Advancing bill would upend CA religious schools


JesusMural_OBCalifornia legislators could soon wipe out the social and cultural exemptions afforded to state religious schools that they depend upon for their identity.

Senate Bill 1146, now moving through committee in the Assembly, “aims to include all colleges and universities receiving state financial assistance together with students receiving state financial aid under the authority of the Equity in Higher Education Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex,” as Christianity Today noted. “The bill, authored by state Senator Ricardo Lara, was passed by the Assembly’s Higher Education Committee with an 8-2 vote and is now with the Committee on the Judiciary.”

Instant controversy

Intentionally or not, Lara poked a hornet’s nest. “The bill has created a storm of controversy in the Legislature,” the Los Angeles Times observed. “It was approved by a sharply divided state Senate last month,” with critics charging that its language was overbroad, vague and out of sync with the First Amendment’s protections on freedom of association and religious practice. “The bill would limit conscience protections to only those schools that prepare students for ministry, teach theology or prepare students for other pastoral careers,” charged Matt Cover at OpportunityLives. “If a school tried to maintain its religious identity, it could be faced with crippling lawsuits, forcing schools to make the choice between shutting down or eliminating their religious nature, depriving their students the opportunity of an education that incorporates their religious views alongside academic learning.”

Lara, D-Bell Gardens, seemed somewhat taken aback by the firestorm. The state senator “said it is not his intent to interfere with what is taught in the classroom or requirements that students attend chapel twice a week, and that he is willing to consider changes in his bill to address some concerns,” according to the Times, although he added “he is adamant that religious universities should be subject to some of the anti-discrimination laws that apply to public colleges.”

Stark choices

In-state religious leaders responded with furor — partly because of how close to the state the bill would draw faith-based schools, and partly because of how far away they would be pushed if they tried not to comply. “The bill effectively eliminates the religious exemption under current law that allows Christian colleges and universities to operate in accordance with their beliefs, including the freedom to hire only Christian faculty and staff,” wrote Kurt Krueger, president of Concordia University Irvine. “If passed without amendments, the new law would also very likely disqualify students attending California Christian colleges and universities from eligibility for Cal Grants, a key state-level student aid program.”

Lara’s bill and its implications also quickly resonated nationwide. Billy Graham Evangelistic Association president Rev. Franklin Graham tore into the proposal on Facebook, portraying it as the spear tip of a nationwide “anti-Christian movement.” 

“Now the California state Legislature wants to force Christian Universities like Biola University to conform to secular standards,” he wrote. “In effect, we would no longer have Christian universities in this state — and unfortunately this secularism is like an evil plague that spreads.”

Following federal cues

Biola has become something of a symbol of the legal front in the culture war around faith and sexual politics. “[I]n response to signals from the federal government that transgender K-12 students should be protected under anti-discrimination laws,” EdSource recalled, “Biola decided to apply for a religious exemption that would give the university the right to expel transgender students and refuse to admit, house or accommodate them, without jeopardizing federal funding.” Under current law, California affords “a blanket exemption to the anti-discrimination provisions of the Equity in Higher Education Act to all colleges that are ‘controlled by a religious organization,'” as the site added. SB1146 would take away that exemption, prohibiting any form of restriction on “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students in admissions, housing and campus activities.”


Write a comment
  1. skippingdog
    skippingdog 28 June, 2016, 10:22

    A school is not a church.

    Reply this comment
  2. Marty
    Marty 28 June, 2016, 10:38

    This is totally wrong and another indication of how anti-Christian the California Legislator has become. This is also a wake up call for the pulpit. When will the pulpit move from the soft sermons and start informing and discussing these issues with their congregation. The time is now or we will no longer be able to exercise our first amendment rights in the state and eventually the country.

    Reply this comment
  3. Standing Fast
    Standing Fast 28 June, 2016, 14:49

    I find it interesting that so many religious schools are receiving funding from the state or federal government. This means that if the government (read, the people through their legislators) want strings attached to government funding for private schools, it is within their authority–except as regards the [make no law clause] of the First Amendment. I’m thinking if this proposal passes it will be headed for the highest court in the land. Whether it is upheld or shot down, the solution for those of us who want Liberty of Conscience protected is to make large private donations to the private schools of our own choosing.

    Reply this comment
  4. Mike
    Mike 28 June, 2016, 16:23

    Lara is a pervert who dies not like those who judge his posterior oriented lifestyle, except of course,….Muslims.He thinks their fondness for goats deserves a pass for the occasional nightclub misbehavior.

    Reply this comment
  5. Spurwing Plover
    Spurwing Plover 30 June, 2016, 09:30

    Religious schools need more funding then the NEA run public schools

    Reply this comment
  6. Standing Fast
    Standing Fast 30 June, 2016, 09:59

    What we need to do is get rid of both the federal and state departments of education.

    Then, free public schools would be truly local operations with lower overhead and an ability to focus on basic fundamentals of education–which to my mind includes civics, music, art, drama, natural sciences, literature, local history, and field trips to natural, historical and cultural museums.
    Private schools really ought not be looking for public funds, for they must, of necessity, come with strings attached. Which is why religious schools should be as independent of government funding as possible.
    Private schools located in poorer neighborhoods can be adequately-funded by grants from private non-profits devoted to various educational pursuits. It is not impossible. It just takes determination and patience.
    The sooner we liberate economics and education from government-control, the sooner we will have prosperity and young people who can read and think and speak and write properly.
    It should not take 14 years to educate our nation’s young people. They are not “smarter” or “better educated” than their grandparents or great-grandparents. They are brainwashed.
    Let’s work the problem, people. Not focus on side issues.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Brown signs automatic voter registration

Secretary of State Alex Padilla has succeeded in his quest to automatically register Californians to vote. Partisan privileges The bill he sponsored,

CA-style feudalization is going national

March 16, 2013 By Chris Reed The feudalization of California that Joel Kotkin has written about so smartly for years

Study: ACA repeal would have big economic consequences without adequate replacement

California would suffer major economic consequences if Congress repeals the Affordable Care Act without an adequate replacement, according to a new