Is there freedom of Religion in America?
Terry Frank has an interesting post this morning on First Amendment rights. The story is about a Christian student who has been punished for opposing homosexual adoption on religious grounds. The ADF (Alliance Defense Fund) is suing Missouri State University on behalf of student Emily Brooker.
MSU student Emily Brooker faced an “ethics” committee after school officials informed her that she stood accused of a Level 3 grievance for violation of the School of Social Work’s “Standards of Essential Functioning in Social Work Education.” The Level 3 grievance is the highest level of grievance that an individual can bring against a student. University officials told Brooker she had violated three of the “Standards of Essential Functioning”: Diversity, Interpersonal Skills, and Professional Behavior.
One of Brooker’s MSU professors, Frank G. Kauffman, assigned to his students a project promoting homosexual foster homes and adoption. The project required the entire class to write and individually sign a letter to the Missouri Legislature in support of homosexual adoption, a letter Brooker refused to sign due to her religious objections.
On Dec. 16, 2005, Brooker faced a two-and-a-half hour interrogation by faculty members, who allegedly asked her personally invasive questions such as, “Do you think gays and lesbians are sinners?” and “Do you think I am a sinner?”
The question I have is would there have been a difference if Emily Brooker was a Muslim? I have a feeling that MSU professor Frank G. Kauffman would not have filed a Level 3 grievance for violation of the School of Social Work’s “Standards of Essential Functioning in Social Work Education” if Brooker was a Muslim. Do we have freedom of religion in this country or are some religions more “free” than others?
October 31st, 2006 at 11:51 am
Quick, to the ACLU phone.
October 31st, 2006 at 11:52 am
Also, teacher’s forcing students to do their political activism for them?
October 31st, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Also, teacher’s forcing students to do their political activism for them?
Outrageous behavior but protected by tenure. How does something like this happen in Missouri? Even more shocking is this is the social work curriculum.
It is only a matter of time before the defense of this lawsuit claims that the First Amendment is the problem. That Brookers Christian beliefs are racist and homophobic. Of course everything good Muslims do is off the books.
October 31st, 2006 at 12:09 pm
In this so-called institutions of higher learning where one would think all views could be expressed, you can believe anything you want, just don’t SAY it, especially for Christians. Muslims are generally still under the protection of multi-culturalism and political-correctness.
October 31st, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Seems like everyone forgets the “free exercise thereof” part of the First.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Given that the assignment was to write the legislature only in support of one particular position, I’d say that FIRE should probably get involved. They tend to strike a good deal of fear into college administrations.
Now, if writing on the same issue but advocating a different position had been acceptable, I wouldn’t see any issue.
If she had really wanted to back them into a corner, that’s exactly what she should have done-written a letter in opposition and turned it in as her assignment.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Initially, I’m inclined to side with the student on this (it certainly sounds as if the professor crossed the line), but I’m waiting for more details before I pass judgment.
However, with all the conservative complaining about this, I do feel the need to throw one of their favorite tactics back in their face: “The first amendment says that ‘Congress shall make no law,’ and this is not an example of Congress making a law, so there’s no Constitutional foul here.” (No, I don’t believe that, I’m just pointing out the absurdity of that oft-regurgitated conservative argument now that the shoe’s on the other foot.)
Score one for the ADF, though. They’ve been having a much harder time lately pushing the “Christians as oppressed majority” line, so good on them for mining this gem.
October 31st, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Like tgirsh said, this does not appear to be a violation of 1st Amendment Rights, but it is massively unprofessional. I only had to take 1 polysci class, and it was simply not possible to determine the professor’s political beliefs. I wonder just what the University can do to someone with a “Class 3 Grievance”. I’ve been a college student for going on 7 years now, and if a prof came at me with something like that, I’d be very tempted to simply ignore it. This 2.5 hour long session with faculty is also an event that only a very gracious and understanding person, or a doormat, would sit through. I’m curious to see what will happen.
October 31st, 2006 at 8:27 pm
tgirsch, I believe it would be more apt to charge the individuals with violations of title 18 section 241, Conspiracy to Deprive Rights. That makes it a felony to deprive, among other things, the right to freedom of speech as long as such a right is recognized (and it’s been hard to see a court not do so).
And, of course, the public outcry should be enough reason for those individuals not to force people to write political statements that they do not expouse themselves.
November 1st, 2006 at 12:25 am
Actually, the fact that it’s a public university (Missouri STATE U.) makes the prof a state actor, therefore, any compulsory speech/advocacy is the state compelling speech/advocacy of a certain point of view.
