Free Exercise: Preserving Religious Organizations in Higher Education

Student organizations are the backbone of student life and culture on many college campuses. From academic societies to Greek life, affinity groups to debate teams, school clubs serve as central nodes of community and expression for college students. Nowhere is this more vital than in the context of religious student organizations. For students of faith, campus ministries and religious associations offer opportunities for fellowship through organized prayer, worship, education, and service. Students far from family and their home religious communities rely on these campus organizations as crucial faith havens, especially those students in secular school environments. Like all clubs, religious organizations flourish when they can freely interact with the broader campus community and utilize its resources. The ability to table at the club fair, host dinners and worship nights in university buildings, and share literature on the green are key examples of the rights religious organizations enjoy. 

Unfortunately, these liberties are under threat. A long history of controversial legislative and judicial decisions has left a muddied national landscape where religious student organizations are often not allowed equal access to participation in campus life. Across the country, religious students find their clubs and associations harassed, derecognized, or banned, often because of their expression of traditional religious beliefs regarding sex and gender. ¹ This is most prevalent when student groups uphold formal doctrinal standards for their student leaders. Derecognized student groups lose access to funding, campus spaces, the ability to promote events, and other vital rights of organizations. This problem is now entrenched and spreading, affecting students of all faiths.² A recent bombshell report found that since 1990, hundreds of student religious organizations representing thousands of students have been aggressively investigated by universities. Approximately 175 have been completely denied official recognition and countless incidents between campus organizations and colleges continue to go unreported each year.³ The rate of recognition incidents on campus universities has only increased, with “roughly three times as reported incidents” in the last fifteen years than in the twenty years prior. ⁴ This phenomenon is especially rampant in public universities.⁵ 

This chilling of religious expression on college campuses presents challenges to both the church and the state as generational transmission of faith is hindered and uneven enforcement of federal civil rights laws leaves American students’ constitutional rights vulnerable. For years, litigation efforts have tried to better secure the rights of religious students to organize and run campus organizations according to their faith – with only mixed success. Just as some jurisdictions, through statutory protections or friendly court decisions, strengthen religious organizational rights, others actively prosecute campus organizations and reduce religious protections. It is precisely this imbalance and deepening inequity among the states that demands federal action. The United States has an interest in enforcing civil rights law across the land, especially when public and private universities directly rely on federal funding streams. Only the federal government has the power to ensure consistent policy across the states, most famously modeled through Congress’s Equal Access Act of 1984, which addressed this very issue in the public primary and secondary school context. The nature of federal civil rights protections, the financial strings attached, and precedent of successful legislative action all confirm the federal government as the most appropriate sphere of decision-making to expand religious protections for higher education students. 

1. Theological Foundations

Recognizing that at the heart of every political question lies theological and spiritual first principles, this section will attempt to explore the theological underpinnings before turning to practical policy solutions. Albert Wolter’s foundational reformational worldview, featuring a Christian meta-narrative of Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Restoration, is especially helpful in this regard. Through it we will briefly consider the origins of religious freedom as a part of God’s original design for mankind, how it has been corrupted by sin, and why Christians ought to fight for its preservation in the university context for all students as part of the restorative work of the church.

Made in the imago dei, man enjoys participation in many of the attributes of God – reason, creativity, and love being among the most fundamental. Yet it is man’s capacity for free will that is perhaps the most striking, and at the very heart of religious freedom. Though God showers his creation with love, we know that love “does not insist on its own way,” (1 Corinthians 13:5).  God consistently refrains from coercing man’s affections towards him. In Eden, he gives Adam and Eve the choice to worship the Lord with lives of obedience or to pursue the false gods of selfish pride and sin. In perhaps the greatest theological mystery, God allows for the decision they ultimately make. He respects their dignity as free and rational beings, even as they choose death itself, because that autonomy is part and parcel of their inviolable god-likeness. This mystery, the radical way that God allows for freedom of worship in his creation, is the origin of religious freedom. If God does not cross the boundary of coercing the love of man, what right do we have to attempt it ourselves? 

