Search Results

Universities are meant to be spaces where diverse ideas are welcomed and debated. However, in recent years, they have become political battlegrounds, with polarized ideologies clashing and sometimes leading to a hostile and intolerant atmosphere. This is where initiatives like Tolerance Means Dialogues come into play, emphasizing the need to cultivate an environment of understanding and open dialogue. One key reason universities can become more tolerant is by recognizing that they are a microcosm of the larger society. Students from various backgrounds, cultures, and belief systems converge on campuses, providing a unique opportunity for cross-cultural and ideological interactions. Instead of viewing these differences as divisive, embracing them as opportunities for growth and learning is essential. READ FULL ARTICLE

Tolerance Means Dialogue event hosted by Saint Carolina School of Law on Monday, September 18th 2023. Featuring: Dialogue Catalysts:  Robin Fretwell Wilson of the University of Illinois, Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and student winners of the Tolerance Scholarship. Moderated by Dean Akilah Carter-Francique, Dean for School of Education, Health, and Human Services of Benedict College, Susan Kuo, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Professor of Law at the University of South Carolina School of Law, and Ned Snow, Associate Dean for Faculty Development, the Ray Taylor Fair Professor of Law of the University of South Carolina School of Law. Opening Remarks by Dean Joel Samuels, Dean for the College of Arts and Sciences and Professor of Law for the University of South Carolina Closing Remarks by Dean Leon Geter, Interim Dean for the School of Communication, Arts, and Social Sciences of Benedict College. Co-Sponsors: University of South Carolina Benedict College 1st Amendment Partnership Fairness For All Initiative

On April 26, 2023, the University of Illinois Chicago hosted a Tolerance Means Dialogues event to answer the question: "What can we learn about bridging divides in America today?". Featuring: Dialogue Catalysts:  Robin Fretwell Wilson of the University of Illinois, and Shannon Minter of National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) Moderated by: Alexandra Filindra, Associate Professor of Political Science and Psychology at the University of Illinois Chicago Closing Remarks by: Joseph Hoereth, Director for the Institute for Policy and Civic Engagement (IPCE) Co-Sponsors: Institute for Policy and Civic Engagement (IPCE)

Tolerance Means Founder and Director, Professor Robin Fretwell Wilson, the Mildred Van Voorhis Jones Chair in Law and director of the Institute of Government and Public Affairs in the U of I system, co-authored a letter to Sens. Tammy Baldwin and Susan Collins urging bipartisan support. “This is maybe the single most significant piece of LGBT protection in federal law in at least a decade and a half,” Wilson said. Wilson wrote the letter along with professor Douglass Laycock of the University of Virginia, professor Thomas Berg of the University of St. Thomas and professor Carl Esbeck of the University of Missouri. “The religious-liberty protections in RMA are meaningful and important even if not comprehensive,” the scholars said in their letter. Read Full Article Read the Letter Sent to Congress

History was made this week as President Biden signed into law the Respect for Marriage Act, codifying marriage equality. WATCH MORE

The Respect for Marriage Act (RMA), a bipartisan bill aimed at ensuring national protection of same-sex marriage rights, has garnered support from religious leaders who oppose same-sex marriage but find satisfaction in the bill's religious liberty protections. However, the Catholic bishops in the United States continue to express concerns about the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, citing potential risks to Catholic organizations. The RMA, which has passed in the Senate and awaits approval in the House of Representatives, requires states to recognize marriages legally contracted in other states, regardless of the individuals' sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. While it provides legal recognition for same-sex marriages, it also includes provisions to shield religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage from providing services or goods for the celebration of such marriages. Additionally, it prevents churches and religious nonprofits that do not recognize same-sex marriage from having their tax-exempt status altered or revoked. Religious groups such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Seventh-day Adventist Church, National Association of Evangelicals, and Orthodox Union of Orthodox synagogues have expressed gratitude for the bill's religious liberty provisions. They view the bill as a way to balance LGBTQ rights and religious freedom. ]However, the Catholic bishops have taken a more critical stance, arguing that the RMA's rejection of traditional views on marriage and religious liberty could result in negative consequences for religious nonprofits. They suggest that the federal government could revoke tax exemptions and compel faith-based social service agencies to place foster and adopted children with same-sex couples. This opposition from the Catholic bishops aligns with their long-standing stance against federal legislation recognizing LGBTQ rights, which has included opposition to bills like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Violence Against Women Act, and the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act. Legal scholars, including Douglas Laycock and Thomas Berg, have expressed differing views on the Catholic bishops' concerns. Laycock believes the bishops are taking an absolutist stance that hinders compromise, while Berg argues that the risks outlined in the bishops' analysis are overstated and that the RMA includes protections for religious organizations. Read Full Article

