Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan Authorization Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I rise to discuss a new and growing fundamentalism--a fundamentalism of intolerance and bigotry that is spreading on our college campuses, in our university systems, and in the media. It is a fundamentalism that wraps itself in the language of tolerance but that is, in fact, a cloak for discrimination against people of faith. This new fundamentalism would undermine the most important constitutional guarantees and traditions of our Nation that have allowed us to live in civil peace and civil friendship for over 200 years, and that is the subject of my remarks this afternoon.

The latest example of this new fundamentalism of intolerance comes from Yale University--in particular, from Yale Law School--where we learned last week that Yale Law School had imposed a new policy that would block students who work for certain faith-based organizations from accessing resources that are available to all other students. Specifically, that policy would prohibit students from receiving school resources if they decided to work for an organization that takes religious faith into account when hiring. Unlike Federal law, Yale's policy, as announced, failed to include an exemption for religious organizations even though Federal law recognizes the rights of religious organizations to hire based on their faiths.

What we are talking about here is something very simple. Yale said to a group of students that if those in the group wanted to work for faith-based organizations, they would not be able to access the same funds or the same loan repayment programs that are offered to all other students who work for all other organizations. As to what Yale held out to students as being a neutral and generally available program for folks who chose to work in the public's interest either during the summer or after law school, Yale Law School, last week, said: Oh, no. It is not going to be available if you are a student of faith and choose to go to work for an organization that is faith-based and want to pursue its faith-based mission.

Ironically, this was done in the name of tolerance. Yale said it was trying to foster a more tolerant environment. In fact, this is the most rank intolerance. It is flatout discrimination. It is discrimination against religious organizations and nonprofit organizations that are pursuing their good work and that are, in many instances, doing so without asking their clients to pay a single cent. It is discrimination on the basis of faith, pure and simple. It is discrimination against students of faith who want to go to public interest organizations that share their faith missions and who want to do good in the world by pursuing those beliefs while helping those who are in need. It is discrimination, at the end of the day and at the root of the matter, that rejects this country's commitment and our First Amendment's commitment to pluralism.

You know, our First Amendment is an extraordinary text. When enacted, it was the first of its kind in the world, and it makes an extraordinary commitment. It says that the people of this country have the right to pursue and to observe their religious beliefs, whatever they may be, so long as they do so in peace with one another. It is, as an old friend of mine once said, the right to be wrong. The First Amendment guarantees that every single American can pursue his or her most fundamentally held, deeply held religious beliefs so long as they don't harm other people. That doesn't mean we all have to agree on what our religious beliefs are. It doesn't mean we have to agree on the outcomes our religious creeds lead us to.

Our First Amendment recognizes the right to be wrong, but this new fundamentalism, this new intolerance and bigotry does not recognize the right to be wrong. In fact, it wants to eliminate the right to be wrong. It wants to say that, no, we all have to agree. We all have to now share Yale's view of what an appropriate religious mission is. We now have to share Yale's view of what students should be doing with their time. We have to share Yale's view of what our deeply held beliefs, religious or otherwise, should be.

This sort of fundamentalism insists on a monochromatic view of the world that we all believe the same thing, that we all act in the same way, that we all behave the way our elites want us to behave. Well, I submit to you that is not the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That is not our great tradition of pluralism. That is not what has allowed us to live in civil peace and civil friendship for these many years.

The question is, Why do Yale Law School and other institutions pursue policies like this? Well, it is not because of the law. Let's be clear about that. In fact, Federal law and, indeed, our Constitution prohibit precisely this kind of targeting of people of faith for disfavor. Just in 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case called Trinity Lutheran that policies that target the religious for special disabilities based on their religious status are unconstitutional. Indeed, as I said earlier, Federal law explicitly prohibits the targeting of individuals for their religious faith.

No, Yale Law School is not enacting this policy because the law requires it; they are enacting this policy because they no longer believe in the right to be wrong. They no longer believe that our religious faith is so fundamental, is so significant, and is so meaningful that we ought to be allowed to pursue it peacefully, in harmony with one another.

You know, Yale said of their policy that ``the law school cannot prohibit a student from working for an employer who discriminates''-- that is their understanding of what religious organizations do when they ask that the members of the organization share the same faith; they call that discrimination--``the law school cannot prohibit a student from working for an employer who discriminates, but that is not a reason why Yale Law School should bear any obligation to fund that work.''

Well, Yale Law School can certainly pursue its own beliefs, its own objectives, and its own values, but why should they be doing it with Federal taxpayer money? That is my question.

Yale University receives millions of dollars in Federal taxpayer subsidies every year, which they use to pad their multibillion-dollar endowment. Yale Law School, this seat of privilege, does not have to accept this money from the Federal Government--I submit to you, is not entitled to this money from the Federal Government if they are going to engage in patterns of discrimination targeted at religious students and religious organizations for special disfavor.

So I propose this: If Yale Law School and Yale University want to pursue a policy of discrimination towards religious believers, they may certainly do so, but they may not do it with Federal taxpayer money.

You know, Yale said at the end of last week that they would add an exemption now. They said they would add an exemption for religious organizations and religious believers. We haven't seen that exemption yet. I notice that it took days of pressure and outcry for them to come forward with this. I hope they will add an exemption. I hope they will stop targeting religious students for special disfavor. But what I hope above all is this: I hope that Yale Law School and Yale University will recommit themselves to our proud tradition of pluralism, of diversity, of the right to be wrong, which has been the basis for our civic friendship, for our civic peace, for the extraordinary diversity of thought and belief we so cherish in this country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source