We see this godly boundary play out throughout the Old Testament as the Lord consistently beckons Israel to return to right worship of Him. He sends judges, teachers, and prophets to invite the people of Israel into repentance, but he does not supernaturally bend the will of a nation that is unwilling. Jesus himself models this relationship clearly as he presents an invitational, not coercive, gospel: “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. Anyone who hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me,” (Revelation 3:20). Worship can only be given freely by those who open the door to the truth and lordship of God. 

And so, it’s in this sense that “freedom of religion” is baked into creation, not as a product of sin, but as a part of our human nature. The conscience of man to worship as he sees fit is part of our identity as free beings. Paul recognized this when he wrote on conscience in his letter to the Romans and admonished believers that it is “to their own master” that “servants stand or fall,” (Romans 14:4). And it is the church father Tertullian, arguing for religious toleration in the Roman empire, who pointed to the “privilege inherent in human nature that every person should be able to worship according to his own convictions.”⁶

Does this mean then that religious freedom and toleration somehow cut against the truth of the gospel? Of course not. The price of religious freedom is accountability for our choices. The same command, to “love the Lord your God,”  applies to Adam and us alike, and just as Adam was cursed for his false worship, so will those who reject the call of Christ and follow other gods face judgment (Matthew 22:37). The role of the Fall, then, is limited to one of exacerbation and corruption. A fallen human nature and cursed creation opens the door to the gross development of oppressive false religions, violent religious conflict, and fearful persecution. Rather than using the freedom of worship to serve God, humans use it to inflict pain and suffering on one another. Thus, the role of the church in its work of restoration is two-fold: to recognize and respect freedom of religion as a part of man’s imago dei nature, while also stemming the tide of sinful violence and religious persecution in the world. Encouraging the development of legal and social structures that further these aims is the prime way the Church can protect its own ability to worship freely and the dignity of man writ large.

Thankfully the Church finds a great buttress of faith in American jurisprudence. Religious freedom is often called the “first freedom” because it serves as the cornerstone of our constitutional order. Through the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, we safeguard the freedom of man to exercise his religion as he pleases, a right not given by the government, but recognized as being “endowed by [our] Creator.”⁷  Its counterpart, the Establishment Clause, naturally balances this freedom with the state’s corresponding duty; namely, prohibiting government coercion, or preferential treatment, of others in matters of faith. Our federal civil rights laws, most prominently the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, build on this foundation to protect religious people and organizations in every segment of society, from healthcare to the military to private industry. So too, should religious legal protections extend to the uniquely valuable domain of the college campus.

To freely exercise religious beliefs in campus organizations on an equal basis to secular students is a necessary policy position that must be defended by Christians for people of all faiths. Beyond the desire to uphold the fundamental dignity of man, there are also practical realities that demand special attention from the church to this matter. For the mission of the gospel to proceed, the generational transfer of the faith must continue. It is no secret that religious affiliation and rates of personal belief are in decline, especially in younger generations. ⁸ High school and college graduates are more likely to lose faith than at any other time in their lives.⁹ Surrounded by secular influences and lacking religious instruction, many fall away. Campus ministries fill this gap and stem the tide of secularization. They bring hope and life to students across the country. And they must be given every opportunity to flourish if the church is to grow and succeed in its generational mission. 

2. Policy Proposals

Having considered the theological basis for religious freedom, we will now explore practical policy solutions from three politico-theological perspectives. Each represents different Christian approaches to alleviating the persecution of student religious organizations: first, the political theologian with a regular order legislative proposal bolstered by the power of persuasion; second, the Christian realist that uses creative partisan legislative strategies that rely on the power of process; and third, the emerging Christian nationalist with a radical constitutionalist executive approach that turns on power itself. We will explore each, briefly analyzing their process of execution, Christian grounding, and practical and theological strengths and weaknesses. 

