Opinion ID: 1059541
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis of state issues

Text: Both the Act and Article VIII, § 11 of the Constitution of Virginia state that aid is permitted to institutions whose primary purpose is to provide collegiate or graduate education and not to provide religious training or theological education. Va. Const. art. VIII, § 11, Code § 23-30.41(e). In addition to finding that Regent was pervasively sectarian, the trial court held that it could not validate the bonds because Regent had a primary purpose of religious training, which would violate the Act and Virginia constitutional provisions. Appellees candidly concede that, apart from particular concerns about the School of Divinity, they do not contend that Regent is such an institution. In their brief appellees state: Although the trial court found otherwise, the Appellees did not contend in the court below and do not contend here, that Regent is such an institution. The Appellees' only contention that involves Article VIII, § 11 pertains to Regent's proposal of a pro rata contribution to compensate for the Divinity School's use of the bond-financed buildings. Accordingly, the general question of whether the bonds can be issued turns on whether the issuance would violate the federal Establishment Clause and the parallel provision of the Virginia Constitution, Article I, § 16. Despite appellees' concession, the trial court, nonetheless, made these findings and we must review them. [2] As more fully developed in this opinion, we find that Regent, in both policy and practice, is pervasively sectarian. However, this conclusion does not resolve the question of its primary purpose. In order to validate the bond issue, state constitutional and statutory provisions require that Regent must be an institution whose primary purpose is to provide collegiate or graduate education and not to provide religious training or theological education. With the exception of the Divinity School, we are satisfied that Regent meets this requirement. Definition of the phrase religious training or theological education must precede our analysis of primary purpose. The Report of the Commission on Constitutional Revisions (Report) observed that a theological seminary would not qualify for inclusion but stated that among those colleges and universities which would qualify, the section makes no distinction between those which are church-related and those which are not. Many of the private colleges in Virginia are church-related, but typically they operate like any other college. Report of the Commission on Constitutional Revision, 1969, p. 274. Of particular help in our interpretation of the meaning of the phrase religious training or theological education is the Report's reference to Public Views Document 100 which is a Memorandum to Commission on Constitutional Revision from the Association of Independent Colleges. The Report specifically cites to that portion of the Memorandum which states: The Association does not advocate state aid for the promotion of theological training or religious education. Clearly, a seminary and its students should be barred from state aid. Under the federal Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 a distinction is made between a church related college and an institution or one of its departments whose primary function is educating students for religious vocations. See 20 U.S.C.A. § 751(a)(2). This distinction is the difference between an institution `whose primary service is to the state and community and one whose primary service is to a religious or denominational group. (emphasis supplied). Public Views Document 100, p. 6. Based on the language in this document and the Report of the Commission on Constitutional Revision, we interpret the phrase theological education to be applicable to a seminary or other institution whose purpose is to prepare students for vocations associated with ordination, such as rabbi, minister or priest. By contrast, we interpret the phrase religious training to be applicable to institutions or departments within institutions whose purpose is preparation of students for religious vocations other than those associated with ordination. Such other vocations would include missionary or director of religious education. In either case, the primary function is educating students for religious vocations. [3] With the exception of the School of Divinity, the primary purpose of Regent's graduate programs is preparing students for secular vocations. Although an institution may have multiple purposes, by definition it can have only one primary purpose. Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1993) defines primary as first in order of time or development. Id. at 1800. Regent offers over 20 different graduate degrees in subjects such as business, education, journalism, law, and psychology. Regent is accredited by the SACS to award the master's and doctor's degrees. In reaffirming Regent's accreditation, SACS noted that: Regent University demonstrates a well-documented concern for promoting and assuring academic freedom and providing for professional security of faculty members. The faculty want to integrate faith into learning, but no one attempts to dictate to them how this is to be done.       Faculty and students are free to examine all pertinent data, question assumptions, be guided by the evidence of scholarly research, and teach and study the substance of a given discipline. All the units seem very open to and supportive of academic freedom, viewing it, as one unit explains, as a sacred trust. The ABA accredited the law school and such accreditation permits its graduates to apply for licensure to practice law in all 50 states. The ABA also found no inhibition of Regent's academic freedom. The law school at Regent provides a good illustration of Regent's primary purpose. First year students are required to take courses in Common Law, Contracts, Torts, Civil Procedure, Legal Research and Writing, and Property. Students are exposed to the same core curriculum that permeates the first year at any law school in the country. Regent may have an idealized mission of glorifying God and His Son, Jesus Christ. However, this precatory language does not reveal the primary institutional purpose. In all practical aspects, Regent is a graduate institution that teaches various secular subjects from a religious viewpoint. The prohibition in question under the Act and the Constitution of Virginia does not proscribe teaching of otherwise secular subjects from a religious viewpoint. We hold that, with the exception of the Divinity School, Regent is an institution whose primary purpose is to provide collegiate or graduate education and not to provide religious training or theological education. [4] In addition to particular concerns about use of the bond-funded facilities by the School of Divinity [5] , appellees maintain that Article I, § 16 of the Constitution of Virginia, which they refer to as a parallel provision to the federal Establishment Clause, is violated and that our prior holding in Habel v. Indus. Dev. Auth., 241 Va. 96, 400 S.E.2d 516 (1991) (Liberty University is pervasively sectarian and its participation in industrial bond financing violates the Establishment Clause and Article I, § 16 of the Constitution of Virginia) must be applied to invalidate the conduit bonds proposed to be issued to Regent. Appellees are correct to characterize Article I, § 16 of the Constitution of Virginia as a parallel provision to the Establishment Clause for we have always been informed by the United States Supreme Court Establishment Clause jurisprudence in our construction of Article I, § 16. Because the Establishment Clause landscape is ever-changing, we have not hesitated to reconsider prior interpretation of our own Constitution. We noted in Miller v. Ayres, 214 Va. 171, 198 S.E.2d 634 (1973)(Miller II), that the United States Supreme Court had decided ten cases involving state programs of financial aid to private educational institutions since Miller I. See Miller II, 214 Va. at 180, 198 S.E.2d at 641. We stated without hesitation, ftlhese new decisions require a reexamination of our earlier holding. Id. Similarly, the multitude of Establishment Clause cases decided by the United States Supreme Court since Habel require reexamination of that prior holding. As our analysis of current Establishment Clause requirements reveals, Regent's participation in the VCBA bond program does not violate the Establishment Clause and similarly does not violate Article I, § 16 of the Constitution of Virginia.