New York’s Proposal 1 Falls Short

As New Yorkers vote in November, in addition to our electoral choices, on the back of the ballot, we will also cast votes in favor of or in opposition to Proposal 1-Equal Rights Amendment. On its face, Proposal 1’s intended changes to the state constitution seem simple and straightforward. They are not. The attempt to make them appear as such hides the reality that, if passed, Proposal 1 would have significant implications for living, learning and working in New York. I strongly encourage all New Yorkers, but New Yorkers of faith in particular, to not be misled by overly simplistic advocacy and talking points. Do not be deceived into believing these are commonsense or insignificant changes intended only to create a more fair and just New York. If passed, Proposal 1 will have tremendous impact for individuals, families, schools and colleges, community organizations and corporations in New York.

While I have personal opinions and concerns about Proposal 1, here I want to share concerns stemming from my leadership of Houghton University, a 141-year-old Christian university in New York’s Southern Tier. As Houghton’s president, the proposed amendments to the state constitution would adversely affect our institution, our students and our employees. The most significant of those adverse effects are related to parental rights, women’s athletics and religious liberty.

Parental Rights

As a New York employer that actively recruits faculty and staff nationally and internationally, the quality and operation of our schools is often a primary consideration for prospective employees with school-age children. Proposal 1 would create a pathway in the state constitution for limiting the rights of parents in the lives and decision making of their children; permitting schools and other state actors to encourage and facilitate students’ decision making regarding their sex and gender, while hiding those conversations and decisions from parents. Such a reality would be unethical and a violation of the natural and legal rights of parents. Further, it would create an additional significant barrier for corporations seeking to attract talented out-of-state and international workers to New York.

Girls’ and Women’s Athletics

Under the guise of expanded rights, Proposal 1 would secure and protect the participation of males (transgender girls and women) in girl’s and women’s athletics. In addition to obvious concerns for the safety of girls and women during competition and in locker rooms, Proposal 1 would rob some girls and women of opportunities to compete and force others to unfairly compete with male competitors who, on average, have greater strength and speed than their female counterparts. Doing so would allow for the dismantling and destruction of athletics programs that were intended to create athletics opportunities for females in schools, in neighborhood and community organizations and at the collegiate level. Further, specifically at the collegiate level, the proposed changes would disadvantage New York’s colleges and universities who recruit female student athletes from other states and internationally. In most cases, competitive female college athletes desire to compete only against other female athletes.

Religious Liberty

Proposal 1 would compromise religious liberty in New York. As president of a Christian university, this concerns me greatly. Religious liberty in the United States is intended to both (a) prevent government from promoting religion and (b) prevent government from interfering with the free exercise of religion. Proposal 1 and other similar inclusion measures overstep constitutional religious liberty protections when they prevent people of faith from freely exercising their religion. It is not inclusive to force people of faith to believe or behave in a manner that is inconsistent with their religious beliefs, to force them to raise their children in a manner that contradicts their religious beliefs, or for the state to attempt to raise their children in a manner that contradicts their religious beliefs while hiding state actions from their parents. The goal of creating and maintaining a society where all people are treated fairly and with respect is a positive and laudable goal. However, efforts to do so that trample on the rights of citizens to exercise their sincerely held religious beliefs are unconstitutional and wrong. Proposal 1’s attempt to restrict and coerce the behavior and beliefs of people of faith to conform with a conflicting ideological agenda is wrong.

My hope and prayer is that we can continue the work of creating a New York where the differences in beliefs and backgrounds of all people are respected. I want New York to be a welcoming and truly inclusive place for everyone. We can and must create a state that protects parents’ rights to raise their children according to their faith and values, ensures religious liberty for everyone and guarantees safety and fairness for female athletes. Proposal 1 falls far short of accomplishing these aims.