Quantcast

Catholic University Forced to Justify Same-Sex Dorms

09.16.2011_catholic.jpg
Photo by brendan.o

When Catholic University President John Garvey announced in June that the university would be reverting to same-sex dorms for on-campus students, he probably didn't expect much of a legal challenge.

Well, he got one.

Yesterday the university was forced to explain to the D.C. Office of Human Rights how the new policy doesn't violate the city's Human Rights Act, a claim made by public interest law professor John Banzhaf in a lawsuit. According to Banzhaf, who teaches at The George Washington University Law School, the District's statute prohibits discrimination unless it is a "business necessity" without which an institution could not function. He adds:

Unfortunately for [Garvey], he cannot rely upon religion, because the D.C. Court of Appeals has held -- in a case in which Georgetown University tried to justify discrimination based upon sexual orientation because of fundamental and strongly held Catholic teachings about homosexuality -- that religious motivations were irrelevant, and no defense, under the statute.

Moreover, in this situation, Garvey has said his decision to discriminate on the basis of sex was motivated by secular concerns rather than religious doctrine -- not surprising, because Catholic U, like Georgetown and many other Catholic universities, has had mixed-gender dorms for many years.

The secular concerns Garvey used to justify the move is a study that claims that random hookups and drinking happen less often in same-sex dorms than they do in mixed dorms.

Additionally, Bazhaf argues, the university cannot segregate dorms based on gender any more than it could do so based on race or sexuality.

According to WTOP, lawyers for the university have opted to not comment while the case is in mediation.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@dcist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

Comments [rss]

  • Men and women are different. There is your secular argument.
  • Would a win for this lawsuit have any bearing on same sex dorms at other public/private institutions? What about boarding schools?
  • katydid13
    Only in DC because it's a local law.
  • Over the River
    I don't see how segregating students into same-sex dormitories is any more discriminatory than having drinking fountains for whites-only and colored-only.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Vr8X...
  • I'd certainly like to know whether I'm drinking white or colored water.
  • ex-14thandYou
    You're definitely drinking colored water. We call it "Putrid Yellow".
  • MmmCashews
    we call it Bud Light
  • CJ_Scudworth
    We call it "the Anacostia River."
  • It's Mountain Dew, I swear!!
  • katydid13
    I don't have any hard data on this, but as I understand it my alma mater dropped it's all male floor because 1) no men every voluntarily requested to live there and 2) the drinking related stupidity tended to take forms that lead to greater property destruction (think fire and a vending machine tossed from an upper story) than in coed or all women's floors.  Of perhaps that's because people were too busy hooking up in the coed spaces to destroy property when drunk.

    I've heard similar stories from other schools, so I wonder if this would even have a chance as working out in Catholic's favor.
  • Dread_Pirate_Roberts
    Meh, not so fast. The HRA has language which applies to both housing and educational institutions (both public and private). There are therefore limits on what even a private institution can do.
  • standrightwalkleft
    Private institutions are allowed to create their own codes of conduct, however ridiculous they may be. Sort of like BYU expelling students for having premarital sex. If you choose to go to a private college, and you sign the student code of conduct, it's hard to complain when they hold you to it. 

    Edit: Sorry, that was meant as a reply to schmod.
  • Where am I & how to leave?
    however ridiculous they may be

    Not exactly. Very few (if any) institutions are above the law, especially if they happen to be a higher education organization that gets public money. You can make whatever idiot rules you like, but only when you stop feeding at the trough.
  • Dread_Pirate_Roberts
    See my comment below. It's not about money, it's about physical location.
  • Ollie Pooeater
    CUA probably doesn't get public money from the district. However, they are still subject to the law of the land and housing discrimination is a big DC issue.

    CUA couldn't come along and decide to separate everyone by race because they caught a bunch of kids eating shellfish or meat on Fridays.
  • Where am I & how to leave?
    CUA probably doesn't get public money from the district.
    I doubt this to be true, unless proven otherwise. The tangled web probably includes some DC money. Small enough that they could replace it with money from YouKnowWho to ensure their independence, but I'm sure there's some in there.

