Religious liberty on campus
Young, Roy E.
THE COURT DEFENDS EQUAL ACCESS Religious liberty on campus ROY E. YOUNG RELIGIOUS LIBERTY often receives little support on college and university campuses. That is why the recent U.S. Supreme...
...Similarly, the advancement of religion would not be the "primary effect" of offering facilities to religious groups on the terms available to other organizations...
...Eleven students, members of a registered group, Cornerstone, "sought access to the facilities for the purpose of offering prayer, singing hymns, reading scripture, and teaching biblical principles...
...It should be received with great enthusiasm by those persons who favor religious freedom...
...Constitution's First Amendment required that religious groups be prevented from using the campus facilities...
...Supreme Court case, Widmar et al v. Vincent et al, decided in December 1981, is so important...
...Constitution...
...The fact that their expression of faith includes ceremonial conduct is not...
...Worship, the group admitted, was "an important part of the general atmosphere" of its meetings...
...An exception was official religious groups...
...These organizations were prohibited the use of university buildings or grounds'' for purposes of religious worship or religious teachings...
...Eight justices (Burger, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, Rehn-quist, O'Connor, Powell) agreed...
...First, the (governmental) policy must have a secular legislative purpose...
...Here is much greater entanglement than a policy that lets all official student groups use university facilities...
...a sufficient reason for suppressing their discussion entirely...
...There would be a "continuing need to monitor group meetings to ensure compliance with the rule...
...Engaging in religious worship and discussion, according to the Court, "are forms of speech and association protected by the First Amendment...
...Past Court decisions "leave no doubt that the First Amendment rights of speech and association extend to the ROY E. YOUNG is a member of the political science department at San Jose University in California...
...But the Court majority found any religious benefits to be incidental...
...An open forum for all groups "does not confer any imprimatur of State approval on religious sects or practices...
...The 'primary effect' of such a policy would not be to advance religion, but rather to further the neutral purpose of developing students"social and cultural awareness as well as (their) intellectual curiosity.' " Without this decision, university facilities would be available to groups for anti-religious speeches and practices while being prohibited to those who participate in pro-religious activities...
...Powell's majority opinion noted that UMKC's stated policy was the encouragement of "the activities of student organizations...
...Eight Supreme Court justices advanced the constitutional principles of the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech...
...So the argument ran...
...In this instance, UMKC opened its facilities for use by student groups...
...In no way does that commit the university to the goals espoused by these groups...
...Students for a Democratic Society and the Young Socialist Alliance can use university buildings...
...This prohibition, argued the university, was necessary to maintain "strict separation of church and state...
...The question was whether the university could "exclude groups because of the content of their speech...
...Under an exclusion policy, the university must "determine which words and activities fall within religious worship and religious teachings...
...An exclusion'' must therefore justify the standard of review appropriate to content-based exclusion...
...comparable use by a group desiring to express a belief in God must also be permitted...
...An equal access policy risks less entanglement than a university policy that excludes religious worship and religious speech...
...The college classroom with its surrounding environs is peculiarly 'the marketplace of ideas.' " It is a place where many viewpoints, religious and non-religious, can be discussed...
...Obviously religious groups benefit from access to university facilities...
...Letting a religious group use university facilities would "not offend the establishment clause" if a three-pronged test were met...
...Refused permission to conduct their meetings in university buildings, the Cornerstone members "alleged that the university's discrimination against religious activity and discussion violated their rights to free exercise of religion, equal protection, and freedom of speech under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments" of the U.S...
...campuses of state universities.'' Any "exclusion from a public forum based on the religious content of a group's intended speech" requires the university to show that "its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest, and the regulation must be narrowly drawn to achieve the end...
...The case involved the University of Missouri at Kansas City, a state university.UMKC routinely permitted the one-hundred-plus officially recognized student groups to use its facilities for meetings...
...Does allowing religious groups to share the public forum "have the primary effect of advancing religion...
...This test was formulated in the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman case...
...finally, the (policy) must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion.' " The Court majority said that "An open forum policy, including non-discrimination against religious speech," has a secular purpose and avoids entanglement with religion...
...Otherwise, the State of Missouri would be giving'' support to an institution of religion...
...The establishment clause of the U.S...
...If school facilities may be used to discuss anti-clerical doctrine," stated Justice Stevens in a concurring opinion...
...Their ruling should help end the religious discrimination currently practiced in many institutions of higher education...
...Their opinion promotes religious liberty by opening university facilities "to groups and speeches of all kinds," subject to the establishment of reasonable time, place, and manner regulations...
...second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion...
...This is recognized by the Court majority...
Vol. 109 • April 1982 • No. 7
