Court Smokes Right Stuff on “Religious” v. “Secular”

This is my third, and for the moment final post on some views expressed at

the Human Resources and Mission: Discussion Blog for Catholic Colleges and Universities.

It is very long, and not so entertaining, here and there, and I have decided to give you a take-home assignment on it, so don't worry. 

Today’s topic involves a recent Supreme Court Case—Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church And School, Petitioner,
V.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Et Al. That link is to the shorter "syllabus," and the full case can be found here. 

One of hr-forum-ccu.blogspot.com/’s creators, the Rev. Craig B. Mousin*, is encouraged by this decision to think that there are new possibilities flowing from it that will allow religious colleges and universities to better follow both civil and religious “laws,” mainly by offering foreign ministers employment opportunities in the United States, without government interference, on the basis of what is known as the “ministerial exception.”

My view of the same case is that the language used by the Supreme Court in deciding it should be very encouraging to adjunct and contingent faculty at Catholic colleges and universities—and at other religious schools—as they undertake to improve their currently unacceptable working conditions.

I take a broader view. This is, clearly, an interesting moment for Catholic colleges and universities, and for adjunct and contingent faculty, because three Catholic schools are currently contesting three decisions by the National Labor Relations Board to recognize as legitimate attempts by part-time adjunct faculty to organize unions.

Now, by the way, before I forget, also have a look at yesterday's Motley Monk post, which has a view that should be considered: I don't agree with this particular post, but it's interesting. 

Now though, my main idea is this: I think Hosanna-Taber has a direct bearing on legal thinking in such matters.

What’s the right thing to do? What does the secular law demand or tolerate? How do these things mesh with “religious freedom,” including the “ministerial exception” and other exemptions connected to First Amendment guarantees?

But, let's see. To the case itself. 

The Case: The “Called Teacher” and the Ministerial Exception

Cheryl Perich, a “Called Teacher,” with a “Diploma of Vocation” carrying the status of “commissioned minister” in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, taught various grades at the Hoassana-Tabor Evangelical Church School, including math, language arts, social studies, science, gym, art, and music. She also taught a religion class, through 2004, and also led prayer and devotional services for students, daily. She even sometimes led the weekly school-wide chapel service.

Perich, beginning in June 2004 to suffer symptoms diagnosed as narcolepsy, asked for and received disability leave for a short period, and then asked at the beginning of 2005 to be reinstated in her job. She found that the school had contracted a “lay teacher” to fill the position, and also that the school was concerned about her illness and how it might affect her ability to teach.

Unwilling to resign, Perich protested that she was, or soon would be, capable of work, but she was fired. She then sued the school, with the help of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and alleged violations of her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Hosanna-Tabor countered, with a claim for the "ministerial exception," which concerns employment matters between ministers and religious institutions, allowing the latter almost complete liberty in regard to employment disputes.

The school asked for a summary dismissal.

The District Court, seeing that the “ministerial exception” indeed appeared appropriate—Perich was, after all, a “Called Teacher” and a leader of religious services—granted a summary judgment in favor of the school.

EEOC appealed, to Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and that court quickly sent it back to the district, asking the lower court to look again at the merit’s of Perich’s claims, and giving its opinion that Perich wasn’t really a  "minister" under the “exception,” because her duties as a “called teacher” were just too much like her duties as a “lay teacher.”

The Supreme Court, on getting Hosanna-Tabor’s appeal of this decision, was then faced with the same challenge as the lower courts: was Perich a “minister” or not?

This means that the highest court in the land had to make some kind of decision as to what was and what wasn’t “religious.”

Justice Roberts Reviews the Ministerial Exception

The decision, to accept the “ministerial exception” claimed by Hosanna-Tabor, was unanimous, and the decision was written mainly by Chief Justice Roberts, with two concurring but clarifying/stipulating comments being offered by 1) Justice Thomas and 2) Justice Alito, with Justice Kagan.

Justice Roberts made clear what the main point was, early on:

Since the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . . . the Courts of Appeals have uniformly recognized the existence of a "ministerial exception," grounded in the First Amendment, that precludes application of such legislation to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers.