As I said earlier, if the prof had assigned the students to write to the Legislature expressing the point of view of their choice, that would be fine. It only becomes a problem when he compells them to adhere to his point of view.
November 1st, 2006 at 7:15 am
An even better question would be: What if this teacher had required his class to sign a document against homosexuals adopting, and a gay student had refused to sign?
Hard to imagine such a case, but if it happened, who do you think would be in trouble? The gay student who refused to sign? Not likely.
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:12 pm
I got me a degree (or two) from that school, and I gotta tell you all, there are many of the liberal elite there trying to school us dumb hillbillies in the wrongness of our values. It was just a matter of time. I was forced to write a similar letter in support of the ADA back in the 90’s.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:50 am
Of course, when I have to go to fucking church to vote, as I’ve had to do for every election in Tennessee, and for most of the ones when I lived in Ohio, it tends to make me cynical of the idea that we really have the type of religious freedom I’d like to see. I ought to be able to vote without being assailed by Psalms and pictures of Jesus staring at me. At least in Wisconsin, voting took place in public schools, libraries, and county parks…
(Imagine how your typical Tennessee resident would feel if they had to go to the mosque to vote…)
/soapbox
Back on topic, I’m still waiting for more details. I did some googling, but wasn’t able to come up with anything. I wouldn’t be surprised if this happened as advertised, but I’d be equally unsurprised to learn that the ADF was trumping things up. So somebody, anybody, give more details from a neutral source, please…
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:05 pm
I am currently in the graduate Social Work program at Missouri State University, and also received my Bachelor degree from the school when it was still SMSU. I currently have Dr. Kauffman as a professor, and I can speak for his high level of professionalism and care towards each and every student he teaches. I can also assure you that the Social Work code of ethics addresses and welcomes diversity among all people.
As social workers, as well as students, we are strongly encouraged to be self-aware of all of our values and beliefs. We are also encouraged to personally live by those values that we hold dear. There is a difference between personally living by values, and what we do PROFESSIONALLY. As a social worker and for those working to become one (such as the case with Emily Brooker), we agree to do what is best for our clients, even if that means sometimes going against our own beliefs. There is always a way out; however, if someone does not feel they can help a client because it goes against their personal beliefs, they have every right and even an obligation to refer that client to someone else, so that the client can still be assisted in the most effective and most objective way possible.
When we are accepted into the program of Social Work, we are aware and even given the Social Work code of ethics. No one is forced to apply to a program in Social Work, and each person chooses to take that path, knowing full well what it means to be a Social Worker….which is often times not easy, because working with a client may conflict with our own personal beliefs, etc.
What is Emily Brooker going to do in the future as a Social Worker, if a gay or lesbian client comes to her for help because they want to adopt, and she decides to take on that client and help him or her, instead of referring the person to someone else? Is she going to let her values and belief system get in the way of doing what is best for her client? Is she going to fail at her duty as a Social Worker to provide her client with the right of self-determination, just because she does not agree with what the client wants or with the client’s lifestyle? God help the clients she has in the future, because it sounds like she will only help them, if they fit into the Christian ways she thinks they should!
Also, let’s not forget that all we hear in newspapers and on the internet, is not always accurate. I am not saying that there is false information, but let’s remember that there are always two sides to every story. People have been known to do things for money. Hello, what a concept? I’m not biased, please don’t think I am. Emily Brooker had every right to stand up for her beliefs, and decide that Social Work was not for her. It is; however, the obligation of each academic institutition, to ensure that graduating students are leaving with competence and integrity, as well as with an understanding that their duty to their profession, as professionals, is to uphold what it means to be a profressional, such as a Social Worker. I think that the school had every right to say to Emily Brooker, if you would like to be a Social Worker and get a degree from this institutition, you need to learn how to welcome what your role of a Social Worker needs to be. This often means working with and helping clients, even when you do not always agree with their choices and lifestyles.
She could have easily decided to leave the program. She chose to stay in a program on her own free will that has standards that she did not feel she could meet, which included completing the class assignment. Not to be rude, but Social Work is not an easy profession, for many reasons. And if she realized that she could “not take the heat, she should have got out of the kitchen!” Social Work is not for everyone, and maybe it is not for Emily Brooker. How many people should suffer and even PAY, because she chose the path of Social Work, and does not have the ability to work with and advocate for people of diversity? Should this school have to pay, and more importantly, should all of her future clients have to pay? I hope not…
Thanks,
ConcernedGrad…(proud graduate student of Missouri State University)
November 5th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
ConcernedGrad,
Why should Ms. Brooker support something she doesn’t believe in? Since when is political activism something that should be required in class? Do you have to vote Democrat to get a good grade too?