“No Safe Haven”: University of Iowa Again Found To Be Discriminating Against Religious Groups

A few months ago, we discussed the ruling against the University of Iowa in Bus. Leaders in Christ v. Univ. of Iowa, 991 F.3d 969 (8th Cir. 2021) where the court held that we held that the law was clearly established that the University could not engage in viewpoint discrimination involving a Christian club. In a July 16 decision, the Eighth Circuit affirmed that the University of Iowa administrators violated the First Amendment rights of a second group, the InterVarsity Graduate Christian Fellowship. While the group allowed anyone to join, it required its leaders to adhere to core Christian values.  It is another major victory for religious rights and their counsel the nonprofit Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. It is also a serious rebuke of the University which defiantly continued to discriminate at not just great cost to these students but the university as a whole.

In the prior case, the University of Iowa targeted religious student organizations for discriminatory enforcement of its Human Rights Policy. After it was blocked by a district court ordered, the University proceeded to commit that same discriminatory acts by deregistering the InterVarsity Graduate Christian Fellowship.

The Eighth Circuit found that the university allowed other clubs to have exclusionary rules but suddenly cracked down on this group.

The University permits RSOs to base membership and leadership on specific traits protected under the Human Rights Policy. For example, sports clubs and Greek organizations may hinge membership and leadership on sex, and the a cappella group, the “Hawkapellas,” is limited to women. Some groups prefer or require membership in a racial group. Other groups require their members to be United States military veterans or subscribe to a certain ideological viewpoint or mission.

However, there was suddenly no accommodation permitted for the Christian group:

Over twenty-five years, Iowa had no problem with InterVarsity. But in June 2018, Andrew Kutcher charged that InterVarsity’s constitution violated the Human Rights Policy. InterVarsity’s leader, Katrina Schrock, responded that the constitution did not prevent anyone from joining if they did not subscribe to the group’s faith, but that only its leaders were required to affirm their statement of faith. Kutcher countered that “[h]aving a restriction on leadership related to religious beliefs is contradictory to [the Human Rights Policy].”

The court rejected the qualified immunity claims of the university as a type of repeated unconstitutional offender.

What the University did here was clearly unconstitutional. It targeted religious groups for differential treatment under the Human Rights Policy—while carving out exemptions and ignoring other violative groups with missions they presumably supported. The University and individual defendants turned a blind eye to decades of First Amendment jurisprudence or they proceeded full speed ahead knowing they were violating the law. Either way, qualified immunity provides no safe haven.

Here is the opinion: IVCF v. Iowa

20 thoughts on ““No Safe Haven”: University of Iowa Again Found To Be Discriminating Against Religious Groups”

  1. “Jesus died for our sins…, and we killed him”…

    Graffiti outside the Student Union on Campus where I went to school.

    eb

  2. The only way to stop the Democrats’ political persecution of their disfavored groups is by holding the apparatchiks personally responsible for their actions. It is poetic justice that the university administrators were denied qualified immunity. Perhaps the Dems in Congress are right. Qualified immunity should be abolished. But not for the police. For apparatchiks like these.

  3. I am an atheist and I agree with this ruling because religious groups were signaled out for different treatment in terms of allowing how to pick their officers or members. This is not to say that we shouldn’t be guarded on government promotion and support and giving taxpayer money to churches and religious groups

  4. I’m glad to hear of this ruling. Academia has discriminated against Christians and conservatives for years, even in Red States.

    Universities should not interfere with the free exercise of religion or with other view points. Whether you’re a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Sethian, Agnostic, Humanist, or Satanist, you should be free to worship, or not, and to associate with like-minded people.

  5. The university will continue down its discriminatory path unless they receive suitable financial penalties. Half their total endowments should be sufficient.

  6. It seems obvious to me (while observing current trends in US higher education) that this was likely pushed by activists in the student body, and likely not something that the school administrators thought up totally on their own.

    So it will be interesting to see how the student body activists respond to this.

    Will they simply accept these legal decisions?

    Look for future reports of civil disobedience…

  7. One thing universal for universities and institutions of higher learning is the dire need for money. Most institutions are cash strapped. Way to go. Alienate alumnus and future students and break the constitution while you are at it.

  8. Public universities and colleges must assure constitutional rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities.

    Private universities and colleges “…claim and exercise dominion…” over campuses, decorum and curricula.

  9. Many Lefties are authoritarian, but then they add basic unfairness to the mix.

    Civil rights for me, but not for thee.

    School administrators hurt their institution when the drive away conservatives – dereliction of duty.

    Time to fire them.

    1. Ever notice that Monumental Idiot always blames ‘lefties’ for everything and just sounds flagrantly uninformed while doing it?

      eb

      1. No, I always notice that Monument makes proper comments that make sense, respond to the issue at hand and rightly point out the fascistic nature of the left in our country these days. EB on the other hand is always wrong, always snarky, always a pontificating partisan hack and always nasty.

        1. That’s why I love this place. Monumental Idiot and hullbobby can cretin circle jerk and then declare moral superiority afterward. Because that’s what ‘righties’ do.

          eb

          1. As Exhibit A I offer up this obnoxious comment by EB. Anyone else on here use the term “cretin circle jerk”? Mope, that is all EB and only EB. This is the level of discourse by guys like EB.

      2. Eb,

        I had a dream last night that 20 of this blog’s most ardent Trumpist protagonists, and the few of us antagonists, all somehow found ourselves sitting in Turley’s classroom for a rap session! And Turley called on us one by one as we each raised our hand to speak, and Turley vainly attempted to keep the peace as tempers flared!

        Come to think of it, wouldn’t it be nice of Turley to make an invitation to a few contributors to attend an open house in D.C., to show his appreciation for their participation in making Res Ipsa Loquitur an unqualified success? If invited, I’d show up even at the risk that S.Meyer would be there….

          1. That depends upon Turley. Seriously, wouldn’t it be a nice gesture for Turley to show his appreciation to his most dedicated contributors? He could serve some beer and chips and make the acquaintance of his followers. I know that it will never happen which is why it will remain a dream!

Leave a Reply