My apologies to Michael for the delay in answering the question he asked of Chip and me earlier about Gordon College. I'll be honest, the Gordon College situation was not on my radar, and now I think I know why.
Last October, the College issued a statement that "[c]ontrary to recent media reports, Gordon’s accreditation is not in jeopardy, as its admission and employment policies have always been in full compliance with the NEASC Standards for Accreditation and with nondiscrimination employment law, which has been in place in the Commonwealth since 1989." In covering the statement, Christian publisher OneNewsNow (American Family News Network) further reported that the college's spokesman "attests that the NEASC is not pressing Gordon College to make concessions when it comes to upholding its Christian heritage and behavioral standards." The College's statement appears to have ended most news coverage of the matter, but the story continued to generate commentary. For example, in a January National Review piece entitled "The Persecution of Gordon College," David French wrote that the accrediting agency had sent Gordon the message that "[y]ou have one year to choose between your conscience and your accreditation." Thus, French wrote, "[f]or Gordon, the death penalty now looms." This characterization of the situation is mighty hard to square with either (1) Gordon College's own representation of the situation back in October or (2) the President of the Council of Christian Colleges statement this March that "We knew all along that Gordon's accreditation was not at risk." Again: "We knew all along that Gordon's accreditation was not at risk." >From the President of the Council of Christian Colleges. As for Bob Jones, I think it is really difficult to read that opinion as anything other than a decision to treat racial discrimination in education as a sui generis category for the reasons Chip has given. Based on that uniqueness, the Court was willing to (1) accept an IRS interpretation that almost certainly would have been rejected if it concerned any other type of discrimination and (2) reject a free exercise claim by a nonprofit religious institution that likely would have succeeded at the time if any other type of discrimination had been at issue (e.g., sex or religious discrimination). As I said in my earlier message, I'm skeptical that the current Court would defer to a new interpretation of the statute by the IRS. And though several people have responded by expressing suspicion that the Administration has designs on changing the interpretation (a suspicion I do not share), nothing I've read so far makes me any less skeptical that the Court would be willing to accept such a new interpretation. That leaves Congress, which is not going to strip religious institutions of tax-exempt status anytime soon, if ever. It seems to me that the actual conflicts that are likely to arise in the coming years will be similar to the ones that have already been arising, most of which have involved for-profit enterprises, but some of which have involved non-profits (e.g., the New Jersey pavilion case). From my perspective, most of the solutions to these conflicts are best found by looking at how we have -- or have not -- accommodated similar religious claims in the past. In the past, we haven't made religious exemptions to civil rights laws in the for-profit realm, but we often have done so in the nonprofit realm. - Jim
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
