RE: Christian law school accreditation faces opposition, Sept. 25-Oct. 1.
An article published in the Charlatan discussed recent controversy that has emerged over a vote taken by members of the Law Society of New Brunswick which would deny graduates of the law school at Trinity Western University (TWU) the ability to practice in New Brunswick.
The opposition stems from a community covenant that requires students at TWU to abstain from “sexual intimacy that violates the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.”
Lawyer David Lutz was quoted saying the covenant would prevent students from learning family law and practicing under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states “every individual is equal before and under the law.”
“How do you teach family law, which recognizes not only same sex marriages, but also common law relationships? How can you teach that if you don’t believe it’s appropriate,” Lutz said.
His logic is flawed for several reasons. First, it implies that the covenant does more than ask students to make a choice for themselves.
Whether or not there is a school with a specific moral mandate, or a covenant that insists you declare it, every person and every lawyer makes personal choices for their own lives.
These choices are sure to be different than the choices made by the people they would find themselves working with in court.
Undoubtedly, law students anywhere are taught to fulfill their duties based on the law rather than their own moral code. To assume otherwise would require every practicing lawyer to make their own moral choices based only on what the law says.
Lawyers with personal preferences against capitalism, abortion, divorce, or pornography would all be excluded from practicing in Canada based on an inability to put aside their own biases and perspectives in the interests of neutrality.
Our laws should be neutral and unbiased, but our lawyers don’t have to be—they only need to be willing to practice fairly and according to the law.
Lawyers are able to carry out justice in the legal system because of a human ability to examine circumstances from many angles, put fair weight on each factor, and arrive at a consensus based on all of these considerations.
This ability to make conclusive and well-rounded decisions on the basis of the law can’t be separated from a person’s ability to make conclusive personal choices for their own lives.
In other words, someone who can look at a court case and assess it based on available evidence and the law is someone who will do the same for themselves and make choices for their own lives that might not be as permissive as the Charter.
Furthermore, TWU’s community covenant is based on the book of the Bible with many more contradictions to Canadian law than can be listed. If one were to assume that every Christian lives based on the Bible, Christians in general would be unable to practice family law and respect Charter 15, based on Lutz’s logic.
Finally, it seems to me like a given that Christian schools would require their students to make the same choices for their own lives as described in the Bible.
Students registering for Christian universities do so with the knowledge that that school operates based on a set of moral principles. Students expect to be held accountable to this moral code; often, that’s part of the reason why they choose a Christian university.
If these schools aren’t allowed to ask that their students follow the same set of moral principles that they signed up for while still awarding their students the same degree with the credibility and qualification in the workplace as a public institution, what’s the point of having these schools at all?
