I don't agree with the practice, but this is not a freedom issue. Withdrawing a private association, for any reason, is not denying someone something to which they are, of right, entitled.
The relationship between a student and a school is not a private association. A private association is what you have between your friends and family, not what you have between yourself and a school (or between yourself and a business).
Any service which is provided to the general public is part of the public sphere. In this case, the service in question happens to be education. Therefore, it is not a private association.
But they are NOT providing education to the general public. They provide education to those they allow to attend - those who agree to abide by the Honor Code. A school or university can be a private organization just as much as a business can - simply by limiting membership according to a specific rule that all follow. An employer enters into an employment contract with the employees, who then - by virtue of their employment contract - become part of the private institution: the business. There is no legal difference here. Even "public" schools have entrance requirements: live within a certain geographical region, pay certain taxes/fees, etc.
I see this as basically a church issue. If you join church X and start doing Y, that church can kick you out, just as much as you can kick me out of your house for doing something against you. If some Mormon kid wants to go against their church and they get kicked out - what's the issue to us?
A church can kick you out of the CHURCH for going against the church's teachings. They should not be permitted to kick you out of a SCHOOL for doing so, especially if membership in the church is not required to attend the school.
I wonder if we're missing something here. Are these scholarship students? Is the church, through the school, paying their way? I'm not in favor of LDS teachings, but every LDS I've met are very forthright, so I can't help but wonder if we're not being told the entire story.
The title of the article is completely an editorial one meant to inflame and provoke, and it is based on a false conclusion. At issue is a policy decision, not an infringement on practice of religion. The author incorrectly concludes that attendance at an institute of higher learning can not be dependent on contractual agreements entered into by the attendee. They incorrectly and intentionally make a policy issue into a rights issue. There is no substantial difference between this policy and a Catholic school requiring its instructors to adhere to a specific code of conduct in order to work there.
One is free to believe in different tenets than those of the LDS faith, but to attempt to play this as an issue of religious intolerance is at very best untrue and worst intentionally disingenuous. Given the statement immediately posted following the article, the latter is probably the case.
If you make that argument, you effectively destroy the First Amendment entirely because you destroy the right to assembly and the right of associations to restrict membership, do you not? You can't allow someone to make rules on who they allow into their club or religion - regardless of how stupid you think they are - without fundamentally violating that right.
I don't see how this is a problem. I'm not Mormon, I wouldn't go to BYU for that very reason, I wholeheartedly disagree with their perversion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So, I choose not to associate with them. If I was stupid and went there and expected to graduate without being a believer in their cult, then that's my stupid fault.
They can do whatever they want to. They can tell you if you're Mormon then you have to wear pink underwear and prance around on the roof of the dorms, but non-Mormons don't have to... it's THEIR freaking university.
That's not to say I think that it's a good rule, but it's just their rule, and every Mormon that enrolled there knew it when they enrolled.
BYU is for Mormon students.. MORMON students... they are free to defect, but that doesn't mean BYU still owes them an education. What's the big deal? We shouldn't force religious hospitals, colleges, churches.... to go against their beliefs. I think all BYU students should bolt the hell out of there, but that's not the point.
Actually, members of all religions are allowed to attend BYU. It isn't a university exclusively for Mormons.
Also, considering how much of a fuss the Mormon church raises about their religious freedom supposedly being trampled on, it's rather hypocritical of them to turn around and deny religious freedom to others.
Right. If you read the article, you will see that people of OTHER religions at BYU are held to a different Honor Code. For LDS, the Honor Code INCLUDES provisions about leaving the church.
I take the intention of the post. As a private school, they can do what they want, true enough. "Brigham Young University is sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and is part of the Church Educational System, which serves more than ..." (From History under About at yfacts.byu.edu) The view that I take, though, from an Objectivist vantage is that, while you have a political right to be an idiot, doing so remains morally wrong. This is the essential distinguishing characteristic between an objectivist and libertarian. Libertarians say (correctly) that you have the political right to any behavior that does not harm others. True enough, you do. But Objectivism is at root a personal philosophy, a morality for the individual: harming yourself is irrational and therefore immoral. A private institution has a right to do "whatever it wants" but what it wants is not arbitrary or equivalent. If an organization or an individual wants the irrational, then a self-interested person cannot sanction that.
A more basic question might be why anyone who is not LDS would even want to attend BYU.
I note that by contrast, getting kicked out of Fordham or Notre Dame for changing your religion would be egregious. While they, too, are run by a church, that church is more open to intellectual pursuits, and the general search for truth.
I add, also, that the Catholic church apparently has more faith that a sheep who strays will eventually return to the fold. The other thesis is that the Catholic church is more secure in the truth of its beliefs. They can tolerate questions. BYU is less willing to take those risks.
