SB 1146 is currently up for consideration at the California State
Assembly Judiciary this Thursday.

The heading of the bill states, "The Equity in Higher Education Act
among other things, prohibits a person from being subjected to
discrimination on the basis of specified attributes, including sex, in
any program or activity conducted by a postsecondary educational
institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial
assistance or enrolls students who receive state student financial
aid. Existing federal law, known as Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, prohibits a person, on the basis of sex, from
being excluded from participation in, being denied the benefits of, or
being subject to discrimination under, any education program or
activity receiving federal financial assistance. Both the federal and
state laws do not apply to an educational institution that is
controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be
consistent with the religious tenets of that organization. Title IX
provides a private right of action for violation of its provisions by
a public postsecondary educational institution."
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1146

The bill is of significant importance for California's various
religious colleges and universities which have to decide whether to
refuse to comply and litigate the issue, forgo benefits from
significant state funding, acquiesce and modify their
non-discrimination policies, close down, or move out-of-state.

Putting aside the issue of whether religious colleges "should"
discriminate on the basis of gender, gender identity, gender
expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, my
questions are more as to whether this law would actually pass
constitutional muster.

Here are some issues I'm thinking of:

1.  Whether SB 1146 unconstitutionally imposes an untenable
requirement as a condition of continued state funding (Cal Grants
which students at religious colleges have been receiving for decades)
on California's religious colleges and universities with the intention
of pressuring them to compromise their religious beliefs?

2.  Whether the non-discrimination provision would trump the equal
protection argument that the government cannot use an aspect of faith to
discriminate in the provision of benefits (Cal Grant scholarship
funds) to students who attend
private religious schools (Agostini)?

3.  Whether the state can treat the rights of religious institutions
to discriminate based on religion (permitted) and sexual orientation
(not permitted) differently. The logic is somewhat like an
Escher staircase – can a state prohibit discrimination based on sexual
orientation while simultaneously permitting discrimination based on
religion when a tenet of that religion requires discrimination based on
sexual orientation?

4.  Whether the issue of excluding colleges from funding could be
impacted by the pending Supreme Court case, Trinity Lutheran Church v.
Pauley, set on the issue of  whether religious schools (actually a
preschool in that case) should be able to force a state government to
abandon a state constitutional
prohibition on funding to religious institutions and provide the
religious school with generally available benefits?

5.  Finally with regard to the private right of action to sue, whether
the state can create a private right of action in state court to sue
institutions that have received a Federal Title IX exemption by virtue of the
fact that the institution operates in line with that exemption?

Thanks!

Michael Peabody, Esq.
ReligiousLiberty.TV
_______________________________________________
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.

Reply via email to