Word comes that Zaytuna College, an Islamic institution located in Berkley, California, has received initial accreditation from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, the same body from which UC Berkley and Stanford University receive their accreditation. Some on the political right (Breitbart) are not happy about this development, in part because of the anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli statements of some individuals involved in founding Zaytuna. In addition, they report that Hazam Yusuf, the College's president, signed a much publicized letter condemning ISIS but supporting the establishment of a caliphate and the imposition of the death penalty under sharia law for Muslims who openly renounce Islam.
Plainly, the views of at least some Zaytuna administrators represent something out of the mainstream relative to the views of most college administrators. Although it is unlikely that such views will be greeted by shouts of "Je Suis Charlie!" (and putting to one side the merits of such views), there can be no doubt that they constitute a contribution to the plurality of views that the First Amendment was designed to foster and protect. (Holmes' "marketplace of ideas" includes the souk).
Of greater importance is the pluralism in higher education that Zaytuna College itself represents. Zaytuna expressly identifies itself as a "Muslim liberal arts college" and forthrightly states that its "aim and ambition is to fully participate in a renewal of the teachings embedded in the Islamic religious tradition so that students may grasp their relevance to the present world" (see here). Zaytuna's mission is "to educate and prepare morally committed, professional, intellectual, and spiritual leaders who are grounded in the Islamic scholarly tradition and conversant with the cultural currents and critical ideas shaping modern society" (Id.).
One might ask what sort of "moral commitment" Zaytuna is seeking in its students? Here, the College makes clear that "[s]tudents, faculty, staff and visitors are strictly forbidden" from using or promoting the use of tobacco, alcohol and "illegal or controlled drugs or intoxicants" (here p. 49). Violation of this policy may be grounds for expulsion. Men and women must dress modestly and in a way "consistent with the dignity adherent to representing a Muslim institution of higher education" (Id. at 48). "Clothing is inappropriate when it is sleeveless, revealing, or form fitting" and women's skirts and trousers "must be full length" (Id.). Moreover, "Muslim students should not visit bars, discos, casinos, or other places where actions prohibited in Islam (e.g. drinking alcohol) are the primary activity" (Id. at 49).
With respect to housing, all student housing is single-sex and "students of opposite gender are not permitted to visit each other in student housing" (Id. at 66). Violation of this policy may be grounds for expulsion. Beyond this, in order to foster "spiritual growth" and "moral formation" consistent with "Islamic norms," when outside of class "students should study and socialize with members of their own gender" (Id. at 49).
Most significantly, Zaytuna's student catalogue provides that "[d]ating, sexual activity, or romantic relationships among unmarried Muslim students are not allowed either on campus or off campus" (Id.). Violations of this policy "are deemed serious and will result in disciplinary action, which may include expulsion" (Id.). The catalogue expressly provides that "[s]tudents of other faiths are also expected to abide by the Honor Code, although they are not required to attend extracurricular religious services and prayers and are free to practice their own faith or philosophy" (Id. at 37). The Honor Code does not specifically prohibit "dating" or "sexual activity" but these prohibitions, which do expressly apply to Muslim students, could be applied to non-Muslims under the Honor Code's general principles of "Propriety and Modesty" and "Sobriety and Restraint," and as the Dean of Student Life may provide (Id.). The catalogue does not specifically mention homosexuality, and I suppose it is possible to interpret Zaytuna's catalogue as not prohibiting "sexual activity" between two students of the same sex who are married under state law, but I somehow doubt that administrators at Zaytuna would subscribe to such a reading.
In previous posts on MOJ Rick Garnett has commented on the current threat to Gordon College's accreditation, and by implication, the threat to institutional pluralism and the religious liberty of other religiously affiliated colleges and universities foreshadowed by this incident (see here, here, and here).
Gordon is a Christian college that expects its students, faculty and staff to abide by Scriptural standards of conduct and refrain from "blasphemy, profanity, dishonesty, theft, drunkenness, sexual relations outside marriage, and homosexual practice." Gordon makes clear that these actions "will not be tolerated in the lives of Gordon community members, either on or off campus" (see here).
Gordon's accrediting body, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges' Commission on Institutions of Higher Education initiated a process to determine "whether Gordon College's traditional inclusion of 'homosexual practice' as a forbidden activity . . . [is] contrary to the Commission's Standards for Accreditation," a process that now requires a the College to submit a report in September 2015 (see here).
