Search News


Browse Archives

News

An Expensive Expulsion

March 7, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The Kentucky Fairness Alliance is a group that focuses on gay rights, and it hasn't historically been a player in issues of church and state. But when the University of the Cumberlands in 2006 expelled a student for being gay, and the Kentucky General Assembly shortly thereafter appropriated $10 million to the university to create a pharmacy school at the Baptist university, the alliance took note.

It filed a suit challenging the appropriation as a violation of the church-state separation provisions of Kentucky's Constitution -- and on Thursday, a state judge ruled that the appropriation was indeed a violation and ordered it blocked.

The University of the Cumberlands was backed in court by several groups that have pushed to loosen or eliminate restrictions on state aid for religious colleges. They argued that as long as Cumberlands pledged to keep the pharmacy school secular, there were no church-state implications, and that Kentucky legislators needed the flexibility to use private religious colleges, as well as public ones, to advance state goals.

But Judge Roger Crittenden rejected those arguments and said that the Kentucky Constitution was clear. He quoted Section 189: "No portion of any fund or tax now existing, or that may hereafter be raised or levied for educational purposes, shall be appropriated to, or used by, or in aid of, any church, sectarian or denominational school."

Judge Crittenden said that there was "no question" but that the $10 million was "a direct payment to a non-public religious school" and that "this type of direct expenditure is not permitted." Defenders of the appropriation noted that there were sound public policy reasons for supporting a new pharmacy school and that many court rulings have upheld the use of state funds for student aid that may be used at private religious colleges.

The judge's ruling didn't challenge the arguments about a pharmacy school serving a public purpose, but suggested that wasn't relevant to the legal issues. As to the constitutionality of aid programs, Crittenden wrote that "there is a fundamental difference between providing scholarships to Kentucky residents to attend the public or private college of their choice and providing direct payments to selected non-public schools to develop and operate educational programs."

While legal briefs on both sides cited the way Cumberlands expelled a gay student, Crittenden touched on the issue only briefly, in discussing why jurists and lawmakers have historically worried about "entanglements" by the government with religion. "The plaintiffs argue that the university discriminated against a student based upon expressions of free speech while the university maintains its actions were based upon university forbidden conduct," he wrote. "This court does not need to decide this issue to reach a decision in this case but this is exactly the 'entanglement' between government interests and religious institutions that the Kentucky Constitution prohibits."

James Taylor, president of the University of the Cumberlands, issued a statement expressing disappointment in the ruling and saying that the institution would consider its next moves in the case. The statement did not address the legal arguments put forth by the judge. Officials of two groups that argued on behalf of the university -- the Alliance Defense Fund and the Center for Law and Religious Freedom -- did not respond to inquiries seeking their views on the case. A brief filed by the latter group, however, is available here.

Christina Gilgor, executive director of the Kentucky Fairness Alliance, said she didn't know if her group would have sued except for the case of the expelled student, but she said that case put Cumberlands very much on her organization's radar screen. Cumberlands expelled Jason Johnson in 2006 after university officials saw that he had identified himself as gay on his MySpace page online. The university's student code of conduct does list homosexuality as "not consistent with Christian principles" and thus as grounds for removal. But at the time of the expulsion, one friend of Johnson's told the Lexington, Ky., newspaper that many at the university “would be floored by the amount of gay people at our school.”

Gilgor said she was pleased with the role her group played in the church-state case. "This is tremendous for gay people in Kentucky," she said. "We should not be expected to pay taxes to an institution that would kick us out."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on An Expensive Expulsion

  • Religion at it again
  • Posted by Martin on March 7, 2008 at 9:15am EST
  • I think any school who dismisses a student based only on his or her sexual orientation should NEVER receive federal or state money, period.

    The very idea that any institution of higher learning would deny a person an education, be they private or public, seems to go against the idea of education in the first place. What happened to the free and open exchange of ideas and the healthy debate of different opinions?

