One-Shot

No Pride

A Constitutional argument against the establishment of PRIDE Hall.

Recently, the University of Oregon had yet another brush with discrimination, that bane of the politically correct. What is somewhat unusual about this case, however, is that the group to be discriminated against was not a much put-upon minority group; this was a case where the Administration considered a proposal to discriminate in favor of a group typically discriminated against, a prime example of what is often referred to as "reverse discrimination." We are referring here, of course, to the proposal that the University establish a "queer space" dorm, to be called "PRIDE Hall," for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and a few heterosexual students who are considered sufficiently homophilic and dedicated to gay rights causes.

Perhaps the first "legal" issue to come to mind regarding such a proposal might be its potential violation of the University's own anti-discrimination policy (which specifically covers sexual orientation). But there is a far more substantial legal authority which calls this suggestion into question. Therefore, it is important that any debate concerning the establishment and viability of the PRIDE Hall proposal include an in-depth review of any and all Constitutional implications that accompany such a controversial request. As that "Supreme Law" which governs and restricts the actions of our government, the United States Constitution is, in fact, the very first reference to which one should repair when discussing the legality of any such issue. Though University administrators have turned down the PRIDE proposal on the grounds that it would create more problems than it solved, their explanation does not take into account the reasons for which any such endeavor is ultimately doomed to failure.

Obviously, there is the question of state sponsorship of the segregation of a specific group from the student body at large. The "separate but equal" doctrine, whether requested or not, was ruled by the Court to be an oxymoronic legal statement irreconcilable with the 14th Amendment guarantee of "...equal protection under the laws." Nina Thompson, the spokeswoman of PRIDE's proponents, did state to local media (the Register-Guard and Oregon Daily Emerald among others) that the dorm would not be closed to heterosexuals--that those of any sexual orientation believed not to be homophobic would have been welcome. However, she implied that those whose beliefs do not conform to PRIDE Hall's particular definition of acceptability would be summarily excluded. Perpetrating such an act of discrimination upon an individual, exclusively on the basis of their personal creed regarding homosexuality and transgenderism, can itself be construed to violate Section I of the 14th Amendment, as well as the 1st and even 9th Amendment rights of those who would be excluded.

The First Amendment guarantee that "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion], or abridging the freedom of speech..." is violated by the use of any administrative requirement that an applicant, in order to qualify for serious consideration, accept a moral and/or religious justification of homosexuality. Unfortunately, this is a vital requirement to any separation of the applicants and the homophobia they seek to avoid. Student residents' Constitutional rights would have been further violated by the threat of expulsion, a potential reaction to any expression of views that could be termed "homophobic" by fellow students. PRIDE’s proponents clearly implied this threat, insisting that the hall was to have acted as a haven from these views and, more specifically, the behavior they believe to accompany such ideas.

In addition, the right to express beliefs contrary to the establishment of homosexuality as an accepted lifestyle during the process of applying for residence, would also have been offended by such a requirement.

Though the 1st Amendment's wording might seem applicable only to Congressional legislation, its impact is much more far-reaching (an extension the Supreme Court has upheld time and time again). PRIDE Hall would have violated the 1st Amendment through all government grants to State Universities (the University of Oregon included), which would then have been utilized by the UO to fund the establishment and operation of "PRIDE Hall." In this way, Congress would have indirectly passed a law both condoning and promoting the aforementioned offenses. Federal aid packages to individual students (including scholarships granted by those non-governmental agencies which receive federal contracts and/or subsidies) are also restricted from such uses. It is within the realm of possibility that such misuse of Federal funds could have led to a substantial if not complete loss of grants and tax exemptions enjoyed by the University, until it recognized the civil rights of all students. Possible, that is, provided an offended party was both politically and economically able to take the issue to Congress or to the appropriate Executive agency, a practical requirement which has left grievances in many other cases dead in the water.

When Ms. Thompson addressed the Emerald regarding the 9th Amendment, she stated that, "This is providing a safe environment [for the students involved]" (ODE 4 Jan 99). Although this may be the case, attempts to enforce that "safe environment," under the auspices of students' rights would have abridged the rights of other students as described above. They would also have violated the "Denial and Disparagement" clause, since all of the aforementioned rights exist specifically within the bounds of "The enumeration of this Constitution..."

Citing Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas: "Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments...In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms" (opinion delivered by Chief Justice Earl Warren, 1954; emphasis added). The state has here "undertaken to provide" on-campus housing, with all of its academic advantages, via institutional grants and supplementing students' ability to afford said housing through financial aid and/or scholarships. Under the Brown decision, these funds may be used neither to promote nor to facilitate the segregation of one group of citizens from another, within any context, for reasons of race. In light of Warren's citation of the "Equal Protection Clause" as grounds for his landmark opinion, one can infer that the protections enumerated by the Brown decision are applicable to all groups to which the 14th Amendment pertains. If this extrapolation is legally correct, then those ideologically opposed to a certain group (based on religion, ethnicity, sex, etc.) are protected against state-sponsored segregation from those who are not, as well as from those who have no opinion on the subject.

Regarding more obvious matters of common sense, the co-directors of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender Alliance wrote, with two unnamed signatories, that they expected the proposed Hall to "...foster a sense of community for LGBT students and their allies, increase the visibility of LGBT students for the benefit of the entire university, and help reduce heterosexism and homophobia through open discussion, development and education." These goals would have been made much more difficult to achieve by PRIDE Hall--through the creation of fierce competition between applicants for space within the hall, the restriction of a sizable segment of the University's queer population to a single dormitory, and the creation of yet another logistical burden for University Administration (to be paid for, in part ,by those with whom they are at odds). Most importantly, by removing its residents from day-to-day residential contact with the rest of the student body, PRIDE Hall would have excluded them from the lion's share of the "open discussion" that they themselves had proposed.

In the future, "awareness" of and tolerance for any group of students at the University of Oregon would almost certainly be better served by a like display from those who feel they have been offended. While a seemingly attractive option, simply removing oneself from an unfavorable situation serves only to exacerbate existing tensions, while by no means promoting the safety of any group or individual within or without the University.

David K. Roselip, a sophmore majoring in political science, is a guest columnist for the Oregon Commentator