University Accommodation of Non-majority Religions: Legitimate Protection of Students' Right to Practice or Unconstitutional Governmental Endorsement?

Journal of Law and Education, Apr 2008 by Graves, Kevin

III. CONCLUSION

In summary, the installation of footbaths is not an endorsement of the Muslim faith. Indeed, the simple footbaths are not religiously symbolic in nature and are available to be used by any student. The installation of footbaths simply serves to protect Muslim students' free exercise of their religion at the university.

In light of growing public fear and misunderstanding of the Muslim faith and non-majority religious views in general, there is a particularly pressing need for university officials to protect the religious rights of minorities. Majority religions like Christianity have long been accommodated by schools and other public entities on a much larger, more blatant scale. There is no justification for universities' failure to provide the same protection to minority religions such as Islam. While accommodating diverse religious views, the university officials must be careful not to overstep the bounds of the Establishment Clause.

If university officials wish to accommodate the various religious practices of their student bodies, they must do so in ways that do not create an appearance of endorsing or favoring one religion over all others. Any accommodations made by state-funded schools must avoid being solely religiously symbolic. State-supported schools can avoid accusations of endorsement by insuring that all accommodations can be utilized not only by religious students for religious purposes, but also by the entire student body for secular purposes.

KEVIN GRAVES

1. The New York Times, Tamar Lewin, Universities Install Footbaths to Benefit Muslims, and Not Everyone is Pleased, (Aug. 7, 2007).

2. U.S. Const, amend. 1, cl. 1.

3. U.S. Const, amend. 1, cl. 2.

4. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971).

5. The Lemon Test was used in the Michigan case, Scalise v. Boys Scouts of America, 692 N.W.2d 858, 868 (Mich.App. 12005).

6. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984).

7. Americans United For Separation of Church and State v. City of Grand Rapids, 980 F.2d 1538 (6th Cir. 1992).

8. The New York Times Sunday Magazine, Noah Feldman, Universal Faith, (Aug. 26, 2007).

9. This combination test is controlling due to its usage by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

10. Lynch, 465 U.S. at 688.

11. Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989).

12. Id. at 600.

13. Id. at 620, 621.

14. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 619.