each other, and doing club-related activities — just without the school’s imprimatur and administrative support. Lack of support would have been, at worst, a mild inconvenience for the club, but recognition would have amounted to a major breach of the university’s First Amendment rights.
As in other religious liberty cases, if and when the courts rule against religious liberty, the result is not that the religious defendant ends up providing a service but that the service doesn’t get provided at all. Florists and photographers will close their doors before they violate their consciences. No means no.
The Supreme Court blew it by not granting a temporary order allowing Yeshiva to continue its traditional practices pending full legal appeal. All the rest of Yeshiva’s students are the ones who suffer, at least slightly, from the court’s dereliction.