I liked Jefferson's idea of letting states, cities, and even neighborhoods set their own rules. Mike Marotta says BYU is a private school. It certainly should be allowed to make its own rules. People should be free to create LDS-only clubs.
Private organizations can set their own rules, certainly, but only so long as those rules do not violate anyone's rights. This rule violates students rights to religious freedom.
I don't understand that. Students have a right to religious freedom but so does the school. Isn't it violating the school's right to have to accommodate other religions? In a place I own I'm free to make up my own weird rules, right? I could require everyone to wear a tie. People who don't want to comply don't have to go there.
The school already accommodates other religions, and they allow students to freely switch religions, unless they switch away from Mormonism. That is discrimination, and it violates the student's rights.
And no, you are not free to make up whatever rules you want if you own a place, at least not completely. There are limitations, even on private property. Enforcing a particular dress code is fine, because clothing preference is not a protected status. Religious belief, however, is protected.
You make the same mistake that the author makes: deducing that private entities can not create contractual restrictions on the receipt of services based on one's religious affiliation (or change in it). They can, and it is in the religious institution's interest to do so, especially when they are heavily subsidizing the service and the recipients of the service become representatives of the institution. It is no different than Catholic Charities dismissing an openly gay teacher who's contract prohibits practicing a homosexual lifestyle. Under your argument, any religious institution would be forbidden from prohibiting membership from anyone - even those who did not believe in their respective tenets. My reading of the First Amendment specifically guarantees such a right.
The classic example from "Atlas Shrugged" is when Hank Reardon refuses to do business with the Science Institute. Does he not discriminate against them wholly on the merits of their "religion"? He absolutely asserts the right to do business with whom he chooses for whatever reasons he chooses. Can you honestly say that this is different? And Reardon was dealing with a product in monopoly - one can hardly argue such with education.
No. This is just the author's individual beef with a religious institution (and/or its tenets). Nothing more, nothing less.
The first amendment guarantees freedom of religious belief. It does NOT guarantee that any institution can require specific religious belief as part of a contract. In fact, that should be explicitly forbidden.
Requirements to adhere to a particular religious belief should only be permitted within the church itself. Such requirements should not be permitted to carry over to church owned businesses or church owned schools.
And Hank Rearden was refusing to sell to an organization, which is totally different from refusing to do business with an individual. Different rules apply for individuals than for organizations.
(By the way, the Catholic Charities were in the wrong, as well.)
It would behoove you to pick up a basic guide to contract law. It is completely lawful to include in contract provisions what are referred to as Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (or BFOQ's) as terms of a contract and these can directly infringe upon protected classes and statuses provided that the entity can prove the need for a BFOQ (affects enforceability). Both State and Supreme Courts have repeatedly affirmed the legality of BFOQ's both for religious and non-religious entities. In order to disqualify a BFOQ, the student would have to sue the University and prove that the clause did not further the University's purpose and charter.
BFOQ's have been acknowledged in the case of airline flight attendants' (weight), Hooters' "attractiveness" standards for waitresses (pregnancy), and even bartenders at a gay bar (sexual orientation).
And no, different rules do NOT apply in contractual negotiations between individuals and companies. There is no legal difference whatsoever. That was the reason the Supreme Court struck down campaign finance reform laws restricting the free speech of "companies" - because legally there was no basis for a distinction between individuals and companies with respect to the First Amendment.
" Enforcing a particular dress code is fine, because clothing preference is not a protected status. Religious belief, however, is protected." I really wish it weren't, not because I like the thought of an institution discriminating against someone. It's because I don't like the thought of the gov't discriminating against institutions, even ones I disagree with. Religious pluralism works. Institutions that embrace it will succeed.
I imagine people who want to discriminate see it anti-discrimination laws and discriminating against them. It would be like a Unitarian Universalist (UU) organization wanting to hire a UU web developer b/c we know more of them and they share our values, but someone tells us we must go out of our self-selected network and consider mainline Christians even if we don't want to.
Regarding pluralism, I think it can be protected by forbidding laws establishing a national religion. I don't think the gov't should get stop individuals people from establishing a religion in their own organization. People should be free to decide when to operate in their little self-selected worlds and when to go outside them.
Check the First Amendment again. It only protects the right to freely practice religion from federal legislation. The 14th extends that protection to State legislation. You can't practice your religion in 7/11 if they say no, for example (an important point, since the 2nd Amendment *is* absolute in its protection...)
People have a right to not be discriminated against. Any entity which infringes on that right needs to be stopped, regardless of whether its a government entity or not.
