Monthly Archives: March 2017

God in Captivity: A talk with Professor Tanya Erzen

On Monday, March 27th, 2017, the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project hosted Tanya Erzen to speak as part of a series of lunchtime lectures on Law, Rights, and Religion at Columbia Law School. Tanya Erzen is the Executive Director of the Freedom Education Project of Puget Sound, and Associate Research Professor of Religion and Gender Studies at the University of Puget Sound; her work focuses on intersections of religion and faith in American politics and popular culture, with a focus on religion and conservatism in U.S. carceral systems. The Public Rights/Private Conscience Project engaged Professor Erzen in discussion on her recently published book from Beacon Press, God in Captivity: The Rise of Faith-Based Ministries in the Age of Mass Incarceration[1]. Following the program, Kira Shepherd, Associate Director of the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project’s Racial Justice Program conducted a brief interview with Professor Erzen on the experiences that inspired her to write God in Captivity, the history of faith-based prison ministries in the United States, and the social and political implications of the prison industrial complex’s partnerships with faith-based prison ministries.

Watch the video of this talk here, and read the full transcript of Kira’s discussion with Professor Erzen, below.

Kira Shepherd:

Hi, Thanks for joining us today at the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project. Today we had a talk with Tanya Erzen, who talked about her book, God in Captivity: The Rise of Faith Based Ministries in the Age of Mass Incarceration. Can you tell me what drove you to write the book, and can you tell me a little more about what the book is about?

Tanya Erzen:

I actually lived in New York for quite some time and I taught – I was at Barnard when I had my Post-Doc., and at that time I taught in a women’s prison on the West Side Highway called Bayview[2], and I think that what struck me, being there, was that so often the groups that you saw coming in besides family members and loved ones were faith-based groups in such high numbers. Around that time, the same person who got me interested in teaching sent me a news article – it was about 2003 – that said that Florida had actually transformed all of their state prisons to faith-based character institutions[3]: this idea that rehabilitation would happen through some kind of relationship to a faith-based group or a religious tradition.

And what was interesting is that for so many years when you talked to people in prison, especially administration, but in the general public if you said, “A person in prison became religious” it was treated or met with a lot of skepticism – it was almost considered the ultimate con, right? “Everybody gets religion in prison”… and there was a real shift in that suddenly prison administrations were touting faith-based ministry and faith-based groups as the most effective form of rehabilitation and reform for the individual. It really comes out of my teaching college in a prison, and running the college program, and also really thinking about how we use the idea of transformation through education, and that’s the same language that faith-based groups use. What happens on the ground that’s different between education groups and faith-based groups, and how are they distinct – that’s a question I’ve been trying to consider.

Kira Shepherd:

In the book you talk about how there was a policy shift that led to the rise of faith-based ministries: Can you tell me a bit more about that shift – when it happened, and why it happened?

Tanya Erzen:

Sure. Really, I mean, it starts in the 1970s. Chuck Holston, who was an aide to Nixon and went to prison for Watergate-related crimes came out of prison as a born-again Christian, wrote a book about it, and founded Prison Fellowship Ministry, which is the largest faith-based prison ministry group in the country, and they’re all over: both running entire wings of prisons and operating programs that are based on becoming born-again as an evangelical as a part of being rehabilitated. It is a time when the prison population is increasing at a dramatic rate and a lot of states are cutting budgets, because they can’t pay for services. So at the same time you have the rise of non-denominational conservative Christianity eclipsing mainstream main-line Protestantism as their congregations are dying, and a lot of these groups are set up to have small groups that go and do work in different sectors, and so there’s this whole corps of volunteers who could come in. And then also, policy-wise, more recently in the late 90s and 2000s, you have people who knew Chuck Holston and Pat Nolan and who work with Prison Fellowship Ministry, they’re lobbying Republicans around this idea that they have to address criminal justice reform as an issue of public safety and fiscal responsibility. So for the first time, instead of people being, you know, tough on crime, they’ve shifted the discourse to being “smart” on crime or “right” on crime. And that you have conservatives looking to dismantle or to reform prisons and to institute criminal justice reforms whether through better parole systems, different sentences for people who commit non-violent crimes, working to end sentences for juveniles and so forth in collaboration with more progressive groups like the ACLU, but the rationale for them is always sort of different and it has really transformed the landscape of criminal justice reform around the country and you have big donors like the Koch brothers who are funding conferences on criminal justice reform and trying to assert changes; that movement really emerges from the work of evangelical ministries, and evangelical ministries support the rationale of that conservative agenda because they’re doing the work of the state, but they are doing it as volunteers through – and in – a privatized manner: So if you see the prison as this over-bloated bureaucracy that sucks too much money, faith-based groups are the ideal solution, because they come in and they argue that they can do this more effectively and at a cheaper cost.

