The_Rambler_1969-10-31

              -uistaAiNn l i v is
j f m m m
F A m K I G O A U C
UNIVERSITY
I IIP. Gousowsri
NEWMAN CLUB
WINS BATTLE
Religious Services
Allowed on Campus
stateuniversityagriculturalandtechnical farmingdale,l.i.,n.y: s ^
CO CO
Dear Editor:
I thought you might be interested in seeing
the full statement of the Attorney General con-cerning
religious services on campuses of the
State University of New York.
Allow me at this time to e:q)ress the thanks
of all the Newman students and my own apprecia-tion
for the balanced and responsible coverage
THE RAMBLER has given to this entire issue
since it developed last year.
An official word of thanks i s also in order here
to all the students, faculty, staff, administration,
parents, and friends who rallied to the support
of last year's Newman effort.
The favorable decision we have now received
i s a great step forward for students of all re-ligious
traditions on State University campuses
in New York. The Newman Community was glad
to have been able to serve them by bringing
this question to a head. Through this decision
we see Church and State maintaining separation,
but also along the road of cooperation. It is
hoped that through this cooperation both of these
institutions can work together so that each student
may become all he is capable of being. I know
I express the hopes of all the members of the New-man
Community when I say we look forward with
eagerness to the day when students of other
religious groups will avail themselves of the
right recognized by this decision of the attorney
general.
There is a final lesson to learn in this decision.
It affords us all an opportunity to reassert our
faith in the democratic process. Here change
was brought about in a mature, responsible, non-violent
manner. Great efforts were made to
maintain an emphasis on the issue and not to
descend to personalities. This decision may or
may not have resulted from the use of less
responsible techniques. It may have taken a
little time, but, in this case public opinion, a
basic ingredient of our society, no doubt exerted
some influence on the happy outcome of this
case.
All involved deserve a commendation for a job
well done.
Sincerely yours,
(Rev.) Ronald Luka, C.M.F. Chaplain
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Amendment I;
N.Y. CONSTITUTION, Article I, #3, Article XI, #3.
Religious Services on State University campuses
- On request of students attending State University,
a college in the University may make facilities
reasonably available for religious services.
Hcmorable John C, Craxy, Jr.
Counsel, State University of New
York
Dear Mr, Crary:
This is in reply to your re-quest
for my opinion as to the e f -
fect of Federal and State Consti-tutional
provisions upon the hold-ing
of formal religious services
on the premises of any of the col-leges
of the State University.
From the information provided
in your letter, I assume that the
services would not be college
sponsored, but rather that a col-lege
would merely make its fa-cilities
available at the request
of students.
The primary issue involved in
the answer to your inquiry is the i
necessary balancing of the con-1
stitutional prohibitions against
public support of religious de-nominations
and the equal cmsti-tutionally
proteaed right of free-dom
of religion. While the State
may not support or establish re-ligion,
either financially or by
law, neither may it deny to per-sons
within its jurisdiction the
right to practice their own re-ligious
beliefs.
The balancing of these C(m-stitutional
provisions has re-sulted
in the past in opinions
ai^roving the provisim of
chapels and religious services
at certain State institutions (see,
e.g., Sostre v. McGinnis, 334
F. 2d 906 (2nd Cir., 1964), ceru
den. 379 U. S. 892; People ex
reU N. Y. League for Separa-ti(
Hi of Church and State v. Lyons,
173 Misc. 821 (Sup. Ct., Albany
County 1940) ). The theory au-thorizing
such provision has been
that the persons involved, i.e.,
prison inmates, State hospital
patients, maritime cadets aboard
ship, were confined to the par-ticular
State property invidved
and, without the provision of
religious facilities tothematthas
place, would be deprived of their
right to practice dieir religions.
To some degree, students at|
colleges of the State University
may find tiiemselves in a simi-lar
position^ Many of tlie colleges
of the University are located in
small communities where there
may not be available churdies or
synagogues of the particular re-ligious
faith of s(»ne of the stu-dents.
There may be no public
transportation available to reach
other communities within rea-scmable
travel distance and all
students do not have private
transportation available. To that
extent, by virtue of their at-tendance
at these State institu-ti(
ms, some students may be de-prived
of their r i ^ t to practice
their religions unless facilities
can reasonably be made avail-able
to them for religious serv-ices
on the property of the State
University.
While the Courts have fre-quently
disapproved any practice
of religion on public school prop-erty,
the situation there is differ-ent.
Public school students are
not resident at the schools they
attend and are within their home
communities and have their own
religious facilities available to
them there. There is no question
in those cases of the State sep-arating
them from the practice
of their religion by means of
formal services. Additionally,
the Courts have frequently point-ed
out that the First Amendment
does not require the State to be
the adversary of religion, but
rather only thf it be neutral
as regards religion (see, for ex-ample,
Everson v. Board of Edu-cation,
330 U.S. 1. 17-18(1947)).
To deny students at the State
University colleges reasonaUe
access to religious facilities
would place the State in an adver-sary
status as regards religion*
The functioning of voluntary
student religious groups on State
college campuses, in^uding the
holding of religious services.
would constitute an accommoda- ^
tion by the State of the religious '
interests and needs of a segrnepb.
of the college community by r f ^ -
dering more convenient or easy
to achieve religious expediences
and (^servances by those Who de-sire
to do so. Under ile circum-stances
it would ncf; amount td an
institution, prescriiAioa, or lend-ing
of secular authority to
religious activity, but rather
would only permit the&e activities
if the stud^s enrolled in the col-leges
desire to have them. To
make such voluntary activities
conveniently available to those
students who wish to participate
is not in any way tantamount to
prescribing particular methods
of religious or devoticmal ob-servance,
nor would there be
present any degree of compul-si(
m such as was said to have oc-curred
in McCollum v. Board of
Education (333 U. S. 203 (1948).
On the contrary, as was stated
by the Supreme Court of the
United States in Zorach v. Clau-sen
(343 U. S. 306, 315 (1951) ):
"The principle of separation
of church and state does not
preclude public institutions
from makjUig adjustments to
accommodate the religious
needs of the people.*'
Here there would be no such secu-lar
sanction of religious serv-ices,
but merely the accommoda-tion
of the college community to
the religious needs and desires
of some of its members. Indeed,
any failure to grant permission
to students to use available fa-cilities
for such purpose,in the
same way as permission is grant-ed
for other purposes might well
be regarded as a denial of equal
protection. (East Meadows Cran-munity
Association v. Board of
Education of Uni(» Free School
District No. 3, 19 N. Y. 2d 605,
18 N. Y. 2d 129, 134).
It is therefore, my opinion
that in those situations in which
students request permission to
use University facilities for the
purpose of holding religious
services, that permission may
be granted provided that thepro-visi<
m of such facilities will not
otherwise interfere with campus
administration.
LOUIS J. LEFKOWITZ