海角大神

A proposed anti-discrimination measure in California may have become a model for compromise in the conflict between religious liberty and gender equality.

Since its introduction in February,聽Senate Bill 1146聽has been at the center of heated debate between faith-based private universities and gender equality advocates across the state 鈥� and the nation. Among other things, the measure聽would have made it easier for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students at religious colleges to sue for discrimination if they are penalized for violating church doctrine.

But on Wednesday, faced with an opposition campaign mounted by religious groups nationwide, lead author Sen. Ricardo Lara (D) of Bell Gardens pulled that particular provision of the bill. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 want to just rush a bill that鈥檚 going to have unintended consequences so I want to take a break to really study this issue further,鈥� he聽told the Los Angeles Times.

Suddenly the bill, for months a source of bitter division, became compromise legislation that both sides could support. Gender equality advocates won provisions that would compel religious colleges to disclose their reasons for applying for exemptions to federal anti-discrimination law. They would have to inform students, parents, faculty, employees, and the California Student Aid Commission.聽

At the same time, religious schools no longer face an increased risk of litigation because of those exemptions.

鈥淚 think this last round of amendments is exactly what we had hoped would happen,鈥� says Jennifer Walsh, dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Azusa Pacific University, an Evangelical 海角大神聽institution in Azusa, Calif., just northeast of Los Angeles. 鈥淲e were pleased we could find some common ground in that area and have moved our position from opposing the bill unless amended, to supporting it.鈥�

鈥淚 think it鈥檚 a good step forward,鈥� says Alice Kessler, legislative consultant for Equality California, a statewide LGBT civil rights group. 鈥淲e absolutely still support the bill.鈥�

The truce is tentative at best. Disclosure and transparency are important, Ms. Kessler notes, but private religious colleges that discriminate against LGBT students, faculty, and employees remain a concern. Under federal law, no school can discriminate against students, including for gender identity, and still receive government funds. But Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 does allow religious schools to聽apply for an exemption if they feel that compliance conflicts with their religious values.聽

And faith-based colleges remain defensive of their right to maintain their religious beliefs at their own institutions.

鈥淚t鈥檚 difficult because there are competing [important] rights聽on both sides,鈥� says Thomas Berg, a professor of law and public policy who specializes in religious freedom issues at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis. 鈥淚n order for the two rights to coexist, you can鈥檛 take each right to its extreme conclusion.鈥�

S.B. 1146 shows that 鈥渢here are principled ways to strike balances,鈥� he says.

Cultural clash

Since the Supreme Court ruled last year that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, advocates of gender equality and religious freedom have engaged in increasingly heated battles to further protect members of their community. Religious conservatives have dug in, worried that just preserving their traditional values would be viewed as discrimination.

The result has been a cultural clash that has erupted in courtrooms, restaurants, and schools across the country.

The battle over S.B. 1146 was no different. Senator Lara first drafted the bill in response to a Human Rights Campaign report聽in December that found a growing number of schools nationally were applying for 鈥� and receiving 鈥� Title IX exemptions on the basis of religious beliefs.

In 2013, only one school received an exemption from the DOE; today 43 schools have been granted exemptions, six of them in California, according to the HRC report.聽Stories of students getting disciplined for being gay began proliferating.

One young man who had previously written about getting expelled from William Jessup University in 2013 because he was living with his same-sex partner came out in support of Lara鈥檚 legislation. The school, which said his behavior went against their student conduct policy prohibiting cohabitation, has asserted that it does not discriminate against students based on sexual orientation.

鈥淚鈥檓 grateful for what Senator Lara鈥檚 doing,鈥� says Anthony Villareal, who adds that he had wanted to attend a 海角大神 university because he had hoped religion would help him face his struggle with his sexual orientation.聽鈥淚 thought maybe in Jessup, I could grow more in faith and put my sexual identity aside.鈥�

Now Mr. Villareal, who remains a 海角大神, says he has embraced his sexual identity and joined the effort to pass S.B. 1146 in its previous form. He says LGBT students who have been through what he has deserve compensation.

鈥淧eople who were put in my position, in debt, expelled, facing emotional distress 鈥� no amount of money would make up for [that],鈥� he says. 鈥淏ut it would help. Those students have a right to be compensated for what they had to go through.鈥�

The backlash

A coalition of nonprofits and religious schools聽responded sharply to the original bill.聽By forcing religious schools to choose between compromising their faith or losing state-funded financial assistance, S.B. 1146 would hurt students who needed that funding to attend those colleges, they said.

鈥淸The bill] would make it impossible to use Cal Grants at many of the state鈥檚 religious colleges,鈥� says Daniel Blomberg, an attorney for The Becket Fund, a Washington-based conservative law firm that helped mount the campaign against the bill. 鈥淭he impact would have been to deprive these low-income minority students from attending the religious institution of their choice.鈥�

That could make it harder for those students to access the quality education religious colleges provide, the coalition argued. The four-year graduation rate in the religious schools that would be affected by the bill was 59 percent, it claimed, compared with just 28 percent at the state colleges that students would likely have to transfer to.

Students spoke out, as well.聽

鈥淚f I had one thing to say to someone considering S.B. 1146, it would be to really understand the impact you鈥檙e having on people鈥檚 education,鈥� Deja Alewine, who was raised by a single mother and is now a junior on a Cal Grant studying criminal justice and psychology at Fresno Pacific University, said in a video. 鈥淵ou鈥檙e impacting someone鈥檚 life and their future.鈥�

The campaign worked. Last week, Sen. Mark Leno (D) of San Francisco, who coauthored the measure, pulled his name from the bill. On Wednesday, Lara announced he would drop the provision on discrimination lawsuits.聽In all, the negotiations took about six months and seven amendments, not including Wednesday's.

The compromise

It came down to the best interests of students and the public, says聽Professor Walsh at Azusa, who engaged in conversations with lawmakers and their staff regarding amendments to the bill.聽Nobody wanted to see young people lose out on opportunities for education because of anti-discrimination efforts. At the same time, everyone agreed that as long as a private religious school was accepting government funding, they needed to be transparent 鈥� to students, faculty, and taxpayers 鈥� about their goals and intentions.

It鈥檚 not a perfect resolution, says Kessler at Equality California, who points out that the problems noted in the HRC report remain.聽But the compromise is a step forward, she adds 鈥� and an important one.

Both sides hope to see the Assembly pass the bill, perhaps as soon as聽Aug. 19.

It shows us 鈥渉ow to find space for people with divergent beliefs. We know it鈥檚 not a one-size-fits-all approach,鈥� Walsh says. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a good model for states and communities for [asking], 鈥楬ow do we do this well?鈥� 鈥