A debate is heating up on Canada's left coast. Trinity Western University in British Columbia is seeking to open a law school which would require students to pledge to live up to (their conception of) Christian values by voluntarily abstaining from "sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman." Advocates are out arguing for and against accreditation of the institution. For: National Post commentator Jonathan Kay, arguing that gay students should just go somewhere they'd feel more comfortable and adding that "Canada has not yet become a country that bends to every demand from secular extremists." Against: lawyers Clayton Ruby and Gerald Chan, arguing that the school is imposing a "queer quota" and stating that "Mr. Kay’s solution is to tell homosexual students to go to one of the other law schools. That is precisely what Jews were told in the 1940s and 1950s. Stick to your own kind."
Gay students would be able to attend TWU but not have sex with people of the same sex. In the U.S., of course, religious schools discriminate - not only based on actual sexual acts, but on articulated views about such conduct. I wonder what Ruby and Chan would say about this language from Liberty University:
The School of Law does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation but does discriminate on the basis of sexual misconduct, including, but not limited to, non-marital sexual relations or the encouragement or advocacy of any form of sexual behavior that would undermine the Christian identity or faith mission of the University.
Query whether this rule is actually consistent with ABA Accreditation Standard 211(c) which provides:
(c) This Standard does not prevent a law school from having a religious affi liation or purpose and adopting and applying policies of admission of students and employment of faculty and staff that directly relate to this affi liation or purpose so long as (i) notice of these policies has been given to applicants, students, faculty, and staff before their affi liation with the law school, and (ii) the religious affi liation, purpose, or policies do not contravene any other Standard, including Standard 405(b) concerning academic freedom.
These policies may provide a preference for persons adhering to the religious affi liation or purpose of the law school, but shall not be applied to use admission policies or take other action to preclude admission of applicants or retention of students on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age or disability. This Standard permits religious affiliation or purpose policies as to admission, retention, and employment only to the extent that these policies are protected by the United States Constitution. It is administered as though the First Amendment of the United States Constitution governs its application.
And what about Interpretation 211-4?
The denial by a law school of admission to a qualifi ed applicant is treated as made upon the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age or disability if the basis of denial relied upon is an admissions qualifi cation of the school which is intended to prevent the admission of applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age or disability though not purporting to do so.
Comments