GAY NEWS
Supreme Court and Two States Improve Situation for LGBTs in Schools
By L.K. Regan
Published Jun 29, 2010
Published Jun 29, 2010
For many LGBT people, schools have long been places of peril. From bullying to exclusion from groups and activities, the American school system has many pitfalls for young people coming to terms with their identities. In the last week, however, some very hopeful developments signal that this situation is gradually changing. A close U.S. Supreme Court decision promises to protect access for LGBT students to campus groups at some public universities. Also, new anti-bullying laws protecting LGBTs are now on the books in Illinois, and nearing finalization in New York.
In a five-to-four decision, U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that public universities may refuse financial support to religious student groups that ban gay members. The University of California's Hastings College of Law has an anti-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation. To receive official recognition, student groups must not fall afoul of this policy. But the non-denominational Christian Legal Society's rules include a ban on anyone participating in "a sexually immoral lifestyle" involving "sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman." Hastings therefore withdrew its recognition of the 30-member group, meaning that, though the group might remain on campus, it would not be eligible for funding for events and travel, nor granted office space or access to publications and bulletin boards. The Christian Legal Society filed suit on first amendment grounds of infringement on the free practice of their religion.
In the majority opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the Christian Legal Society had sought "a preferential exemption from Hastings' policy," when in fact, she wrote, the University "may reasonably draw a line in the sand permitting all organizations to express what they wish but no group to discriminate in membership." Ultimately, she wrote, "in requiring the CLS—in common with all other student organizations—to choose between welcoming all students and forgoing the benefits of official recognition, we hold, Hastings did not transgress constitutional limitations." Her opinion, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, is expected to have implications for the relationship between public universities and many campus groups, including sororities and fraternities. These will now have allow gays into their groups if they want money from public universities with anti-discrimination policies, even if doing so is in opposition to their religious beliefs.
In primary and secondary schools in two states, the situation for gay students is also set to improve. In Illinois on Sunday, Governor Pat Quinn signed into law the Prevent School Violence Act, which updated and added specificity to the state's existing mandates. Under this act, for the first time, bullying is clearly defined, and extended to include cyber-bullying. Protection is also offered to a specific list of categories, including LGBT students. The law also creates a task force to examine the origins and impact of bullying. The findings are likely to be pretty depressing—which is exactly why this law is needed. According to the ACLU of Illinois, "Students report that physical appearance (looks or body size), sexual orientation and gender expression are the most common reasons other students at their school are bullied." The ACLU also reports that more than half of Illinois students that they have been verbally harassed and nearly a quarter report being physically assaulted in school in the last year.
Governor Quinn's signature made Illinois the ninth state with an anti-bullying law that protects gay students, but gay activists have reason to hope that there will very soon be a tenth, New York. Last week, the New York state senate passed an anti-bullying law of its own, one that, like Illinois', protects LGBT students. The Dignity for All Students Act had already passed the state assembly, and Governor David Paterson is expected to sign it. The bill was largely the work of gay Assemblyman Daniel J. O'Donnell, who was pushed to action by the experience of being bullied over his weight as a youth. O'Donnell, speaking to the New York Times, was dismissive of the dated "kids will be kids" attitude." As O'Donnell said, "That leads to suicide and it leads to death. There was a case in California where a transgender kid was murdered. So clearly, bullying escalates. What we’re trying to do is nip bullying in the bud.”
As State Senator Thomas K. Duane, who shepherded the bill through New York's Senate, said in a statement, "No child should be terrified to go to school simply because of who they are."
In a five-to-four decision, U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that public universities may refuse financial support to religious student groups that ban gay members. The University of California's Hastings College of Law has an anti-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation. To receive official recognition, student groups must not fall afoul of this policy. But the non-denominational Christian Legal Society's rules include a ban on anyone participating in "a sexually immoral lifestyle" involving "sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman." Hastings therefore withdrew its recognition of the 30-member group, meaning that, though the group might remain on campus, it would not be eligible for funding for events and travel, nor granted office space or access to publications and bulletin boards. The Christian Legal Society filed suit on first amendment grounds of infringement on the free practice of their religion.
In the majority opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the Christian Legal Society had sought "a preferential exemption from Hastings' policy," when in fact, she wrote, the University "may reasonably draw a line in the sand permitting all organizations to express what they wish but no group to discriminate in membership." Ultimately, she wrote, "in requiring the CLS—in common with all other student organizations—to choose between welcoming all students and forgoing the benefits of official recognition, we hold, Hastings did not transgress constitutional limitations." Her opinion, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, is expected to have implications for the relationship between public universities and many campus groups, including sororities and fraternities. These will now have allow gays into their groups if they want money from public universities with anti-discrimination policies, even if doing so is in opposition to their religious beliefs.