Also, practicing a religion is something a person does constantly. It's a way of living one's life. Some people have religious beliefs that prevent them from drinking alcohol or eating pork. So if someone went into a 7/11 and chose not to buy any beer or pork, they would essentially be practicing their religious beliefs in the 7/11. And no, the 7/11 could not stop them from choosing not to purchase such items. ;)
One problem I have with the phrase "people have a right not to be discriminated against" is it cheapens the word "right". Even a good gov't can't stop unfair discrimination. People will make make stupid decisions.
Rights are about things the gov't won't do to you: stop you from speaking, establish a religion, take away your weapons, take over your home, etc.... I believe everyone should have a "right" to food, clothing, shelter, and equal opportunity, but I'm cautious about calling those rights. Those are things I think the gov't should try to get for people b/c their presence provides a benefit to all.
You conveniently ignore that this is not an open market transaction, it is a contract for services. The student has no open right to the services offered by the university. There is no unfettered right to an education from a specific institution - especially not a private one. GPA requirements, SAT/ACT scores, and a host of other requirements - including even the highly contentious racial quota requirements in some Michigan universities - are evidence that enrollment and attendance even in "public" universities is not open to the public at large. A student's enrollment status is subject to termination for criteria spelled out and agreed upon in the enrollment process. As soon as that contract is voided by the student, the university has every right to pursue enforcement of the terms, which includes termination of the student's access to university services.
Now if you want to argue that the contract is legally unenforceable, I would simply put forth one question: does the Democratic Black Caucus have the 1st Amendment right to restrict its membership to only persons of color?
The First Amendment is about religion, not race. Regardless, private clubs may discriminate on any basis they want. Schools, however, may not, regardless of whether the school in question is public or private.
A school may discriminate on the basis of GPA and SAT/ACT scores, because those are not protected statuses. Religion, however, IS a protected status.
Also, quotas are a means of counteracting discrimination, and do not prevent anyone who genuinely qualifies from attending.
You could also think of it this way: why would you WANT to allow someone to attend your university (and receive an education subsidized heavily by voluntary members in good standing) who would graduate from your university and become a representative of your university but who was so disenchanted with what your university stood for that they defected? In my mind, the University's First Amendment rights to association are the root of the disagreement. By your argument, the University would be prohibited from excluding from membership the most directly antagonistic individuals - even though they had signed a contractual provision in advance notifying them of the consequences of such a decision! Are you really going to argue that position?
Oh..I thought it was exclusive to Mormons... are you sure about that? I'm sure they're trying to recruit if that's the case. Defecting is another thing. Excommunication still happens. I don't know the ins and outs and don't really care. They can do what they want. I'm surprised they're as big as they are, but they can believe what they want...provided they don't want me dead because I have free thought...like another religion.
I have to read things quickly... LOTS of reading to do... it's irrelevant really. They can do what they want and if people don't like it they should bolt... easy peasy.
Lets say I go to Annapolis, and even tho they have a very strict honor code and an equally strict no drug policy, I decide to sell answers to exams and do so while smoling dope on campus. Both of these are a violation of their rules; are you saying that even tho I knowingly violated the rules they shouldn't boot me out? Or if I have a gpa of 1.35, and applied to Stanford, no, make that NYU, and they said no way, I oughta sue them because I have some (bizarre) right to go there? Sounds like a socialist "the world owes me" mindset, which, for the life of me, I can neither fathom, condone, nor support. Sorry, even the Leningrad State University in the old USSR had requirements that if you did not meet, you were not welcome.
Oops!!! It was directed at Maphewhatzit, and I hit the wrong reply button... Actually it was in support of your comment "They can do what they want and if people don't like it they should bolt... easy peasy"
Unlike the socialists, we believe in the right for businesses to provide the terms in which they do business (whether they be Universities, Blacksmith Shops, Greengrocers, or Auto Manufacturers) and if someone doesn't accept those terms, they are free to go elsewhere. What they CANNOT do is dicatate to the companies - or, in fact, we producers - how we do business. WE have the right to succeed - or fail. THEY do NOT have the right to tell us HOW to do it. Bottom line and easy peasy!
Any service which is provided to the general public is part of the public sphere. In this case, the service in question happens to be education. Therefore, it is not a private association.
I'm not in favor of LDS teachings, but every LDS I've met are very forthright, so I can't help but wonder if we're not being told the entire story.
One is free to believe in different tenets than those of the LDS faith, but to attempt to play this as an issue of religious intolerance is at very best untrue and worst intentionally disingenuous. Given the statement immediately posted following the article, the latter is probably the case.
That's not to say I think that it's a good rule, but it's just their rule, and every Mormon that enrolled there knew it when they enrolled.
Also, considering how much of a fuss the Mormon church raises about their religious freedom supposedly being trampled on, it's rather hypocritical of them to turn around and deny religious freedom to others.
