Establishment v. Diversity

We have already seen (most recently here, which cites earlier posts) that Gov. Gary Locke (D, Wash.) is prototypically liberal in his effort, so far unsuccessful, to retain the state’s right to dispense racial preferences, despite the overwhelming vote of his constitutents to the contrary. His effort to protect what many regard as religious discrmination, however, has been more successful: the Supremes have just upheld Washington’s refusal to fund a state merit scholarship for a student to pursue theological studies.

I have discussed the issues in the case of Locke v. Davey here and here. I will not repeat that discussion here and indeed will leave it to others more versed in the intricacies of establishment v. free exercise than I to tease out the implications of this new decision. I will, however, toss out what may be some peripheral concerns.

First, the 7–2 majority opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist tried, with debatable success, to limit the reach of the court’s opinion to those students pursuing theological training as preparation for a career in the ministry. It tried, in short, to rebut the contention of the dissenters, Justices Scalia and Thomas, who said: “Let there be no doubt: This case is about discrimination against a religious minority.” According to one reading of the majority opinion, students following secular career paths, even at religious institutions, needn’t worry about their scholarships. What if, however, a student’s purpose in pursuing theological studies was to prepare for a career teaching in a religion or philosophy department? Would the state have to fund that (assuming, as here, it funded unarguably secular programs)? Would it matter if such a student taught at a religiously affiliated institution such as Georgetown or Notre Dame? At an actual seminary? I think the Court, as is its wont, may have opened a can of theological worms here.

Second, let us assume that the state gets more of what it subsidizes and less of what it does not. Insofar as this is true, it would follow that there would be fewer college students pursuing religious careers. But don’t such students contribute to “diversity” in our increasingly secular world? Even if we grant Washington’s argument that the establishment clause of its constitution prohibits funding preparation for careers in the ministry (or all religious careers?), we have seen, in Washington as well as elsewhere, that constitutional provisions prohibiting racial discrimination can easily be set aside if the purpose of such discrimination is to promote “diversity.” Why should religion play second fiddle to race or ethnicity in this regard?

Say What? (1)

  1. Stephen February 26, 2004 at 12:56 pm | | Reply

    Women’s studies programs around the country are funded by the states and by the fed. What’s the difference between funding these programs, which clearly exclude traditionally religious women from their faculties and staff, and funding religious programs?

    It appear that one religion is favored, while another is not. Yes, feminism is a religion.

Say What?