Roberts also rejected one argument, from EEOC and Perich, involving members of the Native American Church who had been denied state benefits after being fired for drug violations involving the drug peyote, which is a NAC sacrament. Insofar as the Supreme Court had upheld this treatment of the NAC members, the logic of the argument was simple enough: the court had itself affirmed the supremacy of Federal law in at least one case of “religious” expression. 

The Chief Justice, though, defended the state’s right to deny benefits to the NAR members. Even though the peyote may well have been “ingested for sacramental purpose,” he wrote, the right of free speech, in this case meaning the right to a “religious exemption” does not

. . . relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).

And now, back to the Ministerial Exception,” and who qualifies. As Roberts saw it, the lower courts have never limited the category of “minister” to, for instance, the “head of a religious congregation,” and he was “reluctant,” furthermore, “to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister.”

A "rigid formula" was not necessary, however, in the present case, and he easily found Perich to be a “minister.” 

This clearly required, if not a rigid formula, that he somehow make a distinction between “religious” and “secular” functions, which he easily did, as follows:

1) The Hosanna-Tabor School itself categorized Perich as a “minister,” someone who held a "diploma of vocation," and gave her the title "Minister of Religion, Commissioned."

2) Perich herself accepted that she was a “minister of the Church” by accepting her religious titles, teaching religious lessons to students, taking part in and even leading religious services, and even claiming a specific housing allowance on her taxes, available only to ministerial employees

According to Roberts, furthermore, the 6^th Appeals Court had muddied the waters by, for instance, giving “ too much weight to the fact that lay teachers at the school often performed the same religious duties as Perich,” and by placing “too much emphasis on Perich's performance of secular duties.”

Roberts also considered the amount of time Perich devoted to either “religious” or “secular” tasks.

It is true that her religious duties consumed only 45 minutes of each workday, and that the rest of her day was devoted to teaching secular subjects.

However, this had no bearing on Perich’s status as a “minister,” and this seems to be the thrust of Roberts’ argument. That status was unchallenged, and Perich’s firing was protected, after all, by the “ministerial exception.”

It is the status of the person, as a “minister” or not, which is at issue, it seems, and indeed, Roberts wrote that “a purely secular teacher would not qualify for the "ministerial" exception.” Apparently, anyone who is a “minister” in Federal employment law is a such a "minister" without regard to whatever or however much he or she also performs "secular" functions.  

Roberts therefore held the opinion that Perich, being clearly a “minister,” was not within her rights to pursue a suit against the employers who took her on as a “minister.” In conclusion, the Chief Justice also pointed to what he saw as the legal limits of the decision:

Today we hold only that the ministerial exception bars such a suit. We express no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits, including actions by employees alleging breach of contract or tortious conduct by their religious employers. There will be time enough to address the applicability of the exception to other circumstances if and when they arise.

Thomas, Alito, and Kagan: Notes on the meaning of “Minister”

Now, to the two concurring but clarifying and/or stipulating opinions:

1) Justice Thomas added that:

…a religious organization's right to choose its ministers would be hollow, however, if secular courts could second-guess the organization's sincere determination that a given employee is a "minister" under the organization's theological tenets.

Justice Thomas also wrote that “the question whether an employee is a minister is itself religious in nature,” and worried that any “civil definition of "minister" might cross the line.

Nevertheless:

The Court thoroughly sets forth the facts that lead to its conclusion that Cheryl Perich was one of Hosanna-Tabor's ministers, and I agree that these facts amply demonstrate Perich's ministerial role. But the evidence demonstrates that Hosanna-Tabor sincerely considered Perich a minister. That would be sufficient for me to conclude that Perich's suit is properly barred by the ministerial exception.

2) Justice Alito, with Justice Kagan concurring, added this comment:

…to clarify my understanding of the significance of formal ordination and designation as a "minister" in determining whether an "employee" of a religious group falls within the so-called "ministerial" exception.

Since, for instance, the term “minister” has traditional Protestant connotations, the court should make plain that the religious complexity of the country demands that the “ministerial exception” apply to all types of religious “employees.”  Therefore:

The "ministerial" exception…should apply to any "employee" who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith. If a religious group believes that the ability of such an employee to perform these key functions has been compromised, then the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom protects the group's right to remove the employee from his or her position.

