Wheaton College is a Christian university located in Wheaton, Ill. On Dec. 15, Wheaton’s administration placed Dr. Larycia Hawkins, one of its tenured political science professors, on paid administrative leave.
According to Wheaton’s official statement, Hawkins’s suspension is intended to give the University “more time to explore theological implications of her recent public statements concerning Christianity and Islam.” The public statements at issue are statements Hawkins posted on Facebook on Dec. 10.
In these Facebook posts, Dr. Hawkins expressed her intention to wear a hijab as an act of solidarity with Muslims. She wrote: “I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book. And as Pope Francis stated last week, we worship the same God.” After her initial post generated some controversy, Hawkins posted a longer statement on Facebook and linked a Huffington Post essay authored by Yale Theologian Miroslav Volf to support her viewpoint.
Wheaton’s decision to suspend Hawkins drew immediate fire in the media. According to The New York Times, Wheaton is “holding a double-standard” and failing to demonstrate “a story of love.” According to a Washington Post column (written by a Wheaton alumnus) “the news of Wheaton’s decision is shameful” and a “disgrace” (even though the columnist acknowledges Wheaton’s “unique place among evangelicals” and its genuine need to maintain “a distinctive evangelical identity”).
The editorial board of the Chicago Tribune deserves credit for its thoughtful coverage. Many fail to appreciate the importance of protecting institutional (in addition to individual) expression of religious belief. The Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC makes clear that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause applies not only to individual expression but also to group expression of religious belief. Thus, it is impossible to reduce the current Wheaton College controversy to Hawkins’s constitutional rights. Wheaton’s constitutional rights are threatened as well.
This becomes even clearer when one reads and considers Wheaton’s mission statement together with its statement of faith and educational purpose. Every member of the Wheaton faculty (by private contract) voluntarily commits to both statements. If Wheaton was compelled to ignore these statements in order to accommodate Hawkins’s rights (for clarity, Hawkins has not filed a complaint nor sought this remedy) then Wheaton’s Free Exercise rights would be greatly diminished, if not eliminated. More significantly, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a Christian university to maintain any ideological identity if it was not allowed to make employment decisions on the basis of doctrinal statements like Wheaton’s statement of faith.
The Wheaton controversy highlights the significance of the ruling in the Milton Catholic school case. If private Christian institutions are denied the protections of the First Amendment and forced to make hiring and firing decisions without regard for their unique mission and faith statements, then it will be impossible for private institutions to hold any identity.
One must wonder whether the world will really be better off without distinctively Christian schools and universities. A future without them seems more likely every day.
Rob McFarland
Robert L. McFarland is Associate Dean of External Affairs and Associate Professor of Law at Faulkner University’s Jones School of Law.
