F 

resh off the departure of former 

Mayor of South Bend, IN, Pete 

Buttigieg from the presidential 

pursuit, many have claimed he bridged 

the gap between religion and the LGBTQ+ 

community. But it’s quite the opposite. As 

someone from the religious Western part 

of Michigan, the church I was raised in 

began denying communion to its LGBTQ+ 

members this last holiday season. The move 

ostracized me and several other community 

members from an already unwelcoming 

environment, as the primary push against 

the LGBTQ+ equality movement has 

originated from religious organizations and 

institutions. While Buttigieg has benefited 

from his membership in the church, many 

in the LGBTQ+ community have found 

historic oppression and ostracization from 

the religious right. 

While not every religious person and 

institution uses their power and faith to 

oppress the LGBTQ+ community, recent 

discrimination has been masked by religious 

freedom and restoration laws. States across 

the country have used the Religious Freedom 

Restoration Act to push discriminatory 

agendas by allowing businesses, providers 

and employers to deny services to LGBTQ+ 

individuals by claiming religious exemptions, 

as seen in Texas. Recently, Tennessee passed 

a law allowing adoption agencies to deny 

service to LGBTQ+ couples, citing claims 

of religious freedom. Laws like these across 

the country allow for open discrimination 

and perpetuate the second-class status of 

LGBTQ+ individuals, justified by quotes 

from scripture.

The Supreme Court furthered this 

divide between LGBTQ+ individuals and 

religious institutions in the case of Burwell 

v. Hobby Lobby, wherein a Christian-family-

owned business won the right to not include 

contraceptive methods in their employee’s 

health care plans, despite it being required in 

employee health care plans by the Affordable 

Care Act. This opened up the floodgates for 

discrimination by allowing companies to 

exercise religious objections.

This precedent was furthered in the case of 

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil 

Rights Commission, where the court sided 

with a religious baker who refused to sell a 

wedding cake to a gay couple. The Supreme 

Court, primarily seen as the champion of the 

unprotected minority, has frequently ruled 

in favor of religious freedom over the rights 

of LGBTQ+ Americans, allowing for open 

discrimination and anti-LGBTQ+ biases. 

While the courts and lawmakers deny 

LGBTQ+ individuals basic rights and 

services by siding with religious institutions, 

youth are directly impacted. LGBTQ+-

identifying 
individuals 
make 
up 
an 

alarming 40 percent of the youth homeless 

population. Nearly seven in 10 LGBTQ+ 

homeless youth cite family rejection as the 

main cause for this. That same rejection 

that I felt from my childhood church is felt 

across the country as LGBTQ+ youth must 

grapple with the realities of their identities 

all while institutions intended to be safe and 

welcoming are given free reign to turn away 

and discriminate. 

Further, communities of faith and 

religious leaders frequently serve as role 

models and support systems for young people, 

but that is often not an option for LGBTQ+ 

youth. In a country where LGBTQ+ high 

schoolers attempt suicide at four and a half 

times the rate of their straight peers, clergy 

leaders could serve as an outlet of support for 

youth. In addition, transgender-identifying 

individuals attempt suicide at nine times the 

rate of the United States population and are 

seldom welcome or embraced in religious 

institutions. Frequently, transgender support 

is found in groups that are not religiously 

affiliated, atheist or agnostic, furthering 

the rift between religious groups and the 

community.

As religious institutions have pushed 

against the LGBTQ+ community and been 

plagued by controversy, there have been 

steep declines in religious affiliation and 

confidence in organized religion. Today, 74 

percent of Americans are no longer confident 

in organized religion and 36 percent of 

millennials do not identify with a religion, 

marking drastic dips among more open-

minded and younger generations. This 

drive away from organized religion can be 

explained by multiple factors but marks a 

pivot away from oppressive institutions to a 

focus on faith, individualism and empathy. 

Religious institutions must evolve to reflect 

the public shift in sentiment towards the 

LGBTQ+ community in order to retain their 

spot in American life.

While I have no doubt that the majority 

of individuals practice religion to find 

community and direction, the institutions 

and texts have been used as a mode of 

discrimination. Those in power and those 

seeking to put down marginalized groups 

have historically abused religious teachings 

to contradict the purposes for which they 

were created, to love and accept all people. 

The shift from acceptance to oppression 

has taken form in religious freedom laws 

that give license to discriminate based on 

homophobic and transphobic prejudices. 

The conversation of religious freedom must 

shift to one of equality and expose the series 

of laws and practices put in place to oppress 

and perpetuate the second-class status of 

LGBTQ+ individuals across the nation.

4A — Thursday, March 19, 2020
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg

Brittany Bowman
Emily Considine
Jess D’Agostino

Jenny Gurung
Cheryn Hong
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes

Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson

Joel Weiner
Erin White 

ERIN WHITE
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

ELIZABETH LAWRENCE

Editor in Chief

EMILY CONSIDINE AND 

MILES STEPHENSON

Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. 

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

OWEN STECCO | COLUMN

LGBTQ+ discrimination as religious freedom

N

ot many students have 

direct 
experience 

with 
the 
University 

of 
Michigan’s 
International 

Center, as only 2,216 of us are 

actually 
international 
students. 