    I don't think Catholics have issues with shellfish; black paella anyone?
  • Ollie Pooeater
    It's a bible reference, you'd need to read it to understand.
  • Where am I & how to leave?
    It's not like I haven't read/heard of Leviticus. That said, Catholics tend not to read it as closely and extract bits and pieces they love but ignore others quite as liberally as the so-called "evanglicals".
  • You're assuming that BYU's action was legal. In that case, most likely nobody cares enough about what the cultists do among themselves to sue.
  • ex-14thandYou
    I believe that BYU students agreed to adhere to a code of conduct which included a ban on extramarital sex. If that's true, I'm fairly certain that BYU is in good legal standing to expel the students for violating a policy that they had agreed to. 'Sexually prmiscuous" isn't a protected class.
  • The question is if that contract is legal in the first place.
  • ex-14thandYou
    What issues have been raised regarding it? The language, as far as i've heard, seems pretty unambiguous to me.

    I mean, I think it's a fecking stupid policy...but that's why I would never agree to it.
  • ex-14thandYou
    Hmm, well, OK. I haven't heard any questions raised from anyone (ACLU or otherwise) as to the legality of such a policy, and I've no idea on what standing it could be challenged if all students are aware of it and agree to it. Like I said, people who want to boink their boyfriends or girlfriends aren't a protected class.
  • That's what I said to begin with: there have been no issues raised.

    If you break a law in Utah, and there's no ACLU member who cares enough about that law to sue you, is it really illegal?

    Unanswerable philosophical question. Laws are really only relevant when tested. I guess we're going to find out.
  • I'm a CUA student, and while I don't support Garvey's single-sex dorm initiative (it'll do more harm than good, IMHO), this lawsuit is ridiculous. By the professor's logic, single-sex floors or even rooms would also constitute illegal discrimination.
  • They very well may constitute discrimination under the DC law. But nobody cares enough about single-sex floors to make a legal challenge, as they have no effect on random hookups. At least no negative effect.
  • Newhce
    Banzhaf is publicity hungry buffoon
  • newaroundhere
    So very, very true.  His website is like a madlib with "Ralph Nader" thrown in for every noun.  http://banzhaf.net/

  • Newhce
    Holy crap! 

    When your website 1) uses a photo that is at least 20 years old and 2) talks about how awesome your license plate is, you may have an ego problem.

    Among the best known attorney license plates in
    the U.S. are those which belong to public interest law
    professor John Banzhaf.  They have gone through a wide
    variety of different iterations  - e.g., "Sue Bast," "Su Bastrds," etc. - which all stand for “Sue the Bastards.”
  • Over the River
    I differ with you only to say it seems like he has no problem with his ego at all.
  • standrightwalkleft
    If you want to live in single-sex dorms, why not just go to a single-sex college? Sheesh. Though as a Wellesley alum, I can vouch that all-female dorms do NOT cut down on drinking or hookups :)
  • MmmCashews
    Hold on, i think we can make a lucrative movie about this.
  • woodstockdc
    Oh, President Garvey.  Same-sex dorms only make it more entertaining to get the random hookup.  At least that's how it was at CUA in the late 1980s.
  • schmod
    Last I checked, random hookups among consenting adults were perfectly legal.
  • this is a religious school. if you dont want that or dont accept it, go to another. yeah, folks, it really is that simple. i'm a liberal, urban-dwelling democrat, but i resent any government attempts to intrude on religious freedom. i hope this goes to court, and dc gets its butt spanked (yet again), even though my tax dollars will be paying for dc's legal representation.
  • Sure, and as soon as Catholic starts paying property taxes, then they can do whatever they want, but in the meantime they're a government-funded operation and I sure don't like my tax dollars paying for someone else's morality.
  • Not only that, you will now be tested on your knowledge of it.
  • Plus, does anyone really think random hookups and drinking don't happen amongst teh gays? How dark of a cave are they in?
  • Where am I & how to leave?
    CUA will insist there are no gays at their esteemed institution.
  • Crosstown_Traffic
    Just like there are no gheys in Iran. Who knew Garvey and Ahmadinejad had so much in common?
  • ex-14thandYou
    You can't be gay if you're celibate!
  • Ollie Pooeater
    You're joking right? It's a school run by conservative Catholics. I think they call the cave St Peter's.
blog comments powered by Disqus

send a tip

tips@dcist.com
dcist official merch