FORUM: Covert Carolina religious war

In my career as a professor, I have noticed college administrators often try things in private they could never defend in public. That is why publicity is usually the best remedy when college administrators abuse their authority.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis probably put it best when he said “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” But Louis Brandeis never met the current administration at UNC Chapel Hill. After being sued and embarrassed in the court of public opinion in 2003, there is now credible information indicating the UNC administration is waging a new underground war on religious organizations, all in the name of diversity and tolerance. The behavior of the administration now indicates it is knowlingly violating the law and trying to conceal that fact from the public. Of course, it is the public that is unwittingly funding the administration’s illegal assault on religious liberty.

For those who do not recall, efforts to sue UNC began in early 2003, shortly after the university threatened to freeze the funds of numerous religious organizations (mostly Christian) unless they allowed any student to join as a voting member of their organization. That rule applied even if the student was of a different religion or if the student was an atheist.

At least one organization was told in 2003 it must allow students opposed to its orthodox religious beliefs to hold elective office. Another group was told that its constitution could not say the group subscribes to a “belief in God.”

After threats of litigation by more than one organization and media exposure in many columns and books, it appeared the university had decided to respect the constitutional rights of students in campus religious organizations.

Indeed, it appeared the university finally understood that the First Amendment rights of freedom of association and freedom of religion trumped the student handbook’s diversity clauses. Unfortunately, such optimism now appears misplaced.

Recently, I received information the president of a Christian organization at UNC met with Jonathan Curtis, the administrator in charge of recognizing student groups, last September. The meeting was convened to discuss the group’s concerns about the application for recognition.

The president of that group claims he offered to submit the application with an addendum objecting to its provision prohibiting discrimination based on religious affiliation. In other words, he wanted to form a Christian group that was actually comprised of Christians.

The group president alleges Jonathan Curtis told the group that if they turned in an application by which they did not intend to abide, he would take them to Honor Court for lying to a university official. This threat was issued just three months after the UNC administration was exposed for lying about the scope of their harassment of student religious organizations.

One of those lies included a denial they had been threatened with a lawsuit by a Christian organization after the original controversy broke out in January. That initial controversy was between the university and Intervarsity Christian Fellowship.

After Mr. Curtis threatened the group with Honor Court hearings, the president claims he asked for an explanation in writing. He reports Mr. Curtis said he needed to check with the legal department first and then would e-mail the group. They report no e-mail eveer was sent to them.

Then, just before Christmas, the group noticed that their Web access was gone.

When the president met with Curtis again last February, he was told the group was no longer recognized. In other words, the Christian group was derecognized without a paper trail.

In March, the group’s president went to the Student Activities Funds Office (SAFO) to conduct a transaction. According to him, Mr. Curtis was there and told the SAFO director to cancel the group’s account due to its recognition status.

Freezing the funds of student groups and banning them from meeting on campus is serious. It is something UNC once did in a manner that was illegal but, fortunately, was fully documented by its internal records. Now it is something the university does illegally and without documentation.

Story Continues →