Religious autonomy means that religious authorities must be free to determine who is qualified to serve in positions of substantial religious importance. Different religions will have different views on exactly what qualifies as an important religious position, but it is nonetheless possible to identify a general category of "employees" whose functions are essential to the independence of practically all religious groups. These include those who serve in positions of leadership, those who perform important functions in worship services and in the performance of religious ceremonies and rituals, and those who are entrusted with teaching and conveying the tenets of the faith to the next generation.

A Wonderful Opportunity for Mission and Values

Rev. Craig B. Mousin, in his essay on this case, “The Messenger Matters,” holds that the decision “provided a wonderful opportunity to merge the biblical message and Catholic Social Teaching with mission and values in employment decisions,” and, while I don’t contest this, I do think it is a very incomplete view of its importance.

In his analysis, Rev. Mousin focuses on an EEOC-Perich argument, not exhaustively settled by the court, but not persuasive to it either, that an unlimited “ministerial exception” would permit employers to hire undocumented persons without following the employer sanctions provisions of the immigration laws. 

Such a limitation on the ministerial exception would set up a “conflict between the law and the Christian religious tradition," according to Rev. Mousin, because Christianity by default favors the “immigrant, the sojourner, the stranger, the other.”

Laws that prohibit hiring of the foreigner or one not designated by the national government as authorized to work under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) stand in stark contrast to such biblical understandings of ourselves and the immigrant, and in effect, deny the faith organization’s ability to discern whether the one it seeks to call for leadership is that divine messenger.

The court’s decision in the Hosanna-Tabor case, then, means that “the ministerial exception might allow organizations to hire undocumented persons in ministerial positions.”  This is the “wonderful opportunity” with which Rev. Mousin begins. 

Imagine university ministers who have fled their homelands seeking safety and peace in the United States teaching the Joseph story of freedom from slavery to leadership positions. Imagine undocumented persons who have traveled from Central America crossing deserts and suffering hardship leading a Bible study on the Exodus for university students. Imagine a university minister preaching the story of Joseph, Mary and Jesus fleeing the sovereign’s violence after Jesus’ birth, when that very minister, forced into exile by state-sponsored violence, sought liberty and shelter within the United States.

Well, I am perfectly happy to imagine all that sort of thing, though I also wonder: surely some goodly percent of these suffering people should also qualify for political asylum, no? Without any reference at all to the “ministerial exception.”

But Rev. Mousin asks “Why not seize this opportunity to seek ways to ameliorate the process [of legal immigration]  within the legal parameters?”

Again, ok, go for it.

My question, though, is this: why not seek to ameliorate the working conditions of adjuncts and contingents at religious colleges and universities, something that doesn’t require a Supreme Court decision, something that’s certainly perfectly legal, and something that comports very nicely with this and that “biblical message,” and certainly with Catholic Social Teaching.

And this is where, I think, the Court’s language in Hosanna-Tabor may be very helpful to the adjunct-contingent cause.  And I am encouraged to think so even more, by the way, by the tone of a David Skeel column in the Wall Street Journal, wherein he seems terribly upset by what he styles the adoption of the “stingiest plausible interpretation of the Constitution's protections for religion.”

What can he mean? I think I know, and it gladdens my heart.

The Supreme Court knows the difference between “religious” and “secular.”

Some of them may pretend, in legal cases to come, that they don’t, but certainly in the Hosanna-Tabor case, the Supreme Court appeared to have no difficulty whatsoever making a distinction between the two spheres.

Recall, for instance, Justice Roberts firm view that “a valid and neutral law of general applicability” can trump a “religious” claim. In fact, I was sorry to see the Native American Church dealt with in this specific matter, just as I was sorry to read that “Called Minister” Perich could not find a solution to her specific personal difficulties in a “legal” manner.

On the other hand, I mean, hey-put that in your pipe and smoke it: the whole court can tell the difference between a valid and neutral law of general applicability, and one that imposes an unconstitutional intrusion into “religious” matters.

That sort of thing should be good for adjuncts and contingents, I think, who can now point to Justice Robert’s view that “a purely secular teacher would not qualify for the "ministerial" exception,” and then ask this: well, should purely secular faculty be prevented from seeking better working conditions on the basis of unspecified “religious” exemptions claimed by the employer?