3. Regular Order Legislation

Inspired by the practical public theology tradition, a Christian policy approach grounded in communicating natural law principles to the broader public, the first proposal is a “regular order” legislative bill that tackles the campus crisis head-on. This camp seeks to follow in the footsteps of Congress in 1984, which, as discussed previously, established protections for religious organizations in primary and secondary schools.¹⁰  This proposal would attempt to recreate the success of the original statute through a new bill expanding protections to higher education. The most viable bill currently in consideration is the Equal Campus Access Act of 2025 (S.2859), whose central provision reads: 

None of the funds made available under this Act may be provided to any public institution of higher education that denies to a religious student organization any right, benefit, or privilege that is otherwise afforded to other student organizations at the institution (including full access to the facilities of the institution and official recognition of the organization by the institution) because of the religious beliefs, practices, speech, leadership standards, or standards of conduct of the religious student organization.¹¹

The mechanism of a regular order bill would be the traditional legislative process, namely securing significant bipartisan support for, as it currently exists, a standalone bill, or as attached to a more comprehensive education reform bill. The language would be open to amendments, require majority support in the House, and need to surpass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate before being signed into law. 

The public theology tradition is well suited to taking up this approach, as it emphasises “bring[ing] biblically informed principles and insights from the experience of covenant community in the church to bear on questions about how to order our lives together in political society.”¹² In other words, the practical theologian attempts to influence politics with the powers of persuasion, drawing on natural law principles of human dignity, freedom of conscience, and natural rights to make the case for policy. Under this proposal, where building bipartisan support is necessary, the practical theologian might use the language of human rights to describe the nation’s commitment to religious freedom, appeal to student equality and equity as key values, and make social and sociological arguments as to why preserving the authenticity of student religious organizations helps everyone. They would focus on the universality of religious freedom as protecting not only Christians, but Jewish, Buddhist, and Muslim students alike. The ultimate goal would be building a social consensus that makes members of Congress comfortable supporting the campus legislation in a bipartisan way. There are practical and theological strengths and weaknesses to this approach. With a desire to build widespread consensus, the Christian political advocate nobly works to preserve a path of peace in politics. A bill backed by a bipartisan Congress and the public at large is the ideal form of effective, long-term federal action. It is also the most difficult and time intensive path towards change. And while there are certainly proud examples of long legislative efforts to turn public and political opinion (just look to William Wilberforce’s 20-year crusade to abolish the slave trade in England), it may be that certain political issues may be more or less malleable to public moral witness. In the student organization context, where we see a fierce commitment to gender ideological beliefs that run contrary to natural law principles of religious freedom, it is doubtful to expect change. Political messaging campaigns can hardly be expected to shake such grounded public convictions in any relevant time frame for the crisis students face today. 

From a political perspective, the regular order process presents additional risks, as bill language remains open to amendment and compromise, potentially detrimentally weakening the text. The Equal Access Act of 1984 is itself a cautionary tale. Introduced by conservative legislators, political necessity required textual changes to win Democratic votes and the bill was expanded to provide equal access to political, philosophical, and other non-religious student organizations in schools that received federal funding. While it has proved a relative success, the bill had unintended consequences, allowing for fringe political and ideological associations to exist in schools that were not part of the Member’s original intent. Considering these theological and practical challenges, the practical public theology camp’s proposal is thus ill-suited for the task at hand. 

4. Legislative Proceduring

With Congress’s current polarization and tight vote margins, a second policy approach that favors strict partisan legislative maneuvering arises. This approach can be thought of in the Christian realist tradition as expressed by Reinhold Niebuhr, whose robust view of fallen human nature allows for a more flexible, yet still principled, use of the levers of political procedure. This proposal also hopes to pass the language of bills such as the Equal Campus Access Act, but is open to unconventional legislative pathways. Two examples we will discuss here include 1) using the Appropriations conference process to insert bill text into must-pass legislation and 2) bypassing the Parliamentarian in a partisan reconciliation vote. Both would limit or completely eradicate Democratic say over the text of legislation, effectively ensuring its passage. 