When the U.S. Senate reconvenes this week following Thanksgiving break, it is expected to take up a final vote on — and pass — an amended Respect for Marriage Act that would codify same-sex marriage in federal law and provide protections for religious expression — a balanced approach supported by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The church announced its support for the bill’s amendment process Nov. 15, startling some who wondered if it was a departure from the faith’s firm doctrine that marriage is between a man and a woman — it isn’t — and observers who remember the church’s opposition to earlier ballot propositions for same-sex marriage. Read Full Article

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the LDS Church or the Mormon Church, has taken a surprising stance in support of the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA), a bill aimed at protecting same-sex marriage with bipartisan backing in Congress. This shift in position stems from a series of developments and realizations by the LDS Church leadership over the years. In 2008, during the Proposition 8 campaign in California, the LDS Church had strongly supported a referendum that aimed to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples through a constitutional amendment. This stance led to significant controversy and a negative impact on the church's public image. The narrow approval of Proposition 8 marked a turning point for the church's leadership, prompting them to reconsider their approach to LGBTQ rights. Over time, the LDS Church recognized that a strategy of compromise on LGBTQ rights, at least in the public sphere, could be a way forward. They understood that expanding rights for same-sex couples could also provide protections for religious groups. This realization ultimately led to the "Utah compromise" in 2015, where the LDS Church supported an anti-discrimination law in Utah that included religious-liberty protections. The current support for the RMA is seen as an extension of this strategy. The church believes that this bill strikes a balance between protecting LGBTQ rights and religious freedom, which they see as the way forward to heal relationships and foster greater understanding. The LDS Church's backing of the RMA is significant, as it reflects a pragmatic approach to protecting their interests, particularly in a deeply religious state like Utah. Additionally, the church's stance has helped forge closer relationships between marriage equality activists in Utah and LDS Church leaders. Read Full Article

The U.S. Senate has shown support for an amended version of the Respect for Marriage Act, which aims to provide federal protections for both same-sex marriages and religious freedom. The Senate voted 62-37 to end debate and consider the bill, with a final vote expected soon. If passed, the revised act will proceed to a new vote in the House, which previously passed the original version of the bill in July. Utah's senators had differing opinions on the matter. Senator Mitt Romney, a Republican, was one of 12 Republicans who voted in favor of the amended measure, while Senator Mike Lee, also a Republican, voted against it. The Respect for Marriage Act seeks to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, a definition previously struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. It would ensure federal recognition of same-sex marriages that take place in states where they are legal. Importantly, the bill would not require states to allow same-sex couples to marry, but it would repeal and replace provisions of federal law that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The revised Senate version of the Respect for Marriage Act addresses concerns by explicitly protecting people of faith and faith-based nonprofits. A bipartisan group of senators suggested amendments to ensure that religious organizations would not lose tax-exempt status or other benefits for refusing to recognize same-sex marriages or provide services for their celebration. This legislation represents a compromise that aims to balance the civil rights of LGBTQ individuals with principles of religious liberty and diversity. Faith groups have expressed varying opinions on the effectiveness of the religious liberty amendments, with some supporting the approach as a way to heal relationships and foster greater understanding. The Senate's support for this amended version of the Respect for Marriage Act is seen as a rare and notable moment of bipartisanship in a politically divided climate. It comes as Republicans prepare to take control of the House in the next Congress, while Democrats retain control of the Senate, setting the stage for potential legislative challenges in the future. Read Full Article

