Much national attention has been turned toward Indiana recently due to the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) on March 26.
This law has caused many discussions but also some confusion. Andy Cullison, director of the Prindle Institute for Ethics, recognized this confusion on DePauw’s campus and thus convened a discussion on Friday so that members of the DePauw community could learn more about the law and the recent changes it has undergone, as well as share their ideas with each other.
The program began with a brief presentation by Cullison. He explained the history of the federal RFRA and how it does not apply to state laws, leading to many states passing their own versions of the law. He noted that the wording of Indiana’s law is identical to that of the federal law. The differences come in that the Indiana law defines who can seek protection under this law more broadly than the federal one. The law allows individuals in the business world to maintain their religious beliefs.
Thursday, in response to national and local criticism, the Indiana RFRA was amended. Now, individuals and businesses cannot refuse service to an individual on the basis of that individual belonging to a certain group; the list of factors for which one cannot endure this type of discrimination now includes sexual orientation and gender identity. Additionally, individuals or businesses who discriminate on those bases cannot use the RFRA as protection from legal action.
However, the LGBT community has not yet been granted status as a protected class, meaning they can still technically be discriminated against based on their belonging to that group. The only difference is that those who do discriminate won’t have the RFRA to defend their actions were they to be sued for discrimination.
After the presentation, attendees engaged in small-group discussions at their tables. To spark the conversations, Cullison gave a list of questions that were pertinent to this topic, but could also lead to more broadly-scoped discussions.
After the groups had time to share their ideas amongst themselves, Cullison opened the floor for individuals to share what they had gotten out of their discussions. Claudia Mills, a visiting professor at Prindle, was among those who contributed. She shared her response to one of Cullison’s questions, “What should the criterion be for being recognized as a protected class?”
“A protected class is a group that has suffered systemic, oppressive discrimination,” she says. “It’s not just a one-time thing, it’s an ongoing, historic oppression.”
Senior Natalie Weilandt posed a question to the large group that was first raised by someone in her small group that created murmurs at several tables: why do straight people care about this, since they are not the ones being discriminated against?
Another student responded to that question and compared it to white individuals caring about the rights of individuals of color during the Civil Rights Movement. She framed it as noticing that there is injustice in society and desiring an end to that oppression.
When asked why he wanted to convene this conversation, Cullison said, “When the rights of a group of people are at stake, it’s important to have a discussion about it. Also, there has been significant disagreement, but also some confusion, about this law, and we wanted to provide some clarity.”
He disliked that Indiana was being viewed as an unwelcoming state because it had the potential to lend that same reputation to DePauw, which he believes is far from true.
“I’d hate for this law to affect anyone’s perception of us,” he states. “DePauw makes great efforts to welcome a diverse community.”