Religious liberty doesn’t end at the college classroom door

• A recent story of a student being penalized for expressing religious beliefs as part of a college assignment raises a related concern about students being required to fulfill assignments that violate their faith or conscience.
• These situations have arisen in a variety of contexts where students are penalized for declining school assignments that affect their grade, when at odds with their beliefs.
• State laws should provide protection to these students by requiring universities to accommodate religious objections to assignments.

​A recent story, briefly in the news, involved University of Oklahoma student who was given a zero out of 25 points on a response essay about a controversial topic that included a discussion of her religious beliefs. The student argues that she was discriminated against because of her beliefs.

Some states have laws to prevent students from being disciplined for “[e]xpression of personal beliefs” unless doing so “unreasonably interferes” with the school’s operation. Utah law also provides that a “student may refrain from participation in any aspect of school that violates a religious belief or right of conscience of the student.” These protections usually apply in primary and secondary schools.

A distinct, but similar, issue arises when a college or university student is asked to do something as part of a class assignment that conflicts with the student’s religious or conscientious beliefs.

For instance, a religious student in Missouri was given a class assignment to “work on a project advocating for same-sex adoption, which would include writing a letter to the Missouri legislature that all students were expected to sign.” She declined but was later subjected to a grievance procedure for allegedly violating ethical requirements of the National Association of Social Workers due to her refusal. After the student filed suit, the university settled and disciplined the professor.

A student in California was required “to write anti-war letters to President George W. Bush” or risk grade penalties until an advocacy group convinced the school to repudiate the requirement.

Another student in Missouri was removed from a university counseling program for declining to provide counseling at odds with his religious beliefs. He also settled with his school after filing a lawsuit.

A college professor in South Carolina “required students to ‘acknowledge that racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, and other institutionalized forms of oppression exist’” to succeed in her class.

Utah has made important strides toward ensuring that students do not have to relinquish their ability to act consistently with their conscience as a condition of succeeding in higher education. Current law, for instance, requires institutions of higher education to make reasonable accommodations for a student’s need to participate in religious observances when these may conflict with a scheduled examination or assignment.

Something similar could be done to prevent conflicts when a student is asked to do something as part of a required class for graduation or a major requirement that conflicts with the student’s conscience. The principle, as with religious observances, is to allow necessary educational requirements to be met without unnecessarily forcing a student to abandon their sincerely held religious beliefs or personal conscience.

The constitutional protection of religious exercise demonstrates that accommodating people of faith and religious institutions as they live out their faith need not unduly disrupt the activities of government institutions. When a conflict is unavoidable, established legal rules allow state institutions to ensure that compelling needs, such as protecting health and safety, are met only with an absolutely minimal burden on constitutional rights.

Avoiding conflicts, though, is almost always possible through careful lawmaking and a spirit of mutual accommodation. That should continue to be the Utah way.