Religious Colleges and 'Faith Statement' Bans

The Minnesota Department of Education banned ‘faith statement’ requirements for religious colleges in 2023 when Democrats gained control of the state Senate and House, as well as Governorship. The aim was to enact protections for LGBTQ rights. The change was part of a broader education funding bill.

A group of parents, as well as some high school students who were earning college credits, sued to overturn the law, saying it violated their religious freedom under the First Amendment. They claimed they could no longer benefit from schools with campus atmospheres that reflect their values.

A recent ruling from a US District Judge has overturned that ban, stating that religious colleges can require students to sign a statement of faith. In addition, those colleges cannot be excluded from a popular 40-year old Minnesota program that lets high school students take college courses for credit.

The ruling was a victory for two conservative Christian colleges in the state: Crown College and the University of Northwestern. Those two institutions require their students to pledge to follow the school’s values and conduct rules, which allegedly bars students, who aren’t Christian, or who are LGBTQ, from campus activities.

The judge said the dispute required the court “to venture into the delicate constitutional interplay of religion and publicly‐funded education.” That, is exactly what I am going to address. According to the judge, U.S. Supreme Court rulings give special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations. While states need not subsidize private education, once they do, they can’t disqualify private schools “solely because they’re religious".

Here’s my thought, based on one of my widespread principles. Government has no right to tell a person, or any entity, what they can or can not do, barring direct harm to others. Denial of a non-necessity is not direct harm. However, once that person or entity accepts government grants, funds, etc., that person/entity loses some of their full autonomy to run things as they see fit.

Hence, if the religious college is getting funds directly from the state, the state has some right to set the rules for accepting those funds. In addition, if the student is getting funds from the state, the state has some right as to how those funds can be spent.

Following the logic, if the money is going directly to the student, who will use the funds to study at a particular college, religious or not, the college should not be subject to particular government regulation – in this case, banning statements of faith.

Based on the wording of the article, however, it appears as though the two colleges received direct payments from the state, so I would disagree with this ruling. Full college autonomy should require full college self-reliance.

Source used: Associated Press