NEWS
UWRCF wins in court, again
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Nick Penzenstadler:
- For whom the bell tolls (November 29, 2007)
- New apartments for West Wash? (November 20, 2007)
- One-and-out: Kumar will not seek 2nd term on Dane County Board (November 15, 2007)
- Displaced Carroll residents call university, bookstore helpful (November 13, 2007)
- Carroll Street fire displaces students (November 12, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Judge: Catholic group not eligible for funds (March 9, 2007)
- Catholic group answers back (March 14, 2007)
- Court deems UW's seg fee system constitutional (October 2, 2002)
- UW, Roman Catholic group settle (May 4, 2007)
- In-Depth: Letter and the law (October 13, 2005)
by Nick Penzenstadler
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The University of Wisconsin Roman Catholic Foundation scored another legal victory Tuesday when a federal court announced the university could not apply the UW System's nondiscrimination policy when determining whether to fund the controversial campus organization.
In a March 9 decision, U.S. District Court Judge John Shabaz ruled UW could not enforce its own nondiscrimination policy — as written in the Student Organization Office Handbook — against UWRCF, since it violated the group's constitutional right to free association.
However, in an April 4 decision released yesterday, Shabaz clarified his earlier decision, ruling that UW is prohibited from enforcing the systemwide policy as well.
Though UW officials had requested the clarification, Shabaz's ruling is yet another legal victory for UWRCF in its ongoing funding dispute with UW.
According to David French, an attorney for UWRCF and senior council for the Alliance Defense Fund in Tennessee, UW officials believed the nondiscrimination policy that Shabaz found to be unconstitutional in March was limited to UW-Madison and did not extend to the rest of the UW System.
UW has long pointed to UWRCF as an exclusively Catholic organization and cited the university's nondiscrimination policy as justification to deny the campus group segregated-fee funding in 2006.
However, French said UW could no longer dictate membership criteria for student organizations, and compared UWRCF to a political group that obviously contains only people with similar beliefs.
"It's always been legal in the wider world. What on Earth makes the university think it can intrude on the process of this religious organization?" French said. "That's remarkable."
Since the decision was delivered to the parties late Tuesday, Casey Nagy, chief of staff for Chancellor John Wiley, said he was unable to comment on UW's position.
However, UW spokesperson John Lucas said that the university's nondiscrimination policy would still be valid to other registered student organizations, with regard to race and other aspects.
"As we understand [Shabaz's] order, the university can apply its nondiscrimination clause, except as it pertains to RCF over religious status," Lucas said.
With Tuesday's victory, UWRCF spokesperson Tim Kruse said the organization was optimistic that it would be successful if it chooses to continue to pursue a lawsuit.
"It was a big decision for us," Kruse said. "The decision in the court is entirely in our favor."
Kruse added that the real winners in the decision would be other campus organizations that have had their bylaws restricted by UW System policies.
Jennifer Tanner, an executive team member of Greek Intervarsity, a student-run Christian organization, said it would likely not close their doors completely to non-Christians, but may introduce some faith-based membership aspects.
"I think that leadership and membership requirements shouldn't be a means for discrimination," Tanner said. "I think having faith-based questions for requirements probably just furthers the commitment and increases the depth of the organization."
Although still involved in the pending case filed against the UW System and UW administrators, Dean of Students Lori Berquam said university officials would take some time to analyze the ruling with legal staff.
Berquam said she hopes student organizations continue their tradition of openness to all beliefs on campus.
"One of the premises I would say on our campus is we really try to be open and inclusive to all groups and to all people," Berquam said. "I would hope that this ruling doesn't indicate anything differently."
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 7:38am):
Score another one for religious freedumb.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 9:30am):
Let me see if I understand this correctly. The UW can't withhold funding because of a student groups religion because that would be discrimination, but that student group can decide who it allows into it's organization based on religion and that's considered "free association". I might like to start an anti-UWRCF student organization, which doesn't allow Roman Catholics to be members, because they may someday become priests or nuns and molest small children. I could do this because of "free association".
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 10:32am):
So it's ok for Catholics to discriminate, but everyone else has to play fair?
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 10:33am):
Every group on campus caters to a specific part of the student body...denying that is ignoring reality.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 12:37pm):
this all boils down to UW discriminating the UWRCF on the basis of religion, ironically the same thing the UWRCF is accused of BY the university.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 12:55pm):
...so why don't we stop pooling our funds together and allocate our own money to the ones we care about? Oh wait, that would make too much sense...
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 1:00pm):
The UWRCF does not discrminate. Anyone can be a member, regardless of their religious belifs.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 6:46pm):
1pm--
How many gay Jews are members of UWRCF? Or for that matter, anyone not Catholic? It's not just about overt discrimination, it's also about a culture of acceptance.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 7:34pm):
Perhaps UWRCF shouldn't be blamed for the association in there organization. It's only natural for groups to attract similar members, which share in the goals of an organization. How many conservatives are involved with LGBT Center? Keeping in mind that out of the 58,964.00 student fees that go to the organization 32,361.00 are to pay students to work for the organization. Would this be discrimination for conservatives? -- Of course not! Any student can apply to work or use the center, same as the programs offered by the UWRCF, but many conservatives choose not to. I think that this whole funding ordeal shows the problem with the lack of true viewpoint neutrality in the funding process and the need for an abandonment of the segregated fee system.
- Germain E. Stemme
PS For the record I have 95 reasons why I'm not Catholic.
Pat Russell (April 12, 2007 @ 9:56am):
It is dishonest for anyone who claims to be tolerant but criticizes uwrcf for being discrimanatory. Anyone who says anything against uwrcf in the name of tolerance shows how hypocritically blind and intolerant they really are. It seems to me that tolerance is being able to put up with something that is disagreeable. There truly isn't anything wrong with being intolerant.
Anonymous (December 9, 2007 @ 9:37pm):
The UW-RCF isn't just disagreeable, they are in fact against any of the good traits of Catholicism. There is no debate, no inquiry, no acceptance, and no service to the greater community. The efforts of the UW-RCF thus far have been nothing short of a Morlino money grab for funds they were not entitled to because 1) they do not welcome all faiths like many other organizations of faith do 2) they serve no university-wide educational mission in as much as they have an exclusionary policy for membership.
Wisconsin is an educational instittution not a catholic indocrination institution. If they cannot welcome all, then they should quit calling themselves a catholic ministry (universal welcome is pretty much what catholic ministry means lingustically).
They want a seminary on the universities dime. They should have none of it.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