    I think that religion only wants the separate between church and state when it is to their benefit. There are consequences to actions, even those actions performed in the name of religion, that must be applied to EVERYONE.

  • Gays at Cumberlands
  • Posted by Dr Arthur Frederick Ide on March 7, 2008 at 9:50am EST
  • A person's sexual preference/proclivity is genetic and not a part of the mental structure. The mind learns--not the genitalia. It is absurd for Cumberlands to remove a qualified learner solely because of his sexual activity or lack of it. Cumberlands should be censured by the AAUP, and future students and potential faculty should think long and hard before considering Cumberlands.

  • Posted by Jeff on March 7, 2008 at 9:55am EST
  • Do you really think this university could keep the pharmacy school secular? I am sure they would indoctrinate students into not dispensing birth control or the morning after pill because that is what God told them to do.

  • ATTACK!!!
  • Posted by Two sides to every story on March 7, 2008 at 10:25am EST
  • Martin, EVERYBODY wants things done to their benefit, even you, and you have no idea what that student did or said in any kind of "debate of ideas." Denying an education and asking someone to find a better fit for their beliefs are two different things.

    Dr. Ide, First, there is no definitive proof that sexual orientation is genetic. If it is the mind that learns and not the genitalia, then it is quite possible the mind learns to be gay or straight, and that it is not an instinct. AND you have no idea if this was a qualified learner or not. You only know that he/she was gay and expelled.

    Jeff, I would hope that a school that promises a religious-oriented education would deliver on its promises. I would guess that the student that was expelled knew where he/she was and what the rules were.

    Sexual behavior, straight or gay, can be at odds with a school's rules of conduct, and we do not know the full story for the expulsion. Maybe we members of the academic community should think before spouting our own intolerant views of other's beliefs and be open to the possibility that we may not know everything. Use some of those research and critical thinking skills to realize that people who do not agree with us may not be evil, just different. Or maybe they are evil. But please, stop assuming and attacking.

  • Religion has a place in higher education
  • Posted by Amy De Rosa on March 7, 2008 at 10:45am EST
  • NO school should get federal aid or state money because it invariably means they must compromise their religious or other principles--assuming that is that they have any.
    http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2006&month=11).

    U. of Cumberlands should be no exception. They can't have it both ways, and should look to the example of Hillsdale College in Michigan, Grove City College in PA and Christendom College in VA, three institutions that reject public funds so that they can fulfill the respective missions for which they were established.

  • Posted by thoughtful on March 7, 2008 at 11:30am EST
  • I don't believe it is appropriate to point at "religion" indiscriminately and associate it with indoctrination. Some people do find in religion the assuagement of deeper desires for happiness and fulfillment, as well as certainty for moral decision making. This is freely chosen and followed, and is in no way imposed.

    That said, I believe it was misleading for this article to have been titled, "An Expensive Expulsion." I see no direct link between the expulsion of the student, and the court's determination. It happened that the gay rights' group called them on the carpet, but this spotting might have occurred anywhere and might have been instigated by anyone. In addition, the judge made it clear that the student's expulsion was irrelevant to the ruling of the case.

  • Posted by Jeff on March 7, 2008 at 12:25pm EST
  • Another question popped into my head, why would the state of Kentucky not want to establish a pharmacy school at one of its public schools instead of giving it to a private institution.

  • It works both ways
  • Posted by Prof. Challenger on March 7, 2008 at 12:30pm EST
  • To those who are shocked, shocked! that a college would base admission decisions on such non-academic criteria as sexual orientation or even, say, skin color: isn't that what affirmative action programs have been about for decades? Where's the outrage about those?

  • Posted by Tim on March 7, 2008 at 12:55pm EST
  • hey,two sides to every story, you sure are brave hiding....come out, come out, wherever you are!