Perhaps Justice Thomas’ comment can illuminate this point. Remember he seemed anxious on the point of who is and who is not a “minister,” writing that the question in his mind “is itself religious in nature.” By his argument, the evidence showed that “Hosanna-Tabor sincerely considered Perich a minister,” and that “ would be sufficient for me to conclude that Perich's suit is properly barred by the ministerial exception.”

So, what, exactly, else, would be sufficient for Justice Thomas here? To have a religious group claim to sincerely believe that the janitor is a minister? That an adjunct professor of political science is a minister?

But even Justice Thomas seems to understand that it’s absolutely crucial, in a “religious” case, to make some judgment about what is and what isn’t “religious.”

He doesn’t want to, but he has to, and he even writes that “The Court thoroughly sets forth the facts that lead to its conclusion that Cheryl Perich was one of Hosanna-Tabor's ministers.”

And the Allito/Kagan opinion? It basically gives us a perfectly serviceable approach to “civil” definitions in religious cases, holding that the ministerial exception must apply to any employee who “conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith.”

Rejoice, overwhelmingly non-ministerial adjunct and contingent faculty at “religious” colleges and universities! The Alito/Kagan language pretty clearly defines a category of which you are certainly not a member:

a general category of "employees" whose functions are essential to the independence of practically all religious  . .  those who serve in positions of leadership, those who perform important functions in worship services and in the performance of religious ceremonies and rituals, and those who are entrusted with teaching and conveying the tenets of the faith to the next generation.

This court, at least in this decision, is not having any trouble figuring out the difficulty between religious and secular functions. This is in spite of Justice Roberts' distaste for a ‘rigid formula” and in spite of Justice Thomas’s fear of a “civil definition.”

They can figure it out. And they have. 

The Court's decisions in future, I hope, will 1) allow employees of religious colleges and universities to do whatever they can legally do by way of demanding improved working conditions while 2) doing nothing at all, unless you need peyote in your sacraments, to interfere with religious practice—including the implementation of your own clearly stated religious obligations to repair damage caused by unjust and inequitable practices.

* Rev. Craig B. Mousin, is University Ombudsperson at the nation’s largest Catholic University, DePaul University (since 2001), and is also, interestingly, an ordained minister of the United Church of Christ.

Human Resources, Divine Imperatives?

The remarkable fact that some Catholic officials are criticizing attempts to unionize exploited adjunct/contingent higher education faculty, on “religious” grounds, invites ridicule, or worse. One recent Catholic poster even called it “sleazy.”

Why? Because the anti-unionization push is coming from a church that, in its own Catholic social teachings, has been on record for decades as being on the side of the worker and in favor of workers’ rights to organize.

And so, today, I want to look at some recent posts on Human Resources and Mission: Discussion Blog for Catholic Colleges and Universities, in order to see how the “Catholic Social Teaching” deck might get shuffled and dealt in the real world.

But please don’t miss my “heart”-felt gratitude to St. Anselm College, for their celebration of the importance of faculty—I’m not just looking to criticize religiously affiliated schools. I mean, credit where credit is due.

Now, I’ve chosen three posts, two obviously connected to adjunct/contingent faculty problems, and one not. I am thinking about “religious exemptions,” and when or whether or not they are claimed. And also about  church-approved-and-administered policies, and whether or not these seem to be in line with established teaching.

From a most interesting site, this picture. It'll tell you all about various "Doctors of the Church."

I’ll consider one post each day—today, tomorrow, and Wednesday. Here’s the first. It’s from 2010, but it concerns both adcons and healthcare, and many of us have been thinking about the connection, so it seems pretty fresh baked.

I. Opportunities for Part-time Staff and Adjunct Faculty Created by Healthcare Reform

That’s the title of the post, authored by Gary L. Miller, of the Office of Human Resources at DePaul University, who is one of the two people who administer the hr-forum-ccu.blogspot site.

Mr. Miller begins with a quote from Sister Carol Keehan, President and CEO of the Catholic Health Association of the United States, who wrote in Summer of 2009—wow, really thinking ahead!—that:

Catholic employers in particular should support a reformed [healthcare] system not only because of the economic consequences but because of the social justice implications.

And also:

[But, does the new act] fully resolve the health insurance access issues for part-time staff and adjunct faculty or must more be done? More must be done.

Time out for some history: Sister Carol is one powerful sister, and she’s not always just totally thinking like some of her brothers over at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. On health care specifically, there’s some good and fairly recent reporting in the National Catholic Register.