Kira Shepherd:

Can you talk about the impact that these ministries have on LGBTQ communities in prison?

Tanya Erzen:

I would say the impact is incredibly negative. There aren’t a lot of support groups to begin with for the LGBT men and women in prison and often, those groups, people are very marginalized. Because of laws like PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act) [4], prisons have become really obsessed, legally, with questions of boundaries and any kind of reporting around gender. I think what that has done also has sort of squashed the possibility of certain people being out about their sexuality and meeting, but a lot of faith-based ministries have very socially conservative principles and theologically conservative principles in which they don’t see being gay as a legitimate way of being. So if you are a self-identified gay person, a gay man, or a lesbian or a trans person, you aren’t allowed to participate in ministries in many ways, and as I mentioned in my talk[5] they have formed ex-gay ministries to try to convert people from gay to straight, as fraught and as complicated as that is….I think, you know, this just furthers this idea of faith-based ministries… A “real” Christian Ministry – if you’re looking at it from a principle of forgiveness or justice – would [have a mission of] “I’m going to help and support everyone” as a principle. What [faith-based prison ministries] are doing is saying, “I will support and help you: I’ll give you education, I’ll help you with re-entry, as long as you believe what I believe” – and that is coercive, and it’s discriminatory.

______________________________________

[1] Beacon Press. http://www.beacon.org/God-in-Captivity-P1256.aspx. Retrieved 30 March 2017.

[2] History of Bayview Correctional Facility – A Vertical Institution: https://web.archive.org/web/20041205091718/http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/3548/facility/bayview.html. Kasper, Ed (November 2001). “History of Bayview CF – A vertical institution”. New York State Correction Officer Informational Page. Archived from the original on 5 December 2004. Retrieved 29 March 2017.

[3] Florida State Statute 944.803, entered in 2003, available at www.leg.state.fl.us: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0944/Sections/0944.803.html. Retrieved 29 March 2017.

[4] Information on PREA – from the PREA Resource Center: https://www.prearesourcecenter.org/about/prison-rape-elimination-act-prea. Retrieved 30 March 2017.

[5] Video from Tanya Erzen’s full talk on God in Captivity: The Rise of Faith-Based Prison Ministries in the Age of Mass Incarceration with the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project at Columbia Law School is available here: https://www.facebook.com/emboylan1/videos/404885809867240/. Retrieved 30 March 2017.

Proposed New York State Health Regulation Contains Troubling Exemption: The PRPCP Responds to a Proposal on Abortion Access

Cross-Posted on the Center for Gender & Sexuality Law Blog, and at Medium
______________________________________________

Press Release:
March 29, 2017

From:
Columbia Law School, The Public Rights Private Conscience Project

Subject:
Proposed New York State Health Regulation Contains Troubling Exemption: The Public Rights/Private Conscience Project Responds to a Proposal on Abortion Access

Contact:
Liz Boylan, eboyla@law.columbia.edu, 212.854.0167

______________________________________________

A proposed New York State regulation requiring insurance plans to cover “medically necessary” abortions contains a broad religious exemption that would undermine the state’s longstanding commitment to reproductive health. The exemption—which is not required by New York’s Constitution or laws— defines the term “religious employers” to include large nonprofits and even some for-profit companies. In the face of a national movement to enact anti-LGBTQ and anti-choice religious exemptions, the regulation would set a harmful precedent by accommodating religion at the expense of other fundamental liberty and equality rights. On Monday, March 27th,  Elizabeth Reiner Platt, Director of Columbia Law School’s Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP) submitted a comment on behalf of the PRPCP to the NYS Department of Financial Services “to express [] deep concerns regarding the regulations’ expansion of New York’s existing definition of religious employers.”