I take the intention of the post. As a private school, they can do what they want, true enough. "Brigham Young University is sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and is part of the Church Educational System, which serves more than ..."
(From History under About at yfacts.byu.edu) The view that I take, though, from an Objectivist vantage is that, while you have a political right to be an idiot, doing so remains morally wrong. This is the essential distinguishing characteristic between an objectivist and libertarian. Libertarians say (correctly) that you have the political right to any behavior that does not harm others. True enough, you do. But Objectivism is at root a personal philosophy, a morality for the individual: harming yourself is irrational and therefore immoral. A private institution has a right to do "whatever it wants" but what it wants is not arbitrary or equivalent. If an organization or an individual wants the irrational, then a self-interested person cannot sanction that.
A more basic question might be why anyone who is not LDS would even want to attend BYU.
I note that by contrast, getting kicked out of Fordham or Notre Dame for changing your religion would be egregious. While they, too, are run by a church, that church is more open to intellectual pursuits, and the general search for truth.
I add, also, that the Catholic church apparently has more faith that a sheep who strays will eventually return to the fold. The other thesis is that the Catholic church is more secure in the truth of its beliefs. They can tolerate questions. BYU is less willing to take those risks.
And no, you are not free to make up whatever rules you want if you own a place, at least not completely. There are limitations, even on private property. Enforcing a particular dress code is fine, because clothing preference is not a protected status. Religious belief, however, is protected.
The classic example from "Atlas Shrugged" is when Hank Reardon refuses to do business with the Science Institute. Does he not discriminate against them wholly on the merits of their "religion"? He absolutely asserts the right to do business with whom he chooses for whatever reasons he chooses. Can you honestly say that this is different? And Reardon was dealing with a product in monopoly - one can hardly argue such with education.
No. This is just the author's individual beef with a religious institution (and/or its tenets). Nothing more, nothing less.
Requirements to adhere to a particular religious belief should only be permitted within the church itself. Such requirements should not be permitted to carry over to church owned businesses or church owned schools.
And Hank Rearden was refusing to sell to an organization, which is totally different from refusing to do business with an individual. Different rules apply for individuals than for organizations.
(By the way, the Catholic Charities were in the wrong, as well.)
BFOQ's have been acknowledged in the case of airline flight attendants' (weight), Hooters' "attractiveness" standards for waitresses (pregnancy), and even bartenders at a gay bar (sexual orientation).
And no, different rules do NOT apply in contractual negotiations between individuals and companies. There is no legal difference whatsoever. That was the reason the Supreme Court struck down campaign finance reform laws restricting the free speech of "companies" - because legally there was no basis for a distinction between individuals and companies with respect to the First Amendment.
I really wish it weren't, not because I like the thought of an institution discriminating against someone. It's because I don't like the thought of the gov't discriminating against institutions, even ones I disagree with. Religious pluralism works. Institutions that embrace it will succeed.
The preservation of religious pluralism is precisely why laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of religion are necessary.
Regarding pluralism, I think it can be protected by forbidding laws establishing a national religion. I don't think the gov't should get stop individuals people from establishing a religion in their own organization. People should be free to decide when to operate in their little self-selected worlds and when to go outside them.
Also, practicing a religion is something a person does constantly. It's a way of living one's life. Some people have religious beliefs that prevent them from drinking alcohol or eating pork. So if someone went into a 7/11 and chose not to buy any beer or pork, they would essentially be practicing their religious beliefs in the 7/11. And no, the 7/11 could not stop them from choosing not to purchase such items. ;)
Rights are about things the gov't won't do to you: stop you from speaking, establish a religion, take away your weapons, take over your home, etc.... I believe everyone should have a "right" to food, clothing, shelter, and equal opportunity, but I'm cautious about calling those rights. Those are things I think the gov't should try to get for people b/c their presence provides a benefit to all.
Now if you want to argue that the contract is legally unenforceable, I would simply put forth one question: does the Democratic Black Caucus have the 1st Amendment right to restrict its membership to only persons of color?
A school may discriminate on the basis of GPA and SAT/ACT scores, because those are not protected statuses. Religion, however, IS a protected status.
Also, quotas are a means of counteracting discrimination, and do not prevent anyone who genuinely qualifies from attending.
Unlike the socialists, we believe in the right for businesses to provide the terms in which they do business (whether they be Universities, Blacksmith Shops, Greengrocers, or Auto Manufacturers) and if someone doesn't accept those terms, they are free to go elsewhere. What they CANNOT do is dicatate to the companies - or, in fact, we producers - how we do business. WE have the right to succeed - or fail. THEY do NOT have the right to tell us HOW to do it. Bottom line and easy peasy!