Back to Miller’s post—read it all for the details, but, essentially, one reads about several proposals to cover part-timers, and the burdens thereof, on employees and institutions, and one particular solution is found such that “the university would have a plan for those part-timers who need it.”

And why should the university do so? Again, have a look at the whole post to see the details, but basically the idea—Miller’s— is that the university has a moral obligation to do so:

…. the new healthcare law envisions the federal government, state governments, insurers and large employers (those with more than 50 employees) all working together to achieve the important goal of near-universal medical coverage, a goal that serves the common good of the entire country. Because we know the government isn’t going to be helping these part-timers who fall in this gap, their access to health insurance becomes the responsibility of employers.

So, there you have it: 1) no reference to a religious exemption, 2) a clear connection made to a moral imperative flowing from a specific body of religious teachings, and 3) a plan to achieve goals in line with #2.

There also seems to be an equivalence between a secular drive for “the common good” and a religious drive for the same thing, so that there is no secular/religious clash at all.

Wouldn’t this be a simpler world if we saw that sort of thing more often? But don’t get all excited. At least one of the commenters saw what I saw, and didn’t like it much:

Catholic Social Teaching would take a more nuanced view of the common good….The subsequent debate in Congress after the passage of the 2010 health care provisions would suggest that the goal of universal coverage does not comport with all parties understanding of the common good. How will Catholic institutions respond?

But that’s not really the question. The real question, in many of these areas, certainly including the current and apparently accelerating campaign by adjuncts to improve their working conditions at Catholic schools, is this;

How will the various factions of politically and socially active Catholics respond, and which bunch will prevail?

Tomorrow? “Organization Justice” in Catholic colleges and universities. How does that work, or does it?

Catholics Protest Sleazy Catholic Higher Education

Criticizing Catholic higher education leadership for an aggressive campaign against attempts by exploited faculty to unionize is like shooting fish in a barrel. 

Here, see what I mean:

Another scandalous event that occurred during this "Fortnight for Freedom" was Duquesne University joining the sleazy ranks of Catholic higher education institutions who have attempted to claim religious exemption from the National Labor Relations Board in order to avoid a union.

Easy, right? And if you’re not Catholic yourself, you don’t have to be the one who uses hurtful words like “sleazy,” because you can just quote from actual Catholic sources, like Iglesia Descalza, a Voice from the Margins of the Catholic Church. 

What, you’re going to object to voices from the “margins”? So how about this, from Father Geoff Farrow:

Apply Catholic social teaching to Diocesan employment (wage/benefit) practices AND then perhaps, they will have the moral authority to address general social issues. They would certainly look far less ridiculous to their clergy and the faithful.

Ok, I hear objections again. Father Geoff’s a priest, granted, and a suspended one, and he's one of those anti-war types, a progressive. Wants the Church to back off on some of the gay stuff, and the contraception stuff, and so-forth. So try this, from America Magazine—published by the Jesuits, no less!

Where the Catholic hospitals are seeking an exemption from the mandate so they can honor Catholic teaching on contraception, the universities seem to be seeking an exemption from the National Labor Relations Act so that they can violate Catholic teaching on labor.

What do you want? Beautiful, right? Case closed. 

It’s a little unfair, I realize, given that the Church is all centralized, and everything’s all written down, so the hypocrisy hunt is easy. 

And that’s not so, at least always, for secular colleges and universities. 

They're awful too, but not always so obvious: some of their mission statements, though, I tell you, are ripe for the picking. But they'll have to wait their turn. 

Right now, I am picking on the Catholic higher ed hierarchy, and I just hope they appreciate it. One way or another, they really are providing moral guidance.

And next time, I will have a look at some recent posts on Human Resources and Mission: Discussion Blog for Catholic Colleges and Universities. There seem to be a number of ways that the “Catholic Social Teaching” deck can be shuffled and dealt.

The Tip of the Iceberg

I just read the opinion of a very nice man, Associate Professor Matthew Schneirov of the Duquesne University Sociology Department, who believes that "the adjunct issue may be the tip of the iceberg."

I think there are more than 7000 tips of icebergs to be found just today! This one if from folks who think a lot about lucid dreaming.                                 When they're awake, of course. 