The International Center is one 

of the University bodies that 

directly represents me and all 

other international students at the 

University. However, I cannot say 

that I have been entirely satisfied 

with the representation they have 

provided so far. The International 

Center could, and ultimately should, 

do better. 

All Korean male adults have to 

serve in the military in one form 

or another, unless they have severe 

mental or physical health conditions 

hindering them from effective 

service. I was unfortunately healthy 

enough to serve in the army and my 

20-month-long service began in 

October 2017. In order to complete 

the mandatory service requirement, 

I had to take a temporary leave 

from the University and planned 

on returning to continue my 

undergraduate program for the 

Fall 2019 term. With the temporary 

leave, my I-20 — the immigration 

document 
required 
by 
the 

University — had to be cancelled; 

in order for me to return, I needed 

a new one. I called the International 

Center to ask some brief questions 

regarding 
the 
return 
process, 

including whether I needed to 

reapply for a new I-20 or F-1 student 

visa and if an override for class 

registration was required. I was 

told to either schedule a phone 

appointment with an advisor 
— for 

which the earliest date happened 

to be about three weeks later — or 

send an email about my inquiry. The 

latter was the natural choice, as I 

did not have the luxury of making 

international phone calls whenever 

I wanted while serving in the army. 

I sent an email to the International 

Center with these same questions, 

believing them to be simple enough 

for any staff member to answer. 

Five days later, I was surprised by 

a generic response to my email, 

but I still felt comfortable with the 

information and my reentry to the 

University. 

According to the email, I did 

indeed need a new F-1 student visa. 

Without much external information 

or any similar past experience, I 

trusted the information handed 

to me by the official University 

institution that dealt with these 

kinds of issues. This was in 

November 2018, so I believed I 

needed a new visa until the summer 

before coming back, when I had an 

indescribable urge to double-check. 

I decided to call the Embassy of the 

United States in Seoul myself to ask 

if I had to be issued a new visa, and 

the answer was no. In fact, I only 

needed a new I-20. If I had followed 

the instructions given by the 

International Center, I would have 

wasted the $160 F-1 visa fee. 

The international student fee is a 

more recent case of the University’s 

lack of clarity or consideration 

for international students. The 

University decided to add an 

international student fee of $500 

per semester starting in Fall 2019. 

At the time of registration and 

tuition payment, I was filled with 

excitement about finally returning 

to Ann Arbor after two years and 

overlooked it. The $1,000 per school 

year fee came to my notice only 

recently, as the International Center 

updated 
information 
regarding 

the extra-tuitional charge. The 

center says the fee will “enable the 

university to maintain and enhance 

its campus-wide commitment to 

international 
student 
services, 

programming, and administration.” 

The Frequently Asked Questions 

section about the fee, from the Vice 

President 
for 
Communications 

for Public Affairs, provides more 

detail about it. However, the 

only overarching theme I could 

understand was that the University 

is charging international students 

due to declining state support. 

The first explanation for the 

purpose of the fee was “to address 

increased costs and expansion of 

services during a time of declining 

state appropriations support and 

pressures 
on 
the 
university’s 

finances.” According to former 

Provost 
Martin 
Philbert, 
the 

University is assessing such fees 

because it highly prioritizes 

providing sufficient services and 

infrastructure to the much-valued 

international students. However, 

while international students had 

to face extra fees, the University 

boasted the lowest in-state tuition 

increase in six years for Ann 

Arbor in the same article. The 

International Center does not 

provide much more information 

and clarity about the fee, at least on 

the surface.

I am not filing a personal 

complaint 
towards 
the 

International 
Center 
about 

misleading information or the fee, 

but rather raising questions about 

the University’s attitude toward the 

international student community. 

Immigration 
documents 
and 

processes are highly important 

and 
sensitive 
information 
for 

us, as our legal entrance to the 

country depends on them. To have 

been misinformed about such an 

important matter far exceeds the 

possible monetary waste of $160. 

While it is clear the International 

Center provides a variety of events 

and resources, including advising, 

to international students, I cannot 

fully understand the imposition of 

an additional $500 fee per semester 

when the University tries its best to 

minimize the increase of in-state 

tuition. 

Again, the University is a 

public institution that mainly 

serves the state of Michigan in 

various purposes, so I understand 

that its main focus is on students 

from Michigan. However, the 

University did not hold back in 

letting everyone know that they 

minimized the tuition increase 

for in-state students despite the 

overall increased costs being due to 

the decline of in-state support. The 

University’s decision to minimize 

the tuition of one group and 

increase that of another in a time of 

heightened operating cost does not 

align logically.

Even 
the 
most 
competent 

staff can make mistakes when 

dealing with complicated issues 

like immigration. It is only right 

that those who benefit from 

special 
services 
and 
certain 

accommodations pay for such 

provisions. All that being said, I am 

still left with one question: Does the 

University really care about us?

Does the University really care about international students?

MIN SOO KIM | COLUMN

Min Soo Kim can be reached at 

kiminsoo@umich.edu.

Owen Stecco can be reached at 

ostecco@umich.edu.

LEENA GHANNAM | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT LZGHANNA@UMICH.EDU

The International 
Center could, and 
ultimately should, 

do better.

