Trinity Western wins again
Christian university expects to have education program fully approved.
By
Doug Koop
ChristianWeek staff
VANCOUVER–The B.C. Court of Appeal has ruled in favor of Trinity Western University (TWU) and directed the British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT) to approve TWU’s application to offer the professional year of its teacher education program.
"We’re delighted and we’ll be moving ahead with implementation of the program for fall," says TWU executive vice president Guy Saffold.
The case stems back to June 1996 when TWU’s application to fully certify its teacher education program was denied by the accrediting agency. Although the academic program passed muster, the BCCT found the school’s policy on homosexuality to be "discriminatory" and "contrary to the public interest."
Passed muster
As the BCCT sees it, the Christian
university’s "community standards" violate
the rights of homosexuals and could produce teachers who
discriminate against homosexuals. TWU requires students
to observe a code of conduct that, among other things,
forbids
"...premarital sex, adultery, and homosexual
behavior."
TWU took the matter to court and won. In a September 1997 judgment, B.C. Supreme Court Justice W.H. Davies determined that the BCCT had provided no evidence for its concern about discrimination by TWU-trained teachers and ordered the agency to approve the application. The decision was immediately appealed and the case was heard by the B.C. Court of Appeal in June 1998.
In a 2-1 decision released December 30, the Court of Appeal upheld the earlier judgment that "the particular reason for [the BCCT] action was a belief on the part of a majority of its members that TWU discriminated against homosexuals. The chambers judge concluded Council acted without evidence."
Patently unreasonable
Writing for the majority, The Honorable Mr. Justice Goldie declared his view that "when [the BCCT] acted in anticipation of intolerant behavior, it acted in a patently unreasonable manner." He accused the BCCT of ignoring evidence to the contrary and assuming without proof that intolerant behavior by a teacher trained solely at TWU would occur.
"The unchallenged evidence supports the conclusion [that] the beliefs reflected in TWU’s community standards are held sincerely and have not been an instrument of intolerance," he wrote.
At press time, the BCCT had not yet met to decide about seeking an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, although it seems likely. BCCT registrar Doug Smart highlights the "interesting dissent" by The Honorable Madame Justice Rowles, which, he suggests, "was written for an audience of nine."
Rowles strongly disagrees with her colleagues’ analysis and conclusions. "Although the record discloses no incidents of expulsion on the basis of the Community Standards, the Community Standards in effect creates a bar against the admission of homosexual persons to, or their hiring by, TWU," she writes.
"I conclude that this practice is prima facie discriminatory in a way that could be contrary to the public interest."
In a lengthy written opinion, Rowles argues that "the ‘message’ sent by TWU’s Community Standards Contract not only to gays and lesbians but also to every member of the TWU Community is discriminatory in a way that may be viewed as contrary to the public interest."
She maintains that BCCT’s concerns are fully warranted and "that certifying the program would not be in the public interest. The public interest engaged by this decision is that the programs that train our public school teachers not openly endorse discriminatory beliefs and practices."
"In ensuring that the programs themselves are not discriminatory," she continues, "it was within the expertise of the [BCCT] to balance those interests and [its] conclusion was a reasonable one."
Both sides now
"I would encourage people to read both decisions," says Smart. "This is an on-the-edge issue in terms of Canadian society and Canadian law."
Saffold notes that "the first two courts ruled primarily on grounds of administrative law and chose not to deal with the Charter issues" that Rowles highlighted. While he believes TWU is well-prepared to argue the Charter issues, he is struck by the very different perspectives the case reveals.
"Madame Rowles justifies her argument in the ‘message.’ She’s making a social policy argument grounded in the Charter. Others have stuck to the law and decided it on principles of law," he says. "If you look at the law and the evidence, there’s nothing to support their case. A determination against us would essentially validate the principle that government agencies need not produce evidence of wrongdoing."
Meanwhile, Saffold would like the BCCT to heed the advice of an editorial in the Vancouver Sun ("give up the fight against TWU" and "find better things to do"). Nonetheless, he is firmly convinced that TWU has a strong case and is content to have "two court rulings that support that. We’re hopeful the strong case presented so far would prevail, wherever taken," he says.