But then I thought: No! That can't be right! 

I mean, shouldn't the adcon issue be the bigger part of the iceberg, since there's so many of us?

So now I am all confused, and my herbalist recommends that I take a couple days off, which is ok, but the rest of you should have a look here to figure out more about this iceberg problem. 

What Kind of a Deal is Duquesne v. NLRB?

"Not only did they make a deal with us and go back on it, but they are disregarding their own canon law." That’s Dan Kovalik, who is the attorney for the proposed adjunct union at Duquesne, quoted in today’s Pittsburgh City Paper,

I like that, but if you have a look at the documents posted by Duquesne University, in regard to the Church hierarchy’s challenge to a National Labor Relations Board finding that the proposed union is kosher, so to speak, you’ll find that not everybody is on board.

For instance, right near the top of the amicus brief filed by a troika of high powered Church outfits*, we find this: “the arguments set forth in this Brief are about the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”), not the natural rights of employees.”

They go on to say something about what Brother Kovalik was highlighting, but it’s not what we really have in mind: “The Catholic Church has long supported the moral right of workers to organize and bargain collectively  [but] under the First Amendment, Catholic colleges and universities must have the freedom to pursue those goals without excessive government entanglement.”

So that’s not natural law they’re talking about—or canon law either. Just the regular stuff for the rest of us, and for those who need it when they decide they want it.                                            

As, for instance, when the Amici get around to one of their favorite secularisms, a definition of “religious” that, if applied to a school, is found by some courts to come with a “Get out of NLRB Free” card. This is the famous “bright line” test we will be hearing much more about in coming months.

A real three headed pest of a test, devised in the course of a hearing in 2001-02 by the Ist Circuit Court (D.C.), in University of Great Falls v. National Labor Relations Board, it holds that the board can not claim jurisdiction over an institution that:

(1) “holds itself out to the public as

a religious institution”;

(2) “is non-profit”; and

(3) “is religiously affiliated.”

Well, we’ll see, of course, There is a lot of good stuff to draw on, if you like that sort of thing. You know, for the idea that government should take a hands-off approach to religion without, on the other hand, having any right to take part in defining what “religious” means in the first place.

Our stout Amici?  They eat it right up, gleefully concluding that “by its very nature,” almost any kind of government inquiry into the nature of religion “invites government officials to substitute their judgment about an institution’s “religious character” for the judgment of the institution and its religious community.”

I write almost any kind of inquiry, because government is apparently allowed to ask, “by the way, are your religious?” And then accept, without comment, whatever the answer may be.

Or so it seems.

Before concluding, however, I do want to point out that the three Amici are not limited, in their reliance on the “bright line” test, to only those cases when they wish to avoid a meddlesome government. They waggle the same weapon when catching the sniff of something tasty, something not at all to be avoided, something eagerly desired. 

Thus, consider the case pitting Colorado Christian University against the State of Colorado (2008), which had been so bold as to inquire about CCU’s religious character in determining whether or not students there were eligible to receive publically funded scholarships.

Wouldn’t these little subsidized cream puffs entangle our pals in the terrible volutuousities of this world?

Oh piffle, don’t be so sensitive. Gladden up, as our three jolly Amici do when quoting, from CCU v. Colorado, the 10^th Circuit Court’s opinion that the state’s inquiries into where public monies go, “were impermissible under the First Amendment,” and very likely to “embroil the government in line-drawing and second-guessing regarding matters about which it has neither competence nor legitimacy.”

But, at least, where the Church is involved, there are at least clear moral principles available, and for that, let us all be thankful, and work for the best.

 * Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, the Lasallian Association of College and University Presidents, and the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities.

Duquesne President "Unaware of Discontent"

Update: today, as many of you know, this matter appears in the New York Times, which is always nice, and you don't want to miss, either, Duquesne's President Dougherty explaining that until recently they had been "unaware of any general discontent among part-time faculty."  And, be sure to look as well in thePittsburgh Post-Gazette, for histrionic reaction by Patrick J. Reilly of the Cardinal Newman Society, and for some wonderful comments as well.

Duquesne, St. Xavier, Manhattan College—Anybody Else?—and the NLRB

The recent success of adjunct organizers at Duquesne University was a welcome sign, not only because it showed that there is new energy in the movement to improve working conditions for the nation’s majority higher education faculty, but also because, initially, Duquesne indicated that it would not object to this on religious grounds.