The Senate's recent vote to close debate on the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA) marks a significant step towards repealing the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA, which prevented federal recognition and benefits for married gay couples, was adopted with strong bipartisan support and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It reflected the views of the majority of Americans at the time, but times have since changed. Today, the Senate's decision to advance the RMA signals a shift in public opinion and political priorities. The RMA seeks to repeal DOMA and require states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Notably, it preserves the protection of individual religious freedom under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which is a significant departure from the Equality Act, another LGBTQ-rights legislation that excludes RFRA's religious protections. A bipartisan group of Senators, led by Tammy Baldwin and Susan Collins, has worked to address concerns from religious organizations that the RMA might force them to provide services and goods to married gay couples. The legislation now includes additional language to reassure churches and religious charitable organizations that they won't lose their tax-exempt status due to the new law. While it was unlikely that the RMA would have such effects, addressing these concerns was considered necessary to build trust and support for the bill. Read Full Article

The Karsh Center for Law and Democracy hosted a panel discussion on the intersection of LGBTQ+ rights and religious liberty, addressing the conflicts and potential legislative solutions in modern America. The panel included former Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Christine Durham, Yale Law School Professor William Eskridge, Jr., ACLU Women’s Rights Project Director Ria Tabacco Mar, and University of Illinois College of Law Professor Robin Wilson ’95, with Professor Craig Konnoth moderating. The panel began by discussing the conflict between LGBTQ+ rights and religious liberty in contemporary America. Justice Durham highlighted the rise in militant religious assertiveness and the need to consider both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment when discussing religious liberty. Professor Eskridge emphasized that both LGBTQ+ individuals and deeply religious individuals perceive their dignity and self-expression at stake. He noted that both sides feel dispossessed and that conflicts like the 303 Creative case exemplify the tension between equality and liberty. Tabacco Mar drew parallels with past battles between racial equality and religious liberty, such as the case of Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., where religious beliefs were not accepted as a valid reason to deny access to public spaces based on race. She encouraged the audience to question why extending protections to LGBTQ+ people might feel uncomfortable to some. Professor Wilson agreed that LGBTQ+ individuals should enjoy equal citizenship rights but cautioned against making interactions a zero-sum game. Instead, she suggested that state legislatures should work to carve out exceptions to prevent conflicts, as seen in Utah's statute allowing clerks to opt out of performing same-sex marriages. Tabacco Mar expressed concerns that creating "opt-out" policies might lead to broader exemptions over time. The panelists then debated the importance of legislative compromise, with Professor Eskridge and Professor Wilson supporting the idea while Tabacco Mar and Justice Durham remained skeptical. Justice Durham highlighted the challenges of legislative action in highly conservative states, where one-party systems and gerrymandering can hinder progress. The panel also discussed the harms experienced by LGBTQ+ individuals denied service and the potential harm faced by religious individuals forced to provide services against their beliefs. Tabacco Mar emphasized that LGBTQ+ people shouldn't have to compromise their identities to avoid conflict and described the enduring impact of being turned away. The panel provided insights into the complexities of balancing LGBTQ+ rights and religious liberty in contemporary legal debates. Read Full Article

Hofstra University celebrated Constitution Day with a dialogue discussion focused on the meaning of tolerance. The event featured a panel of three student essay winners who had responded to the question, "What does tolerance mean to you?" and two experts, William Eskridge and Robin Wilson, who discussed the conflict between tolerance and the law in today's polarized America. The event began with an introduction from Hofstra University President Susan Poser, highlighting the history and significance of Constitution Day, which commemorates the adoption of the Constitution in 1787 and the citizenship of individuals in the United States. Eskridge and Wilson presented case studies that demonstrated the tension between tolerance and the law in contemporary America. The discussion was moderated by Vice Dean Julian Ku. Following the panel discussion, the scholarship winners shared their essays and personal experiences related to tolerance. Their essays reflected diverse perspectives on tolerance, from seeking knowledge outside one's worldview to dealing with religious discrimination and striving for unity. During the question-and-answer session, the audience engaged in conversations about the importance of tolerance in society and how to engage with individuals who hold opposing beliefs. Patience and understanding were highlighted as crucial components of tolerance. The event emphasized the importance of fostering dialogue and understanding among people with differing views, particularly in a university setting. It underscored the significance of Constitution Day and the principles of tolerance enshrined in the Constitution. Read Full Article