  • Expelling student for sexual behavior
  • Posted by Tim Brownlee on March 7, 2008 at 1:35pm EST
  • If a religious school expels a gay student for sexual behavior, how do they know the student was having sex just because he was gay? If they expel him for sexual behavior, then they should interview him and every other student, heterosexual and homosexual, and ask them if they are having sex outside of marriage. If they are, then to be consistent with their policy, they should expel everyone who has had sex outside of marriage, regardless of their sexual orientation. They seem to be confused about the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation. Everyone has a sexual orientation, but just the fact that you are a human being and hence have some sexual orientation, whether heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual, does not denote how much sex you are having or if you have had sex at all. Sexual orientation is based on the feelings you have and not the quantity of sex. If this school is going to look into people's bedrooms, then they should be consistent in the way they enforce their policy. Many people say that if a gay person ceases to have sex with someone of the same gender, then they are no longer gay. So, if an older heterosexual couple ceases to have sex, does that mean that they are gay? The assertion seems to be that someone converts to something else if they don't have sex, which is absurd. Sexual orientation is not based on behavior; it is based on emotions.

  • Interesting
  • Posted by Hmmmmm , Also Dr on March 7, 2008 at 1:35pm EST
  • I agree that there is something fishy about a religious institutions being funded by the gov't, but I'm not eager to become zealot about it. Martin, Dr. Arthur, and Jeff are exhibiting the zeal of "true believers," no?

    But there are other problems. Dr Arthur seems to think that religion is concerned about how one is born. Religions generally are much more concerned about how one lives in and leaves this world rather than about how one comes into it. And hasn't postmodernism revealed the "constructed" character of almost everything we once considered natural? So why do we think loves are not formed? (Some people in the world love the taste of rancid milk. An acquired taste...? Martin, you seem to conflate free thinking ("exchange of ideas") with free acting. Even Jane Austen got this right; one is free to think what one likes, but one is frequently--based upon the community in which one finds oneself--limited in one's behavior. Even a heterosexual at a Baptist school would have fairly stringent restrictions on his/her behavior, right? And lastly, Jeff, let's be honest: How many women are truly benefited by contracepting? Aren't men, Jeff, the ones who REALLY find this a "helpful" practice? There's plenty of evidence from secular, state schools that suggests that libido is not the same in men and women, and freeing up the sexuality is usually a "good" that men enjoy more than women. So does contraception help those who might be emotionally victimized? Is this not merely another myth of empowerment that merely leaves victimized the supposed beneficiary? That is to say, are women who take the "morning after" pill treated with greater dignity and respect than those who avoid pregnancy in more traditional ways? And aren't we all for the humane treatment of women, Jeff?

  • Thoughtful, but not a very good reader...
  • Posted by R.F. on March 7, 2008 at 1:50pm EST
  • Hey thoughtful,

    The "direct link" was that the gay alliance brought the suit..., so whether Mickey Mouse was planning to bring the suit or not does not matter.

    Hey Two sides,

    The sword cuts both ways; you can't castigate Martin and keep the open mind you are calling for. And your response to the Dr. is odd, one assumes the student was a qualified learner because he was admitted. From an evidentiary standpoint, he was not expelled from school due to poor performance, or even a homosexual act. He was expelled for what is basically, electronic hearsay. The fact that someone describes themself in a certain way on a website means nothing. I could start a website and claim that I am martian, so what!

    Talk about keeping an open mind...

  • Setting it straight
  • Posted by Martin on March 7, 2008 at 4:45pm EST
  • Well, first of all let me say I do not bash religion, though I personally do not practice it. I have some very strong beliefs about all religions that I am more than happy to debate any time and any where, however my statements were based on the separation of church and state, which usually benefits the church far more than the state and the belief that learning and sexual orientation are mutually exclusive in any circle.

    I never once said that the college could not expell the student based on his sexual orientation, though I think it abhorrent to do so. I mearly stated that any school who does so, be it sexual or race or even religion, should NEVER be given state or federal funds. We can not selectively separate church and state, it doesn't work that way. It should be all or nothing, but I know it's not quite that clear, now is it.

