By now, GetReligion readers are probably aware that some journalists have their doubts about whether the First Amendment actually protects religious doctrines and the “free exercise thereof” by believers.
The problem is that the old-liberal defense of “religious liberty” — inside the usual “scare quotes” — now clashes with the evolving doctrines of the Sexual Revolution. This leads to fights on religious campuses in which journalists pit bad religious believers who defend ancient doctrines against good believers who want those bad doctrines to evolve to mesh with the good teachings of the New York Times and other sacred texts.
The key in most of these clashes is whether students, faculty and staff sign a “doctrinal covenant” when they choose to work or study at one of these private schools. Private schools — liberal and conservative — have a right to defend the doctrines of the religious groups that founded them. As GetReligion readers know (explore this file), journalists often ignore the content of these covenants and fail to ask progressive activists whether they read these covenants before signing them.
Most of these stories focus on disputes at evangelical and Catholic schools. If you ever wondered how an education-beat newsroom would handle one of these stories in an Orthodox Jewish context, now you know — care of an Inside Higher Education report under this double-decker headline:
Students Sue Over Denial of LGBTQ+ Club Recognition
A lawsuit accuses Yeshiva University of violating New York City human rights law in its long-standing refusal to recognize an LGBTQ+ student group
The reader who forwarded this URL was rather blunt, stating that the article is “a mess. Journalistically speaking, it's biased, lopsided, and incurious.”
As usual, there is no way to know whether the school’s admission documents include a doctrinal covenant, since the reporting is sketchy, at best, on that subject. Apparently, the IHE reporter didn’t “know anyone -- ANYONE -- who could clarify” the specifics of the university’s beliefs? their position? There are, of course, plenty of quotations from the school’s critics, since there is no need to hear the Orthodox Jewish side of the debate. Thus, the overture writes itself.
A group of students filed suit … against Yeshiva University in an attempt to compel the Jewish institution in New York City to recognize an LGBTQ+ student club.
The lawsuit argues that because Yeshiva is legally registered as a nonsectarian corporation, it cannot discriminate under the New York City Human Rights Law.
“This is a straight-forward case under the very clear law of New York City, which has one of the strongest civil rights laws in the country,” Katherine Rosenfeld, the lead lawyer representing the students, said during a press conference. …
The students, of course, want to “provide peer support, community, host events, coffees, all the activities that student clubs exist to provide and which are so important to the development and success of college students.”
Administrators have, of course, stated their opposition in “religious terms.” Here is the key passage:
“The message of Torah on this issue is nuanced, both accepting each individual with love and affirming its timeless prescriptions,” Yeshiva administrators said in a September 2020 statement quoted in the lawsuit. “While students will of course socialize in gatherings they see fit, forming a new club as requested under the auspices of YU will cloud this nuanced message.”
The September 2020 statement does not specify which prescriptions of the Torah were relevant to its decision about the LGBTQ+ student alliance. Yeshiva said in a statement … in response to the lawsuit that "love for God and love for each of His children" lies "at the heart of our Jewish values."
"Our LGBTQ+ students are our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, family and friends," the university statement says. "Our policies on harassment and discrimination against students on the basis of protected classifications including LGBTQ+ are strong and vigorously enforced. Our Torah-guided decision about this club in no way minimizes the care and sensitivity that we have for each of our students, nor the numerous steps the university has already taken. We are actively engaged with our students, faculty and rabbinic leaders to facilitate productive discussions with an eye toward understanding and embracing diverse perspectives."
It’s valid, of course, to quote public statements of this kind.
However, why wouldn’t members of the IHE team seek interviews with administrators, students, faculty and parents who support the school’s teachings? It is likely that believers of this kind exist and that they have telephones. If they were asked for comment and declined, readers should know that.
Here is another key passage that points to a crucial, but unasked, question. Read this carefully:
Despite the ongoing refusal to recognize the organization, the lawsuit claims that Yeshiva was advised by its lawyers more than 25 years ago that it has “no credible legal argument” to ban a LGBTQ+ student group -- a legal conclusion that the plaintiffs argue “is as correct today as it was in 1995.”
“There’s no exemption that shields its conduct,” Rosenfeld, the students’ lawyer, said of Yeshiva. “It operates on paper and legally with all the benefits of nonsectarian status, and now it must operate that way in reality by treating its students equally.”
Fifty-one law professors at Yeshiva signed a letter sent Tuesday to the university president, Rabbi Ari Berman, urging the university to recognize the club for both moral and legal reasons and expressing their “dismay” at the university’s refusal to do so.
This raises an obvious question: Does Yeshiva have a doctrinal covenant that states its doctrines on these issues? Do students and faculty, at some point, voluntarily sign this document?
If there is no covenant document of this kind, that’s important.
If there is a covenant document, then that’s important. Why? It would then be clear that the school’s administrators are — as leaders of a voluntary association under the First Amendment — trying to their “free exercise” of those beliefs and traditions.
Either way, this is a pivotal question.
Why not ask this question and then — seeking actual interviews — ask the school’s leaders and defenders to explain why they believe what they believe?
Just asking. Again, and again, and again.
FIRST IMAGE: Rainbow pride Kippah at NerdyKeppie.com