(photo from this very thoughtful site)

According to Inside Higher Education, spokeswoman Bridget Fare noted that Duquesne works with other unions, “intends do the same” with the proposed adjunct union, and that “we’ll be letting the NLRB process take its course and proceed accordingly.”

Had Dusquesne stuck to this original intention, it would have been, if not a blow, at least no comfort, to legal teams working on behalf of St. Xavier College and Manhattan College, two Catholic colleges which have also recently been approved by NLRB for adjunct collective bargaining.

Instead, and very quickly, Duquesne made a formal objection to the National Labor Relations Board, which Ms. Fare then explained as something that the university, “founded and owned by the Congregation of the Holy Spirit, has concluded … was necessary."

Now, of course, NLRB has rejected Duquesne’s request—that the election be halted—and this means (assuming that the adjuncts do vote for a new union, which seems assured) that Duquesne will soon, like Manhattan and St. Xavier, be appealing the NLRB decision.

They will be strongly supported by the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, the Lasallian Association of College and University Presidents, and the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities.

Clearly, adjunct and contingent faculty will be watching carefully as this unfolds, and I am sure that in coming months we will all of us become familiar, if we aren’t already, with such cases as NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago (1979), which concerned K-12 parochial schools, but which gets harkened back to regularly, and also Universidad Central de Bayamon v. NLRB (1986).

It was during the course of this latter that a “three part test” of the religious character of a school, which will allow it to avoid NLRB jurisdiction, was formulated by now-Justice Steven Breyer, then of the 1^st Circuit Court of Appeals.

How do you know the place is “religious” in a substantial way?

First, it “holds itself out to students, faculty and community’ as providing a

religious educational environment.”

Second, it “is organized as a nonprofit.”

Third, it is “affiliated with, or owned, operated, or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a recognized religious organization, or with an entity, membership of which is determined, at least in part, with reference to religion.”

Now, Duquesne is organized as a non-profit, and the rest of it—judge for yourself—seems tightly fitted to their probable arguments, at least judging by their mission statement:

Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit is a Catholic University, founded by members of the Congregation of the Holy Spirit, the Spiritans, and sustained through a partnership of laity and religious. Duquesne serves God by serving students - through commitment to excellence in liberal and professional education, through profound concern for moral and spiritual values, through the maintenance of an ecumenical atmosphere open to diversity, and through service to the Church, the community, the nation, and the world.

Ok, so that’s that, except for a couple of things. One, obviously, is that the 3-part test seems ripe for a serious challenge. Isn’t it a bit broad?

Of course, the argument for Duquesne, and Manhattan, and St. Xavier, is likely to be that it is a crucial defense against what the founder and president of The Cardinal Newman Society, Patrick J. Reilly, calls “The NLRB’s Assault on Religious Liberty.”

Oh dear.

Really, can anything that the institution itself claims as religiously based be used to avoid NLRB? Are people who are associated with “recognized” religious institutions or “entities” always, no matter what in the world they are doing, acting in their protected religious capacity?

Those sorts of questions seem promising to me.

Also, at least in Duquesne’s case, the secular and the religious seem like part of a rather flexible wardrobe, with the one being slipped off and the other on whenever it seems like a good idea.

Indeed, in 1982, when Duquesne fought against a union for full-time faculty, the university discarded any type of religious argument and relied, successfully, on the 1980 NLRB v. Yeshiva University finding. That argument, we all know, involved a place with religious connections, for heaven’s sake, but didn’t rely on these for its entirely secular conclusion that full-timers were “managerial” and should be barred from collective bargaining.

It'd be fun if they did a similar switch now, wouldn't it? And argue that the adjuncts are managerial"? Well, they're not running the place, of course, but they are keeping it running—maybe "semi-managerial"?

Oh, it’s just the beginning, isn’t it? I hope in fact, that movements from within the church itself will begin to push things in a new direction, and it’s certainly easy to locate some support there, in Catholic social teaching generally, in Catholic doctrine connected to labor specifically, and in the ethical language that is so prominently featured in the chartering documents and mission statements of Catholic Colleges and Universities.

That’s something I will post on shortly.