    I appreciate all of the comments on here, see there is a healthy exchang of ideas, etc, and I bet at least one of you here is NOT heterosexual. Hmmmmm.......

  • One last point
  • Posted by Martin on March 7, 2008 at 4:45pm EST
  • To Dr. Hmmm, I think you misunderstood my comment. The young man was NOT dismissed because he performed a sexual act, but because he "thought" enough to speak his mind and declare his sexual orientation. I am a professed Taoist, should I be stoned by Christians? I think some would think I should, but because I profess to be, does not provide enough evidence to prove anything. Your thinking is flawed, my guess is because you are swayed by the Christian right. How does it feel to be "labeled?"

  • Hmmmm . . . again
  • Posted by Hmmmm on March 7, 2008 at 6:05pm EST
  • Well, Martin, you were polite enough at least to "think" that I misunderstood your comment. But that politeness ended with the labeling, didn't it. What happened to civic discourse, which you seem to believe a virtue? You also point out that the students was not dismissed because of an act but a blief/opinion/idea. Fair enough. But ideas--often expressed in speech--are a civil right, not necessarily an institutional one. I can think of countless examples, on both the left and the right, where citizens have either been denied "free speech" or punished for exercising it in a non-juridical way. Take sports figures who speak out on particular issues an lose endorsements, or media personalities who lose contracts for insensitive (but not illegal) remarks. I make no defense for such ignoble behavior. It should be addressed in some fashion. But the point is the same: non-governmental institutions/markets often establish for physical and verbal ACTS guidelines that are far more restrictive than the gov't would allow.

    But I still don't understand the labeling. Gratuitous meanness seems inconsistent with Taoist philosophy/belief. And if I am a closet Christian, why do I feel reluctant to admit it on such a forum. I think the free-thinkers might want, at some point, to re-evaluate the "morality" (can I use that word?) of their bullying of traditional thinkers (yes, some are THINK-ers). After all, keeping in mind the democracy of the dead might be one way to free us from our presentist and provincialist ideas.

  • Attacked!
  • Posted by Two sides to every story on March 7, 2008 at 6:05pm EST
  • Martin, I apologize if you felt castigated, as R.F. said. I believe you understood that I was simply making a point here and I appreciate your level-headed response.

    Tim, why do you need to know my name? Do you have some desire to confront me personally? I have learned in this forum that some are less interested in open debate and more interested in persoal attacks on those with whom they disagree. Would you be one of whom this is true?

    Jeff, I do agree with your second question, though. It does seem like there are other good state funded schools in Kentucky, but the story does not go deep enough into those issues, unfortunately.

    R.F. Have you seen some of the students in college these days. Acceptance, sadly, does not equate to "qualified learner." By the way, I hope that Martian thing goes well for you.

    Martin, not to worry! Christians do not stone people. I think, around the world, they are more often on the receiving end of stoning parties. However, not everyone who claims to be a Christian really is, just like not everyone who voted for Hillary last week in Texas was a Democrat! :-)

    Smile everybody, we could ALL be wrong! :-)

  • Oops, sorry
  • Posted by Martin on March 10, 2008 at 9:55am EDT
  • Dr. Hmmm, again I must apologize, upon re-reading my comments, I seemingly appeared to actually infer that you might not be heterosexual. That was not the intent of that hmmmmm at the end of my statement. So, I must beg forgiveness of that point.

    On your other points, I must agree with them for the most part. As for my Taoism, I fear I have NOT reached my oneness with the world, a flaw that I work on nearly every day. IF the young man were to come to me for advice, I would have told him to think of two paths. One could lead him to making a statement by suing, the other could lead him to making a statement by success. The path he chose would be his alone. If it had been me, I simply would have transferred and succeeded elsewhere. Nuff said.