Joshua Thompson, '04, discusses the larger concepts surrounding the RFRA
during a lunch discussion on Friday April 3. Particpants deliberated on questions
such as "What are the requirements of religious freedom?"
SAM CARAVANA / THE DEPAUW
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 and much confusion. Andrew Cullison, '01 director of the Janet Prindle Institute for Ethics recognized this confusion on DePauw University’s campus. As a result he convened a discussion last Friday so 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 given by Cullison. He explained the history of the federal RFRA and how it does not apply to state laws, which has led 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.
Last 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 LGBTQ 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.
Following 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 broader 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 ethics 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,” Mills said. “It’s not just a one-time thing, it’s an ongoing, historic oppression.”
Senior Natalie Weilandt, a Prindle intern, posed a question to the large group that was first raised by someone in her small group and 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 having a desire to end 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.”