Is the University of Maryland violating the Establishment Clause?

[Christopher C. Lund]

      Strangely enough, I heard of one public university that has an 
official chaplain policy, the University of Maryland at College Park.  
Here's their policy:
http://www.inform.umd.edu/PRES/policies/vi700a.html.

      While the policy is even-handed in allowing chaplains of all religious 
denominations, it does clearly create chaplaincies only for religious 
organizations; the policy states that "[a]ny religious organization wishing 
to establish a new chaplaincy at UMCP must apply to do so in writing to the 
Vice President for Student Affairs."  Only those religious organizations 
that can (1) financially support a chaplaincy and (2) have enough of a 
student following, will get one.

      The religious organizations are essentially given control over their 
respective chaplains, including the power to hire or fire.  While the 
privleges given to university chaplains are unspecified, the policy does say 
that "Chaplains at UMCP receive the status and privileges of an associate 
staff member."  Also note that the "University has every right to expect 
responsible conduct" from its chaplains and "reserves the right to withdraw 
its recognition and any campus privileges extended to the individual 
involved" if the University disapproves of the particular chaplain's 
behavior.

        When I glanced at it, I foolishly assumed that chaplains at 
universities would be treated like chaplains in prisons -- but I was 
probably thinking too much of the wonderful time I had at my (public) law 
school.  What do people think of this?

        Chris Lund


From: "AJCONGRESS" <mstern at ajcongress.org>
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
<religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: RE: Is UCLA violating the Establishment Clause?
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:29:36 -0500

While there have not been challenges to the best of my knowledge to college
chaplainries, there have been challenges to police and hospital
chaplaincies. By and large, if the chaplaincies are fundamentally
non-sectarian and non -coercive they are upheld. However, in these cases
there is a plausible factual case to be made that time or circumstances do
not permit access to private clergy. That is not likely the case on college
campuses.
Marc Stern

-----Original Message-----
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Nathan Oman
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 4:04 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Is UCLA violating the Establishment Clause?

Have their been cases involving college and university chaplains?  How many
schools have such things?

At 01:59 PM 1/27/2004 -0500, you wrote:
 >Doesn't UCLA provide support for chaplains such as office space,
 >telephone service, secretarial staff and the like?  What does UCLA's
 >budget look like?  I suspect that you would have to conclude that the
 >UCLA chaplaincies violate the Establishment Clause if only because of
 >that financial and material support.
 >
 >While I don't necessarily buy into Jefferson's thinking on the subject,
 >wouldn't it be rather dramatic, to say the least, to declare these
 >chaplaincies unconstitutional?  Wouldn't the public outcry be at least
 >as great as that that arose in the Pledge of Allegiance case?  (Newdow
 >loses, in my humble opinion, 5-1/2 to 3/1/2 or thereabouts, largely
 >depending on how Breyer comes out.  Souter, Ginsburg and Stevens will be
 >hard-pressed to find a basis for upholding Newdow's position.
 >Ceremonial Deism is, in hard fact, our national religion, whether
 >"established" or not.)
 >
 >There are other aspects of our national experience and tradition and
 >customs that may be, in some abstract or formalist sense,
 >unconstitutional, but which the Court will nonetheless uphold.  College
 >and university chaplaincies will not be tossed out, again, in my humble
 >opinion.  (There may be good historical reasons to view these
 >tax-supported college and university chaplaincies as constitutionally
 >inoffensive, and this is where I tend to come out.  Thus, I think that
 >religious expression that Eugene originally referred us to is probably
 >OK.)
 >
 >
 >
 >-----Original Message-----
 >From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu]
 >Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 1:04 PM
 >To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
 >Subject: RE: Is UCLA violating the Establishment Clause?
 >
 >         I'm unaware of any official UCLA chaplaincies (except at the
 >hospitals, where as I understand it their role is not to express a UC
 >department's official views).  I would assume that any religious
 >ministries
 >selected and operated by public universities would indeed violate the
 >Establishment Clause.  (Even hospital chaplaincies might raise such
 >problems, unless they're conducted as an open forum program.)
 >
 >         Naturally, under Rosenberger, a university is free to allow
 >religious groups, and to let them participate in generally available
 >funding.  But I can't see how a university department can itself select
 >a
 >particular religious viewpoint that it will then endorse and express
 >itself.
 >Or am I missing something?
 >
 >         Eugene
 >
 >Michael Newsom writes:
 >
 > > How are chaplaincies at UCLA structured?  They don't have to
 > > have the same structure or status as the LBGT group does, do
 > > they?  More generally, what would an organizational chart of
 > > UCLA look like, and where would all of these groups fit in?
 > >
 > > And, while we are at it, why aren't campus religious
 > > ministries in general a violation of the Establishment
 > > Clause?  (I know about Thomas Jefferson's views regarding
 > > religion and U Va., but those views are hardly dispositive of
 > > the question at hand, are they?)  (I am also assuming that
 > > some or all of the chaplains, with university support and
 > > resources, are free to indulge in gay-bashing.)
 >_______________________________________________
 >To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
 >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
 >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
 >_______________________________________________
 >To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
 >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
 >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

_________________________________________________________________
Let the new MSN Premium Internet Software make the most of your high-speed 
experience. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1