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.