In primary and secondary schools in two states, the situation for gay students is also set to improve. In Illinois on Sunday, Governor Pat Quinn signed into law the Prevent School Violence Act, which updated and added specificity to the state's existing mandates. Under this act, for the first time, bullying is clearly defined, and extended to include cyber-bullying. Protection is also offered to a specific list of categories, including LGBT students. The law also creates a task force to examine the origins and impact of bullying. The findings are likely to be pretty depressing—which is exactly why this law is needed. According to the ACLU of Illinois, "Students report that physical appearance (looks or body size), sexual orientation and gender expression are the most common reasons other students at their school are bullied." The ACLU also reports that more than half of Illinois students that they have been verbally harassed and nearly a quarter report being physically assaulted in school in the last year.
Governor Quinn's signature made Illinois the ninth state with an anti-bullying law that protects gay students, but gay activists have reason to hope that there will very soon be a tenth, New York. Last week, the New York state senate passed an anti-bullying law of its own, one that, like Illinois', protects LGBT students. The Dignity for All Students Act had already passed the state assembly, and Governor David Paterson is expected to sign it. The bill was largely the work of gay Assemblyman Daniel J. O'Donnell, who was pushed to action by the experience of being bullied over his weight as a youth. O'Donnell, speaking to the New York Times, was dismissive of the dated "kids will be kids" attitude." As O'Donnell said, "That leads to suicide and it leads to death. There was a case in California where a transgender kid was murdered. So clearly, bullying escalates. What we’re trying to do is nip bullying in the bud.”
As State Senator Thomas K. Duane, who shepherded the bill through New York's Senate, said in a statement, "No child should be terrified to go to school simply because of who they are."
sdgman wrote:
We're going to win the Prop 8 case in California too. That one and the DOMA case we won in Mass the other day will also go to SCOTUS. This courts justices have proven inconsistent on gay rights issues, and I'm not confident they will uphold equal rights for gays. There are several who seem to believe that the constitution doesn't apply equally to all americans, and favor freedom to discriminate over equal protection.
Jul 10 6:17 PM
triguybi wrote:
Dan, yes I have read the article and many others on this case. But it is not "public" funding, it is student fees. All students pay in to student fees that are then allocated to groups on campus. And no, they can't meet on campus.
So do you think it would be discriminitory for the GLBT group to not want straight (or crazy closeted) right wing religious nuts voted in to their leadership? The issue here isn't even on homosexuality, its on a belief of sex within marriage only, hetero or homo. Funny thing is, even the secular world expects sexual purity from the religious right. If you saw the leader of a campus christian group sleeping around, wouldn't you think he/she was a hypocrite? If you hold them to that standard, why can't they hold themselves to that standard?
Jul 02 2:52 AM
CalDan wrote:
"Shouldn't all groups actually have the right to assemble with others who hold the same views as them, even if they differ from ours?"
@triguybi...you might not have read the article above, but they still have the right to assemble as they wish and allow anyone they want (or vice versa) into their group. They just can't receive public funding for discriminatory practices. Makes a ton of sense to me.
Jun 30 1:39 PM
triguybi wrote:
I realize on the surface this US SC ruling looks good for the LGBT community. However it doesn't take much thought to realize this could work against the community as well. Most religious groups including the CLC at Hastings allow anyone to attend their meetings, but meet the faith based requirments for actual "membership" or to hold an office. And most religious groups don't even have "membership", so it is really just about holding an office. So yes, now a gay person or straight person engaging in premarital sex can hold office or membership in a Christian/Muslim/Jewish group.
However, schools anti-discrimination policies also include religion. So based on this ruling, no group can keep a religious person out of their membership or leadership either. So it works both ways. Now the GLBT group has no right to keep a right wing fundamental Christian out of their leadership, the pro-choice group can't keep a pro-lifer out, and the feminist group can't keep out the Muslim who thinks women should cover their faces at all times. On most campuses the GLBT and "liberal" groups already get much more school money than religious groups do. But what now keeps all the Christians from coming to the GLBT meetings, voting themselves in to leadership and then using the money for things that don't do any good to the GLBT mission?
Does this honestly make sense to anyone? Shouldn't all groups actually have the right to assemble with others who hold the same views as them, even if they differ from ours?
Jun 30 5:07 AM