Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Texas State University–San Marcos: 1994–2010 Inactive Delta Sigma Phi: Theta Eta: 1994–199x ?; 2017 Active [28] Delta Tau Delta: Zeta Delta: 1970–January 2017 Inactive [b] Delta Upsilon: SW Texas: 1972–1977 Inactive [c] Kappa Alpha Order: Epsilon Iota: 1979–January 2017 Active [d] Kappa Sigma: Theta Lambda: 1966–1987, 1990–1999 ...
Charges of religious and racial discrimination have also been found in the education system. In a recent example, the dormitory policies at Boston University and The University of South Dakota were charged with racial and religious discrimination when they forbade a university dormitory resident from smudging while praying.
Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the religion clauses of the First Amendment did not prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax exempt status of a religious university whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy, such as eradicating racial discrimination.
Amanda Tyler writes that thew Texas law that allows public schools to replace counselors with chaplains and to use funds earmarked for school safety and mental health to pay them is a betrayal of ...
The suit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleged that the university system's rejection of several courses, including a history course, a government course, and science courses, was "viewpoint discrimination" that violated the constitutional rights of applicants from Christian schools whose high school coursework is deemed inadequate preparation ...
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick expressed outrage a day later, lamenting that Texas wasn't the first to require the religious text in schools. “Texas WOULD have been and SHOULD have been the first state in ...
Fourth Amendment rights and religious freedom were key arguments in the legal battle between the Texas AG and El Paso's Annunciation House.
The Court held that while Title VII applies a mixed motive discrimination framework to claims of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2), that framework did not apply to claims of retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. The Court reasoned that based on its decision in Gross v.