Noting that religious liberty is already robustly protected in New York, PRPCP’s comment states, “allowing an organization that operates in the public sphere to violate neutral employee health and benefit laws serves to reduce, not enhance, true religious pluralism.  This is especially true when such accommodations single out particular religious tenets, such as opposition to abortion, for special protection.”

“The proposed regulation would allow organizations to treat a medically necessary procedure overwhelmingly obtained by women differently than any other type of care,” said Elizabeth Reiner Platt. “Rather than surrender to the troubling trend of protecting particular religious beliefs at the expense of reproductive health, New York should continue to be a national leader in guaranteeing access to comprehensive health care.”

The PRPCP’s mission is to address contexts in which religious liberty rights conflict with or undermine fundamental rights to equality and liberty through academic legal analysis. PRPCP approaches the developing law of religion in a manner that respects the importance of religious liberty while recognizing the ways in which broad religious accommodations may violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Read the full letter from the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project here:
http://tinyurl.com/PRPCP-3-27

Read the NYS Department of Financial Services Proposed Amendment here: http://www.dfs.ny.gov/insurance/r_prop/rp62a48text.pdf

For more information on the PRPCP, visit the PRPCP’s webpage, here: http://tinyurl.com/PRPCP-Columbia

EEOC Proposed Guidance Shows We Can Protect Religious Freedom & LGBTQ Rights

Press Release:
March 23, 2017

From:
Columbia Law School, The Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Subject:
EEOC Proposed Guidance Shows We Can Protect Religious Freedom & LGBTQ Rights

Contact:
Liz Boylan, eboyla@law.columbia.edu, 212.854.0167

March 23, 2017: While the President and Congress consider acts to expand religious exemptions at the expense of LGBTQ and other rights, a proposed federal regulation demonstrates that we can—and should—protect both religious and LGBTQ communities. The Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP) at Columbia Law School submitted commentary this week commending the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on their “Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Unlawful Harassment,” which protects the right of religious employees to discuss their beliefs while prohibiting religiously-motivated harassment in the workplace.

Professor Katherine Franke, Faculty Director for the PRPCP commented, “At a time when we are witnessing government officials engaging in both troubling violations of the Establishment Clause and blatant forms of religion-based discrimination, the EEOC’s proposed guidelines offer a reasoned and careful way to harmonize religious liberty and equality in the workplace.”

Elizabeth Reiner Platt, Director of the PRPCP elaborates, “The proposed guidelines respect both the right to express one’s religious beliefs and the right to a safe and productive work environment. This kind of carefully tailored religious accommodation protects all workers from discrimination.”

The PRPCP’s letter notes that nearly one in three transgender workers, and up to 43% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, have faced employment discrimination. The proposed EEOC guidelines “appropriately explain that Title VII’s duty to accommodate religion does not amount to an official sanctioning of religiously-motivated harassment-including against LGBTQ employees, who already face pervasive discrimination in the workplace.”

The EEOC’s responsibility to protect religious minorities and LGBTQ persons is of critical importance, as the Trump Administration continues to issue Executive Orders that roll back LGBTQ protections and express disapproval of Muslims. Of particular concern is a potential Executive Order on Religious Freedom. If signed, the order could provide a special license for those holding certain conservative religious beliefs— including opposition to same-sex marriage, sex outside different-sex marriage, and abortion—to violate any regulations that conflict with these beliefs.

The PRPCP’s mission is to address contexts in which religious liberty rights conflict with or undermine fundamental rights to equality and liberty through academic legal analysis.  PRPCP approaches the developing law of religion in a manner that respects the importance of religious liberty while recognizing the ways in which broad religious accommodations may violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which, “not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another.”[1]

Read the full letter from the PRPCP here: http://tinyurl.com/PRPCP-Columbia-EEOC-Letter

For more information on the PRPCP, visit the PRPCP’s webpage, here: http://tinyurl.com/PRPCP-Columbia

The EEOC’s Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Unlawful Harassment is available here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EEOC-2016-0009-0001

________________________________

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

Because You’re Not Fooling Anyone: Why Trump Travel Ban 2.0 Still Unconstitutional

Cross-posted with Religion Dispatches, and on Medium, March 14, 2017

Trump’s second attempt at banning travel from certain Muslim-majority countries is clearly written to avoid being struck down under the Establishment Clause. Most notably, it no longer contains provisions that preference entry for religious minorities—language the President himself admitted was intended to prioritize entry for Christian rather than Muslim refugees.