The Christian realist tradition emphasizes the role human corruption plays in social and political life. Recognizing the weight and scope of sin’s destructive power, Christian realists understand the restorative responsibility of the church in terms of political necessity. The tradition understands that 

We are men, not God. We are responsible for making choices between greater and lesser evils, even when our Christian faith, illuminating the human scene, makes it quite apparent that there is no pure good in history; and probably no pure evil, either.¹³

Legal procedural loopholes, even uncustomary or precedentially violative ones, can yet be viable political options. Facing the realities of political gridlock and recognizing that bipartisan federal action is nearly impossible, the Christian realist may lament the fact that sin has caused division that allows religious intolerance to spread, while also advocating for necessary partisan action. By using the processes of conference appropriation bills and partisan reconciliation, the Christian realist can drastically increase the odds of passing into law protective language for students. The mechanism for an appropriations conference bill would go something like this: the Equal Campus Access Act text is not introduced as a standalone bill, but slipped in as a provision into an education appropriations bill, which is itself caught up as part of a minibus of committee bills. Only needing majority support, the text can be passed through committee markup and then by the House. As the appropriations process moves to conference, the majority party in conference could ensure the text remains in the final compromise bill by strong-arming the opposition in negotiation talks. At that point, the collective appropriations bill returns to both chambers, where no amendments are allowed, and each chamber must pass the bill in its entirety. At this juncture, the minority party could theoretically tank the deal, but the threat of a lapse of funding resulting in a government shutdown made it nearly guaranteed the provision would survive. 

A reconciliation party line approach would mostly take place in the Senate, as the Parliamentarian is responsible for enforcing the Byrd Rule, a procedural rule that limits the kinds of provisions that can pass through the appropriations-based reconciliation package. Attempting to include religious liberty language (even while emphasizing its federal funding budgetary impact) would be difficult, as the minority party would likely challenge the language directly to the Parliamentarian. At that point, the majority party would have to take the aggressive move of either (a) firing the Parliamentarian and replacing her with a more sympathetic ally or (b) outright refusing to enforce her decision and moving forward with the package (which is a violation of procedural custom but not forbidden). Both would accomplish a party-line vote that could bring the legislation to pass. These two approaches come with serious risks, not least undermining public and institutional trust in the political party long-term and violating protective institutional norms and safeguards. It leaves whatever law that is passed with serious opposition in a Congress that may try to overrule it in the future. And the proposal flirts closely with a deceptive and uncharitable spirit many Christian may want to avoid. And yet, the Christian realist perspective offers legitimate and legal legislative solutions that actually accomplishes the goal of improving student religious organizations’ religious freedom. 

5. Executive Action

Finally, there exists an executive policy proposal that would harness the power of the executive branch to aggressively investigate and prosecute schools that receive federal funding and discriminate against student religious organizations. We’ve seen this play out in the context of anti-semitism in the current Trump Administration, which has been bold in its enforcement of federal civil rights law and has recovered millions in settlement fees from high-profile universities. This approach represents a muscular and aggressive political “radical constitutionalism” that springs from the popular, if grossly undefined, “Christian nationalist” movement.  

Christian radical constitutionalism is used broadly to describe a political theory that is subservient to distinctly theological ends and is willing to “throw off the precedents and legal paradigms that have wrongly developed” in American history.¹⁴ (Interestingly, this movement may itself be a progeny of the Christin realist and Catholic integralism traditions). With a view of the church that intimately influences the shape, structure, and flavor of government, the Christian nationalist embraces the use of political power to pursue policies that often explicitly support Christians and Christian values. As a movement unmoored from the natural law tradition, there is little incentive for executive enforcement to be used to protect the natural rights of minority or potentially “subversive” religious student communities and organizations. 

The mechanism of this executive proposal would use federal funding and agency oversight capacities to directly target schools that violate federal religious civil rights laws when they derecognize and ban religious campus groups. The goal of the administration would be to intimidate schools to respect Christian student organizations’ rights, or face costly lawsuits.  As seen in the antisemitism context, this method can produce quick and immediate results, stirring up national conversation and attention to the crisis of systematic discrimination. It has the potential to significantly help student religious organizations who are currently facing persecution and chilling effects on their campuses. It also allows for more aggressive prosecution of private schools who rely on federal funding and who generally have more legal flexibility than public institutions. 

Yet, the executive approach faces serious drawbacks. First, the executive is limited to enforcing existing legal standards and court precedent. Although there are jurisdictions across the country with strong religious liberty protections for students, most ongoing litigation happens in districts with weak or harmful judicial precedent. The administration’s actions, as we’ve seen over the last year, would inevitably invite a plethora of court challenges, and losing any of those on religious liberty grounds could prove detrimental to student groups in the long-term. Additionally, and obviously, the power of an administration exists only so long as its political party remains in office; executive orders and agency directions can easily be overturned by future administrations. 

