Is it ever ok to discriminate?
The Supreme Court today heard arguments in the case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. In the case, the University of California refused to recognize or provide funding or meeting space to the Christian group because it restricted membership to those who signed a “statement of faith.” The University argued that it had the right to insist that any student group it officially recognized admit any student. The Christian Legal Society challenged this, appealing the case all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Constitutional law aside, should an organization be allowed to restrict membership — that is discriminate — on the basis of an individual’s belief?
On first glance, most readers are probably unsure. On the one hand, we believe that discrimination is wrong. On the other, we have most likely associated, at some point in our life, with a formal or informal group based on a common belief or interest — say, a religious group, environmental group or Frisbee club — and were fine, even happy, that everyone in the group shared common interests or beliefs. As Justice Antonio Scalia’s noted: “to require the campus Republican Club to admit Democrats – not just to membership, but to officership…That’s crazy.”
The implications of such a requirement are not just “crazy”, it would fundamentally challenge the ability of groups based on minority-beliefs or interests from even existing. As Justice Samuel Alito suggested, “if [a Muslim] group is required to accept anybody who applies for membership, and 50 students who hate Muslims show up and they want to take over that group” what is to stop them from doing this? In fact, what is to prevent a majority of students from turning every campus group into the antithesis of itself? The animal rights group could be taken over and turned into a dog fighting ring; the Chess club into a Checkers club. If groups were not allowed to limit membership, then any group that does not garner active support from a majority would have its very existence threatened.
But what of the basic discrimination argument? Would a ruling in favor of the Christian Legal Society not allow groups to discriminate on the basis of characteristics other than religion, say race or gender? According to lawyers for the Christian Legal Society, this would not follow, because there is a fundamental difference between discrimination on the basis of “status” – things like race or place of origin– and discriminating on the basis of belief.
Though it was never formally stated, this difference is choice: anyone can form a belief or interest in anything, the argument goes; but not so of characteristics of status. We can’t choose our height or our race, but we can choose whether we believe in god and whether we are interested in Chess or Checkers. Thus, whereas only certain people could join a whites-only group, anyone can join a Christian group, because anyone can choose to believe in Christianity.
But does choice really distinguish characteristics of status and those of belief? Certainly many aspects of “status” are unchosen: race, height, place of birth and family lineage, for example. But many of the things that we would normally consider status can actually be subject to choice: today, one can choose their hair color, their eye color and even their gender. One can make choices they know with a high degree of certainty will lead to a disease: say smoking causing lung cancer. And one could theoretically even choose to give one’s self a handicap. So it is not at all clear that characteristics of “status” are necessarily defined by being unchosen.
Similarly, it is not beyond debate that all beliefs or interests are necessarily chosen. Behind the Christian Legal Society’s argument is the assumption that anyone could choose to be a Christian. But is this really the case? Could any amount of argument get someone with deep faith in Judaism or Islam to change what they believe (it is called “faith” for a reason)? Most people share the same ideological and religious beliefs as their parents. Does this not suggest that these beliefs are not really free choices, but something we are taught or socialized to as we grow up? And what about interests? Could I really get you to develop an interest in plasma physics or ancient Greek literature? Interests seem more ingrained in belief – some inevitable combination of birth and circumstance.
This is not to say that there are no arguments for restricting membership on the basis of belief. Or even that there is not a morally relevant distinction between beliefs and “status”. But choice does not appear to be that distinction.
-Marc
Photo by Flickr user laura_padgett used under a Creative Commons Attribution license.
Related posts:
- Banning the burqa
- “Belief” in climate change
- What’s wrong with racial profiling?
- Should health care cover spiritual medicine?
- Faith in the Supreme Court
ShareComments
One Response to “Is it ever ok to discriminate?”
Leave a Reply
The paradigmatic case of this is the family. It’s a group that can exclude legitimately (your family doesn’t have to let me join if I want); and it’s not based on voluntarily chosen characteristics, or even the choice to join in the first place (at least not for the children).