SB 1146: Massive Violation of Separation of Church and State

Save California has delivered a stunning analysis of SB 1146, legislation concocted by State Senator Ricardo Lara, which would confine, limit, then ultimately limit the the Title IX exemptions which Christian colleges claim.

They do not conform their views and values with the secular world, nor should they.

These schools have every right to engage in whatever practices they choose and should not face oppression or bullying from the federal government.

Here is Save California's analysis of a very bad bill:

SB 1146, as amended Aug. 19, still harms religious freedom.

The August 19 amendments to SB 1146 still

contain most of the problematic sections of the

bill, which continue to harm religious freedom by

giving the State unprecedented, unconstitutional,

and subjective control over religious matters.

As such, SB 1146 violates “separation of church

and state” and the religious freedom guarantees of

both the U.S. and California constitutions.

A new 8/19/16 amendment made the bill worse.

Even though current state law says a religious

organization is in control of its postsecondary

educational institution, SB 1146 now puts the

State in control -- by requiring a religious college

that is exempt under Education Code § 66271

to justify “its basis for having the exemption.”

Inserted is Section 2(a)(2), reading: “Beginning

with the 2017–18 school year, each postsecondary

educational institution in this state not described

in subdivision (a) that has an exemption pursuant

to Section 66271 shall submit to the Student Aid

Commission its basis for having the exemption.”

Yet Education Code § 66271 reads: “This chapter

shall not apply to an educational institution that is

controlled by a religious organization if the

application would not be consistent with the

religious tenets of that organization.”

Why must a church now justify its own

religious doctrines to the State? Is the

religious organization in control of its

educational institution, as Section 66271

recognizes – or is the State in control of it?

Why is the State even examining the

“religious tenets” of religious colleges?

The previous problems in SB 1146 remain and

were not removed by the latest amendments.

The amended SB 1146 continues to state:

Section 1(a): Exempt religious colleges “shall

disclose … the scope of the allowable activities

provided by the exemption.”

Indeed, these developments are deeply disturbing

What if all “allowable activities” aren’t

listed and disclosed?

Or, what if all non-“allowable activities”

aren’t listed and disclosed?

How would the State objectively judge

whether “the scope of allowable activities”

listed by religious colleges means some –

or means all – of these religious colleges’

“allowable” or non-“allowable” activities?

What if a religious college disciplined a

student for violating a religious standard

that was not mentioned in the scope-ofactivities-list

provided to the State?

SB 1146’s mandate upon religious colleges –

“shall disclose ... the scope of allowable

activities provided by the exemption” –

creates a dangerous new government power to

subjectively inspect, judge, and enforce

compliance of religious colleges as to what is

“allowable” or not “allowable” on campus.

The amended SB 1146 continues to state:

Section 1(b)(1-4): “The disclosure required ...

shall be made in all of the following ways ... a

prominent location of the campus or school site ...

in written materials sent to prospective students ...

as part of orientation programs ... provided to

each faculty member … administrative staff …

support staff … each new employee…”

What if the disclosure isn’t satisfactorily

posted, presented, or delivered in the eyes

of the State?

So, what is going on?

Indeed, this is a good point to bring up ...

What if the disclosure isn’t viewed by the

State as being complete or accurate?

What mechanism is there to verify receipt,

so as to avoid future non-receipt claims?

The amended bill’s requirement that exempt

religious colleges “shall” post and distribute

their religious standards will be enforced by

the State’s subjective interpretations, due to

the bill’s vagueness. This sets up religious

colleges for inspections, complaints, and even

lawsuits claiming the information was never

provided (the bill has no receipt mechanism).

The amended SB 1146 continues to state:

Section 1(b)(5): “The disclosure shall be included

in any publication of the institution that sets forth

the comprehensive rules, regulations, procedures,

and standards of conduct for the institution.”

What if the “the scope of allowable

activities” in the disclosure is

unsatisfactory in substance, format, or

completeness in the eyes of the State?

Will there be inspections, search warrants,

or lawsuits to compel “proper” publishing?

The bill’s mandate that these religious colleges

publish their moral codes in “any publication” on

the topic invites State inspections, search

warrants, or lawsuits. Will the State compel

“proper” publishing if the Student Aid

Commission or California Attorney General isn’t

satisfied with a religious college’s “compliance”?

The amended SB 1146 continues to state:

Section 2(a): Exempt religious colleges “shall

submit to the Student Aid Commission copies of

all materials submitted to, and received from, a

state or federal agency concerning the granting of

the exemption.”

Why is the State requiring more than the

U.S. government’s letter granting a

religious exemption to Title IX? For

example, the State routinely recognizes

IRS letters granting tax-exemption to nonprofit

organizations. Why the requirement

to also submit “all” of the application

materials submitted by a religious college

that already has a Title IX exemption?

What if the State suspects not “all”

materials have been provided to it by

religious colleges claiming a federal or

state exemption? What kind of inspections,

search warrants, or lawsuits could occur?

The bill’s mandate that exempt religious

colleges provide to the State “all” their

application papers for an already-established

exemption makes the State a judge of the

quality and validity of religious exemptions. It

puts the State into the role of an investigator

and enforcer on religious matters.

The amended SB 1146 continues to state:

Section 2(b): “The Student Aid Commission shall

collect the information received pursuant to

subdivision (a) and post and maintain a list on the

commission’s Internet Web site of the institutions

that have claimed the exemption with their

respective bases for claiming or having the

exemption.”

Why should the State be elevated to a

position of judging the moral policies of

religious colleges, which, under SB 1146,

must try to justify “their respective bases

for claiming or having the exemption”?

On the state website, will exempt colleges

be labeled negatively or disparaged?

By requiring religious institutions to justify their

exemption, the State makes itself a judge of the

religious doctrines/ beliefs/practices of religious

colleges, which, under SB 1146, must attempt to

justify to the State “their respective bases for

claiming the exemption.” This subjective mandate

creates an official State prejudice against exempt

colleges, and in regard to Title IX exemptions,

has the State acting as if state law were supreme

to federal law. As written, SB 1146 clearly

violates “separation of church and state.”

Final Reflection and Update

After the August 19th hearing, a key provision had to be removed from the bill.

The state of California cannot force any institution to release the records of expelled students.

That is violation of federal privacy laws.

The bill is not dead yet, and the fight is not over.

Call your state senator, and demand that they vote NO! on SB 1146!