For the church, the executive policy approach would likely have a negative effect. As the church aims to be an agent of peace and a safe haven for students on campuses, its claims are undermined when an aggressive and vindictive political theory is its main defense. This approach also likely violates principles of subsidiarity by jumping to supreme executive enforcement power to do the work of legislators who are more closely tied to home districts and better equipped to produce long-term solutions. And most fundamentally, Christian radical constitutionalism challenges the value of universal conscience rights discussed in the earlier theological reflections of this paper. It is thus an untenable solution for fixing a problem that students of all faiths experience nationwide. 

6. Recommendation

Given the presented policy solutions, what then would be the best course of action to protect religious student organizations? As in most things, the proposals suggested are not mutually exclusive, and may in fact together prove most effective in resolving the campus crisis. The public theologian can offer a strong, accessible defense for religious freedom that may do much to create common consensus to protect religious student groups from the worst forms of aggression and harassment. The Christian nationalist’s inclination to use the force of the executive to support the needs of the church can be directed to a more moderate recognition that equal enforcement of existing laws is a good and necessary part of the executive’s responsibility. But I believe it’s the Christian realist model that recognizes the necessity of political partisanship and the opportunities of procedural loopholes that can most efficiently and effectively bring about change. Between the two scenarios presented in the second policy proposal, it is the appropriations conference process that is preferable, because it minimizes institutional norm-breaking and maintains a level of bipartisanship in the legislative process, however manufactured or forced it may be. This will go a long way in making sure the resulting legislation is strong, respected, and can stand the test of time.

7. Conclusion

For students of faith across America, campus religious organizations provide indispensable support for college life. Their presence helps foster dialogue and authentic pluralism in universities and provides space for students to freely worship according to the dictates of their conscience. This right has deep theological roots and can be traced to the imago dei created nature of man. When this freedom faces aggressive assaults and religious students are harassed and barred from equal access to campus resources and community life, action is necessary. Congress has a history of helping preserve the religious free exercise rights of students in the past, and there are viable solutions that fit within orthodox Christian worldviews to make that a reality in the present. Staff, lawmakers, and the public should continue to fight to push legislation across the line when it is central to protecting not just the constitutional, but natural rights of students. They should be encouraged that they are participating in the restorative mission of the church when they do. 

¹ Fleshman, Benjamin, “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Martinez?” Texas Review of Law and Politics 29 (2025): 232.
² A small cross sample of affected student groups include the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, the Imam Mahdi Organization, the Latter-day Saint Student Association, the Sikh Awareness Club, and Christian Legal Society.
³ Fleshman, “How Do You Solve a Problem like Martinez?,” 258.
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ Ibid.
⁶ Wilken, Robert Louis,  Liberty in the Things of God. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019).
⁷  The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, National Archives.
⁸  Jones, Jeffrey. “Church Attendance Has Declined in Most U.S. Religious Groups.” Gallup.com, 25 Mar. 2024.
⁹  “Most Twentysomethings Put Christianity on the Shelf Following Spiritually Active Teen Years,” Barna Group. https://www.barna.com/research/most-twentysomethings-put-christianity-on-the-shelf-following-spiritually-active-teen-years/
¹⁰ Equal Access Act of 1984. Pub. L. 98-377. United States Statutes at Large, vol. 98, 1984.
¹¹ Text – S.2859 – 119th Congress (2025-2026): Equal Campus Access Act of 2025. Congress.gov, Library of Congress, 18 September 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/2859/text.
¹²  Jennifer Patterson, “Christian Formation in Practical Public Theology,” Unio Cum Christo. 6. 147. (2020) 10.35285/ucc6.2.2020.art8.reconciliation.
¹³ Tafilowski, Ryan. “The Center for Pastor Theologians.” The Center for Pastor Theologians, 19 Oct. 2020, www.pastortheologians.com/articles/2020/10/19/politics-and-christian-realism-in-niebuhr
¹⁴ Russell Vought, “Renewing American Purpose.” The American Mind, 2022.