Service learning restriction challenged

ACLJ reprimands university for considering ban on religious projects

By: Erik Borg

Posted: 11/4/04

A recent development in the issue of religious proselytization and service learning has revived controversy just in time for the University Senate meeting on Tuesday, when it will address the issue.

The American Center for Law and Justice, a national non-profit organization that is known as a "watchdog" for First Amendment violations officially weighed in on the matter last week.

ACLJ received the information from outspoken dissenter of the ban and Academic Policies Committee Chairman Geology Professor Kent Syverson after the APC ruled in favor of the ban to prohibit religious proselytization for service learning credit two weeks ago.

Syverson said there was a lack of legal justification for the UW System legal department's approval of the ban.

"I requested written legal justification because it seems completely contrary to judicial precedent," Syverson said.

"But they're acting like a mother saying, 'Eat this, it's good for you,' but refusing to say why it's good for us," he said.

In response to Syverson's complaint, ACLJ submitted a five-page brief in which they reprimanded the university for the proposed ban.

In doing so, it cited numerous U.S. Supreme Court case precedents, including ACLJ's own victory, Locke v. Davey that corroborates Syverson's long-time belief that allowing such projects would not interfere with the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

Constitutional attorney Geoffrey R. Surtees argued in the brief that if "the university takes a religion-neutral stance with respect to the types of community service students may engage in, the university is not violating the Establishment Clause, but complying with it."

"Supreme Court case law is clear that religious instruction is constitutionally protected speech," he said.

The issue was also presented to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which advised that "any students impacted by the proposed policy should collect documentation and submit a case to them," Syverson said.

Service Learning Director Donald Mowry, who enacted the ban, was not immediately willing to share his thoughts on how FIRE's or ACLJ's responses might effect the University Senate decision.

"I'm not a lawyer so I can't even begin to analyze, digest or critique the arguments in that brief, so I don't care to comment," he said.

Syverson hopes members of University Senate won't take ACLJ's ruling lightly when coming to a decision on the ban.

"A well respected organization is saying, 'Whoa! Do you know what you're getting into here?" he said. "I'm hoping people will look at this letter from ACLJ and say, 'If we pass this, we will be violating free speech'."

One deterrent that Syverson recognizes may keep people from seeing it his way is the pressure that the System's legal department is putting on the university to comply with its desire to uphold the ban.

According to Syverson, the System's legal department will not represent the university in any case involving the issue if it goes against their wishes on the matter.

Similarly, they will represent the university if it remains in accordance.

But Syverson sees views this as a recipe for a lawsuit.

"If we do pass it, we're going to get sued and the university is going to be fighting against freedom of speech," he said. "And that's just not the kind of university we should have.