So why isn’t the new EO constitutional, at least with regard to First Amendment claims? Because cutting its most obviously discriminatory provision doesn’t fix the fact that the new EO was passed with the same invalid purpose as the President’s first attempt—to reduce Muslim immigration into the U.S. When a candidate campaigns for nearly two years on the promise of banning, profiling, and even registering Muslims, that is context that a court can—and should—consider in evaluating whether his actions are motivated by religious animus or legitimate security concerns.

In 2005, the Supreme Court issued two decisions on the question of whether displaying the Ten Commandments in or near a courthouse violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The cases came out split, with one display upheld and the other held unconstitutional. The takeaway? Context and history matter.

These decisions serve as helpful background for why a quick fix to Trump’s Executive Order on Immigration doesn’t resolve all the EO’s constitutional problems.

In one of the cases, McCreary County v. ACLU, the displays at issue were the third in a series of exhibits that had been repeatedly challenged as unconstitutional. The first displays—installed in two Kentucky county courthouses—were large, gold-framed copies of the Ten Commandments, with a citation to the Book of Exodus. In response to a suit by the ACLU, the counties expanded the displays to include additional documents in smaller frames, each with a religious theme, including the “endowed by their Creator” passage from the Declaration of Independence and the national motto, “In God We Trust.”

When a District Court preliminarily enjoined both the original and the expanded displays, the counties installed a third version, this time consisting of nine framed documents including the Ten Commandments, Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights. In explaining its decision to strike down even this seemingly acceptable display, the Supreme Court noted: “the purpose apparent from government action can have an impact more significant than the result expressly decreed” (emphasis added).

In other words, the counties weren’t fooling anyone.

In order to be upheld under the Establishment Clause, a government action must have a valid secular purpose. While courts typically give deference to the secular intent proffered by legislatures, the purpose has to be “genuine, not a sham.” In this case, it was obvious to the Court that the counties’ intent in creating the third round of displays was no different than their intent for the original display: they “were simply reaching for any way to keep a religious document on the walls of courthouses constitutionally required to embody religious neutrality.”

In contrast, the Court in Van Orden v. Perry held that it was permissible for Texas to accept and display a Ten Commandments statue donated by a civic organization on the state capitol grounds, alongside 17 other monuments and 22 historical markers. In this case, there was no history indicating a legislative intent to endorse or advance religion.

The history of Trump’s two Executive Orders recalls the counties’ efforts in McCreary to water down a religious display simply to meet legal approval, without changing its underlying intent. In the years leading up to the EO, President Trump repeatedly pledged to ban Muslims from entering the country. (He also made comments supporting Muslim profiling, the creation of a Muslim registry, and the closure of mosques.) Trump sometimes varied his language, calling his plan “extreme vetting” or emphasizing its application to “terror nations” rather than Muslim-majority nations.

After the issuance of the first order, however, Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani openly admitted that the President intended to craft a Muslim ban that would withstand judicial scrutiny. When the ban was enjoined, Trump stated in a press conference that the administration could “tailor the [new] order to that decision and get just about everything, in some ways more.” White House advisor, Stephen Miller, also stated that the new EO contained “mostly minor, technical differences,” and would “have the same, basic policy outcome for the country.”

Thus, despite the elimination of the explicit religious preference, there’s no indication that the new order should be treated any differently from the last one when it comes to determining whether the administration had a valid, secular, non-discriminatory purpose in issuing the EO.

This is certainly not to say that Trump can never pass a law on immigration or national security that won’t violate the Establishment Clause. The McCreary Court explained that it did not hold that the counties’ “past actions forever taint any effort on their part to deal with the subject matter.” However it does mean that Trump cannot avoid the ample and longstanding evidence that his EO is intended to be a Muslim ban simply by removing the language that most clearly identifies it as one.