Jump to content

Equal Campus Access Act


Steven Andrews

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Mr. President,

there is a reason that this bill wasn’t signed into law the first time. Tying public education funds to something that has nothing to do with education is nonsensical and the party opposite knows this. I myself will not vote for cloture if this bill and will come back as often as need be. 

I yield 

Calvin Ward

Senator Massachusetts- D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. President,

The only ties created by this Bill are between federal dollars and the Constitutional protection of religious liberty. This legislation isn’t a hindrance to education, but rather an embracement of cultural diversity and religious acceptance on public campuses.

Students across the country should be confident that, if they’re going to a school funded with their and their parents’ tax dollars, they won’t be forced to forfeit their First Amendment rights at the door.

I urge my colleagues to stand with me in support of this Bill, and I yield the floor

Congress & Supreme Court Admin


Admin NPCs:
Rep. Derek H. Gray (D-TX-20)

Speaker of the House & Democratic Party Chair

 

The Hon. John Roberts

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. President, 

I believe I can. California State University, a public institution with 23 campuses, denied recognition to the established Christian group called InterVarsity Christian Fellowship because the association requires its leadership to follow Christian beliefs. Essentially, because its leaders had to be Christian, the university refused to recognize the group. That's wrong, no matter what religion you are. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Sikh, whatever you believe in, whoever you worship, you should be allowed to continue to do so on our public, taxpayer-funded universities. Americans deserve better than being forced to fund education institutions that will refuse recognition of their kids' beliefs once they step on campus because the administration disagrees. 

I yield. 

Christopher Drake

Republican, NY-2

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

Former Chief Administrator - Rounds 4 & 5, Evil Arch-Conservative, Frequent Republican Player

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. President 

First off, InterVarsity is back at the California State and has been so for a little while now. We didn’t need a law, it was just done. 

Second, private institutions and universities also receive federal tax dollars through grants and loans, which make them more accessible. Should they be held to the same standard?

i yield 

Calvin Ward

Senator Massachusetts- D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. President, 

The fact that InterVarsity had to face this discrimination and fight it shows that it is a problem that must be addressed. Religious groups shouldn't have to fight that. This has happened repeatedly in many other places throughout our nation. Religious students shouldn't have to face hostile college administrations just because some administrator disagrees with their religion. That's like saying that segregated bars shouldn't be illegal since the Civil Rights Movement effectively and successfully integrated them with boycotts and sit-ins. Of course they shouldn't be legal and those fighting discrimination should have a good legal defense and instrument to keep these state-run institutions from doing so in the future. 

As to private universities, these are run by private entities and are thus not obligated to respect free speech and freedom of religion under the first amendment. While I would prefer these institutions respect these principles, to restrict these funds from them proposes another constitutional issue. To restrict federal funding for textbooks and tuition assistance for, say, a small Christian college because it doesn't recognize Satanist  groups or witch covens, would discriminate against religion further by forcing them to abandon their principles by restricting federal resources for them that would otherwise be available. It would restrict religious people--remember, we are talking about all religions here--from founding their own educational institutions in favor of secular, state-run colleges. 

I think of the SCOTUS case Lemon v. Kurtzman, which established that federal funding must not inhibit or promote religion when it comes to non-public schools. While the case doesn't exactly line up, it provides some basis for challenging the stripping of federal funds based on what could end up being religious discrimination. 

So, to summarize it, restricting that funding for private institutions that are not acting as instruments of the state (as public universities are) would be potentially more discriminatory and unconstitutional. 

I yield. 

Christopher Drake

Republican, NY-2

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

Former Chief Administrator - Rounds 4 & 5, Evil Arch-Conservative, Frequent Republican Player

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Mr President,

What he’s essentially saying is that there’s rules for the thee but not for me. If they’re private, then they should be private. My constituents don’t want to help pay for institutions that discriminate in any way. He is fine killing public Institutions, but we do not believe in double standards  

Therefore I move the following amendment

Strike the word public from this bill. 

Calvin Ward

Senator Massachusetts- D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CWard said:

But Mr President,

What he’s essentially saying is that there’s rules for the thee but not for me. If they’re private, then they should be private. My constituents don’t want to help pay for institutions that discriminate in any way. He is fine killing public Institutions, but we do not believe in double standards  

Therefore I move the following amendment

Strike the word public from this bill. 

Mr.President,

I second and yield.

Hartland: The Purification is Coming soon to a Theater near you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. President, 

That is not what I am saying at all, and I wish that the gentleman from Massachusetts would exercise his debates in a more cordial, intellectual, and nuanced way, because otherwise, we can't get anywhere. 

I yield. 

Christopher Drake

Republican, NY-2

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

Former Chief Administrator - Rounds 4 & 5, Evil Arch-Conservative, Frequent Republican Player

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CWard said:

My constituents don’t want to help pay for institutions that discriminate in any way.

Mr. President, 

I find this contradictory with his previous statement: 

41 minutes ago, CWard said:

We didn’t need a law, it was just done.

I yield.

Christopher Drake

Republican, NY-2

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

Former Chief Administrator - Rounds 4 & 5, Evil Arch-Conservative, Frequent Republican Player

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. President

its the logical conclusion to his bill. This bill will kill public universities and it would allow for a double standard to exist. If he doesn’t want a double standard, he can vote for an amendment and then We can pass this

Calvin Ward

Senator Massachusetts- D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. President, 

This bill will not "kill public universities." It will keep them, as instruments of the state, from violating their students' First Amendment rights. 

I yield. 

Christopher Drake

Republican, NY-2

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

Former Chief Administrator - Rounds 4 & 5, Evil Arch-Conservative, Frequent Republican Player

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...