The reinstatement of Business Leaders in Christ is not a triumph for religious freedom but for narrow-mindedness.
Isabella Rosario
The controversy surrounding a gay student denied a leadership position in Business Leaders in Christ seems to have been resolved for now. After the Christian student organization was expelled by the University of Iowa for violating the school’s Human Rights Policy and the Iowa Civil Rights Act, a federal judge ordered its reinstatement, concluding that the UI did not consistently apply its Human Rights Policy. Five additional faith-based campus organizations filed a brief in support of the group and spoke to The Daily Iowan about how this ruling affects them.
But let’s be completely clear that the ruling in favor of Business Leaders in Christ does not mean what the organization did, nor the views of its supporting faith-based organizations, is legally sound. After all, U.S. District Court Judge Stephanie Rose said the 90-day reinstatement is “granted based solely upon the university’s selective enforcement of an otherwise reasonable and viewpoint-neutral nondiscrimination policy.” Still, that hasn’t stopped the Christian group and its lawyers from pushing an acutely dishonest narrative of religious persecution. Attorney Eric Baxter of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty said after the ruling, “The court has told the University of Iowa to stop discriminating against BLinC because of its religious beliefs.” Nowhere in the order does the judge lawfully justify the organization’s implementation of religious beliefs.
RELATED: UI expels Christian student club over leadership requirement
Evidently, the UI must make structural changes to properly enforce the Human Rights Policy — it currently only reviews student organization constitutions when a complaint has been filed — a practice that left its hands tied in this case. Following the 90-day period of the group’s reinstatement, the UI may respond to the court by detailing changes to its execution of Human Rights Policy. If the university doesn’t want another lawsuit like this one, it should.
Critics of the religious group and the faith-based organizations in solidarity with it contend that the group has used Christianity as a guise for homophobia and discrimination. And while I agree with this statement, as I’m sure the court will if UI amends enforcement of its Human Rights Policy, I was even more appalled by one religious leader’s defense of requiring certain beliefs of organization leaders.
“It’s about the beautiful value of diversity,” 24:7 Campus Pastor Wade Urig said in an interview with the DI. “Whether the group is for Christians or communists, Muslims or musicians, feminists or filmmakers, they are and should be free to require leaders to adhere to their beliefs — to affirm what makes each diverse group unique. That’s the beauty of the marketplace of ideas.”
RELATED: Guest opinion: We are missing the point about the BLinC v. U of I
The “marketplace of ideas” is an inherently American idea — and so there’s no doubt whether the use of the term panders to the patriotic conservative, who may support the religious group’s denial of gay student leaders. But what’s troubling about this notion is it implies a diversity of thought in groups is somehow secondary to the diversity of groups on campus. When any student organization — religious, or political, or even interest-based —requires its leaders to staunchly adhere to an ideology, does that truly foster a “marketplace of ideas” or perpetuate an unending echo chamber?
This is a question that not only faith-based student organizations must ask themselves, but also something Students for Life, the Korean American Student Association, and the UI Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance (groups called out by Business Leaders in Christ) must ponder. The unique value of a higher education lies in being intellectually challenged in the classroom and on campus. While the ruling in favor of the religious group was due to sloppy procedure enforcement, and not protection from opposing ideas, it has unintentionally set the precedent that the freedom to nurture narrow-mindedness is freedom itself.
