This editorial at ifeminists.net gives more background into the case of Emily Brooker, the Missouri State University social work student punished for not signing a letter supporting gay adoption.
Brooker is represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group which focuses on First Amendment issues. They contend that MSU violated Brooker's First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion, and that the punishment she was given violated her 14th Amendment right to due process and equal protection. The "due process and equal protection" legal gobbledegook means that they treated Brooker unfairly and differently from the way other students would be treated.
Here's the story:
In 2002, Brooker entered MSU for a bachelor of social work degree. In Spring 2005, she attended "Social Welfare Policy and Services I" taught by Frank G. Kauffman, a nontenured assistant professor. The course was a requirement; that is, Brooker could not graduate without it.
When Kauffman reportedly "engaged in leftist diatribes denigrating President Bush," Brooker and several other students objected. She received an atypically bad grade which, after a year of effort, was successfully appealed.
Unfortunately, Kauffman taught another required course that Brooker attended in Fall 2005. Students were required to engage in a social work advocacy project of their choice; Brooker chose 'homelessness'. But Kauffman ordered the entire class to focus on advocating homosexual foster homes and adoption, which he strongly favors.
According to ifeminists, Missouri and Florida are the only states which bar gay men from adopting children.
Using a draft that Kauffman provided as their guide, the students were to compose and individually sign a letter on MSU letterhead in support of gay adoption which was addressed to the Missouri State legislature. The signature is key. Drafting a statement with which you disagree can be a valuable intellectual exercise; signing an addressed letter is an endorsement. The signature -- unlike the context in which it arose -- could be a matter of permanent and public record.
Brooker declined. Eventually Kauffman agreed that she could write "an alternate letter". Before this agreement occurred, however, Brooker and another student went to an outside professor for advice. Perhaps due to pressure from coworkers, Kauffman dropped the letter campaign.
I understand the idea of requiring students to write pieces arguing from different perspectives. The legal writing courses one takes in law school help hone debate skills that are helpful in practice. In Brooker's case, I could see the value of looking at this issue from a different perspective as practice for being a social worker. But Brooker was fully within her rights to refuse to endorse and promote beliefs which conflict with her religion. But the story gets worse, much worse.
After completing the course, Brooker was accused of a Level 3 Grievance -- the most serious charge that can be directed at a student's academic performance. A Level 3 review on her record significantly impairs Brooker's potential for employment or enrollment elsewhere.
The School of Social Work's Standard of Essential Functioning states, "More often, a Level 3 review is conducted when concerns have not been resolved in prior reviews or when the student is being considered for withdrawal or discontinuance in the program."
Brooker had undergone no prior review.
On December 16, Brooker faced a two-and-a-half hour ethics review conducted by faculty, including Kauffman. Brooker was permitted neither legal representation nor her parents' presence. A written transcript of the meeting was not allowed. It should be noted, however, that closed and unrecorded hearings at which students are not allowed legal representation are common on campuses across North America.
Three accusations were aired. One was 'tardiness' for which no other MSU student had ever received a Level 3 review. The overwhelming focus, however, was on her refusal to sign Kauffman's letter.
The education journal Insider Higher Education reported, "According to the [ADF] complaint...faculty members asked Brooker: "'Do you think gays and lesbians are sinners? Do you think I am a sinner?'"
These questions were really unprofessional and unhelpful. It doesn't matter whether Brooker thinks gays and lesbians are sinners. What matters is that promoting homosexual adoption conflicted with her religious beliefs and violated her right to freedom of conscience. If the ADF complaint is true, the faculty members were highly unprofessional.
The committee also allegedly claimed "that Ms. Brooker's Christian beliefs conflicted with the National Association of Social Worker Code of Ethics (NASWCE)." It demanded she write a paper on how to "lessen the gap" between her personal beliefs and professional obligations. (Allison Nadelhaft of NASW's national office denies that the code requires a social worker to hold a specific view on homosexuality or to compromise their religious beliefs.)
The problem with the committee's argument is that Brooker does, indeed, have a fundamental right to her religious beliefs and their attempt to bar her from becoming a social worker violates that Constitutional right. In other words, they were simply wrong.
At a later meeting, as a condition of continuing her degree, Brooker was required to sign a contract pledging to conform to the NASWCE. The complaint declares, "Statements in the contract implied that Ms. Brooker had engaged in additional unprofessional behavior. Further, there were several contradictions in the language of the contract." Brooker received a one-day deadline to sign. She complied under protest.
Brooker was obviously being pressured to quit the school because of the gay adoption thing. That they would force her to sign such a contract (which couldn't be binding, anyway) is despicable.
Wendy McElroy, the author of the ifeminist piece, sums it up this way:
This lawsuit is a test case that almost certainly will go to court or result in a very public apology that alters MSU policy. It asks not only to remove the stain of a Level 3 from Brooker's record but also to compensate her financially.
If successful, the lawsuit may reverberate through academia. The tax-funded policies at MSU are similar to those in other universities where parallel dramas play out. For example, last year Rhode Island College's School of Social Work required a conservative master's student to publicly advocate for political causes to which he morally objected. When the student refused, he was informed "he could no longer pursue a master's degree in social work policy" at the College.
David French is a senior legal counsel with ADF. With reference to Brooker, he comments on the brazenness with which universities now violate a student's freedom of conscience. "A person was forced to publicly state a position on a hot-button cultural issue to her own government that she disagrees with. You can't get a more fundamental violation of the First Amendment than that...Brooker objected, and then she was subject to investigation and punishment."
I can't help but wonder what would have been the reaction of MSU if the student had been Muslim and objected on religious grounds. American society is trying diligently to be tolerant of religions, as long as those religions aren't Christian or Jewish. I hope that Brooker's lawsuit is successful, and I will write more as this case develops.
|