Why the difference? Why is the Islamic college granted accreditation and the Christian college threatened with revocation of its accreditation? It may be a difference in standards between the NEASC and the WASC. There doesn't appear to be the equivalent of NEASC's non-discrimination norm in Standard 11.5 (here) in the WASC standards (here) although WASC's diversity policy (here) would seem to allow for the application similar regulatory pressure. Or it may be a difference in the relative zeal of the enforcers.
Or the difference may due to a desire on the part of accrediting bodies to appear to be open and welcoming to those who are deemed appropriately "diverse" -- a category that does not include traditional Christianity. Is it due to a fear of Islam or of appearing Islamaphobic and of reprisals that would ensue following a denial of accreditation? Whereas religious identity can be discounted and treated as an empty remnant where Christianity is involved?
If this is not the case -- if the decision to grant accreditation to a college like Zaytuna is in fact principled, based on a genuine respect for diversity and institutional autonomy in higher education as it relates to religious identity -- then surely a similar decision can encompass a Christian college like Gordon.
Presently, there is no threat to Catholic colleges and universities that express their identity in similar policies regarding the behavior of students, faculty and staff (Catholic elementary and secondary schools are, of course, another matter, see here). This may be due to the fact only a handful of Catholic colleges and universities maintain standards regarding student sexual conduct beyond sexual activity that is non-consensual (compare the standards at Notre Dame and Franciscan-Steubenville with those at Marquette and Loyola-Chicago). But if the accrediting bodies are allowed to bludgeon small Christian colleges like Gordon in the name of an intolerant tolerance, does anyone really believe that that will be the end of it?
This piece, by Profs. Sarah Barringer Gordon and Nomi Stolzenberg, presents what I think is an inaccurate account of the current efforts to secure religious exemptions and accommodations in various states. Now, authors rarely get to pick the titles of their pieces (in my experience, anyway), and so I don't think Profs. Gordon and Barringer should be blamed for the headline, "State Legislatures Pit Religious Freedom Against Civil Rights." Still, as I tried to set out, in this forthcoming essay,
the right to religious freedom is a basic civil right, the increased appreciation of which is said to characterize our “age.” Accordingly, I push back against scholars’ and commentators’ increasing tendency to regard and present religious accommodations and exemptions as obstacles to the civil-rights enterprise and ask instead if our religious-accommodation practices are all that they should be. Are accommodations and exemptions being extended prudently but generously, in as many cases and to as many persons and entities as possible, in a sincere effort to welcome religious minorities, objectors, and dissenters as fully as we can into what Justice Harlan called “the dignity and glory of American citizenship”? What barriers exist to the promotion and achievement of civil-rights goals through religious accommodations and how might these barriers be overcome? Are civil-rights laws being designed and enforced in ways that guard against unintended or unjustified disregard for or sacrifices of the civil (and human) right to religious liberty?
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
A worthwhile reflection at the always interesting Hedgehog Review by Wilfred McClay. Here's an interesting bit on the difference between memory and unfiltered, endlessly accreting deposits of historical data:
Memory is the very core of our personal identity, and it is most powerful when it is purposeful, and selective. Above all, it requires that we possess stories and narratives—contexts—that link facts in ways that are both meaningful and true, rather than treat them as a mass of disaggregated data, to be exploited as we, or others, might wish. What makes for intelligent and discerning memory is not the mere capacity for massive retention, but a certain balance and order in the mental economy of remembering and forgetting. In other words, memory takes an active role in thinning out the mental trees so that the forests can be discerned. We need to retain less if we are to remember more. In so doing, we may rediscover the enduring virtues of ink on paper, of scripta that remain in one place, as the vehicle for a new kind of samizdat, one that eschews the digital grid altogether.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
I'm one of the contributors to today's "Room for Debate" feature at the New York Times. The theme is "Parents' Beliefs vs. Their Children's Health" (which, in my view, might be a bit question-begging, but anyway . . .). My contribution, "Parents' Beliefs Should Be Honored, Within Reason," is here (and has a title that I did not select). A bit:
If a regulation – even a sensible one that serves well the public good – imposes a significant burden on someone’s religious practice or conscience, we are willing to consider an accommodation if, all things considered, it would not undermine our ability to promote important government interests and public goals. Religious beliefs and objections do not and should not supply an absolute license to violate general laws, but they do and should deserve special care and consideration by policymakers. . . .
