The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty wants to make sure a provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA,” also called the “stimulus package” passed by Congress in February) is implemented the way it is intended — to both prevent public money from going to solely religious structures and to protect individual students’ freedom of religious expression in public institutions of higher education.
On May 12, the Baptist Joint Committee joined the American Jewish Congress in sending a letter to the Department of Education to share its concerns. The two groups want the Department to offer guidance on section §14004(c)(3)(A)(B) of the stimulus package to make sure organizations do not misinterpret the language to violate the religious freedom rights of students on college and university campuses.
The provision says that no funds granted under the Act may be used for the “modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities” that are “used for sectarian instruction or religious worship” or “in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.”
There has been much confusion about what this provision actually means. During the Congressional debate, Sen. Jim DeMint, R – S.C., misinterpreted the language to mean students would be prohibited from having a Bible study in a dorm if that dorm had been repaired with the government’s stimulus money.
The joint letter to the Department of Education says the groups are “confident…that this was not Congress’ intention.” Guidance about the proper implementation of the provision will “help avoid conflicts that the Congressional debate brought to light.”
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the importance of a restriction against government grants for buildings used only for religious purposes in the 1971 case Tilton v. Richardson. In its decision, the Court ruled the conversion of a government-funded building to a chapel or other structure that is solely religious would violate the Establishment Clause prohibition on supporting religion. In that same decision, the Court upheld the constitutionality of government construction grants to religiously affiliated colleges.
The stimulus package language reflects the Court’s ruling in Tilton and does not prevent individual religious activity in public college and university facilities. The language is actually a protection of religious liberty, ensuring the public’s funds are not used in an unconstitutional manner to advance religion. The letter says, “The claim that student-led religious clubs will be barred from utilizing school facilities refurbished with ARRA monies ignores the line of Supreme Court cases that has upheld student-sponsored religious speech against any Establishment Clause claims.” It goes on to say the Supreme Court has found such religious speech “constitutionally protected” in the face of arguments that such prayer in public places establishes religion.
The joint letter reminds the Department that, in the past, some schools were overly cautious about violating the Establishment Clause and barred students from gathering on their own for prayer on school premises. Supreme Court decisions in Widmar v. Vincent (1981) and Westside School District v. Mergens (1990) make it “abundantly clear that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause does not deprive religious groups of the same access to public school facilities as secular counterparts.”
The BJC asserts that a clear set of guidelines would ensure schools do not trample on their students’ rights to religious freedom in an attempt to stay within the boundaries of the funding provision. Guidance from the Department would correct misinterpretations of this element of the stimulus package while preventing public monies from subsidizing religious activities.
