Senate Bill 1146, also known as the Equity in Higher Education Act, is arguably one of the most controversial legislations in California. It aims to prevent discrimination based on aspects like sexual orientation in postsecondary education institutions within the state. Initially, it proposed eliminating the exemption that allowed some institutions to operate according to their religious values (Adams, 2016). However, widespread opposition demonstrated that revoking this exemption was almost impossible. Thus, it was amended to exclude this section, leading to its enactment in September 2016 (Adams, 2016). Despite its ratification, SB 1146 raises several ethical questions. Among them is the view that it achieves its objective by infringing on the religious freedom of faith-based institutions. This issue is the reason it creates a conflict for leaders in the affected institutions. This paper looks into this debate and outlines an effective strategy to address its dilemma. The best way to address the dilemma created by SB 1146 is to adopt an ethical decision-making model. The effectiveness of this approach can be improved through a transformational leadership style since this promotes dialogue and subsequently results in an increased understanding of the matter.
Supporting and Opposing Perspectives on SB 1146
When SB 1146 was ratified, it led to heated debates due to its impacts across the state. On one camp, its supporters argued that it was necessary to protect the rights of LGBTQ+ students. Specifically, these students faced significant discrimination in faith-based institutions with no solutions due to the exemption rule (Haskins & Evans, 2020). Thus, supporters claimed that the Equity in Higher Education Act would ensure that all students are treated equally in these institutions (Haskins & Evans, 2020). In essence, the law would allow students to practice their faith regardless of sexuality. Supporters also asserted that the bill would uphold the state’s non-discrimination values. Chiefly, the religious exemption law was a loophole that allowed institutions to violate civil rights within California. Thus, the law was crucial in addressing these issues.
Conversely, the opponents argued that the bill attacked the religious freedom of faith-based institutions. These institutions held different views on the matters based on values established by their faith. Thus, the bill would force them to compromise their faith (Haskins & Evans, 2020). Moreover, SB 1146 would threaten their accreditation, funding, and enrolment, all anchored on their values. Several opponents also highlighted the need to respect the US Constitution. Specifically, the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protected faith-based institutions from government interference (Haskins & Evans, 2020). Hence, enacting state laws that went against the US Constitution was illogical.
Both perspectives had their strengths and weaknesses. The supporters have a valid moral and legal argument for ensuring equality within the state. However, they face the challenge of respecting the diversity of religious beliefs. This issue risks alienating faith-based institutions in the state. Conversely, the opponents’ view on preserving the religious freedom of faith-based institutions is valid. However, they also face the challenge of addressing the concerns of marginalized groups in the state. Therefore, they risk being perceived as discriminatory, regardless of their intentions.
Worldviews and Other Perspectives on SB 1146
A worldview can be defined as a set of beliefs and assumptions one holds about reality. It affects one’s ethical judgments, shaping how one sees themselves, others, and the world (Gray, 2011). Each individual’s worldview highly influenced the debate regarding SB 1146. Primarily, worldviews differed across all parties involved in the issue. This is because they had different perspectives based on their interests (Lang, 2016). Thus, leaders in affected institutions must consider the diversity of worldviews, leading to the dilemma. They must also strive to remain true to their institutions’ missions, exacerbating the situation.
Strategy for Addressing the Dilemma
The leaders of faith-based institutions can use the ethical decision-making model to address the dilemma posed by SB 1146. This comprises awareness, analysis, action, and assessment (SCU, n.d.). Through its implementation, it can help them to identify the ethical problem and evaluate the alternatives. Subsequently, they can choose the best action and assess the potential consequences. Further, they must consider the expectations of various stakeholders within their communities. These include members of the LGBTQ+ community and the state. Thus, they must balance their interests with their own religious beliefs to guarantee success. Nonetheless, incorporating transformational leadership in the process would be prudent. Specifically, transformational leadership encourages a culture of dialogue that can help all stakeholders reason out together (Khan et al., 2020). It achieves this through individualized consideration, which helps keep lines of communication open. Moreover, it encourages leaders to cater to the needs of everyone involved (Khan et al., 2020). Hence, this technique is essential in addressing the dilemma created by SB 1146.
Conclusion
This case study analyzed the ethical implications of SB 1146 for faith-based higher education institutions. It has presented a strategy for addressing the dilemma from a management and leadership perspective. The case study has argued that a leader can use the ethical decision-making model of awareness, analysis, action, and assessment to address the dilemma effectively. Moreover, adopting a transformational leadership style can foster a culture of respect and dialogue that are critical in the process. This strategy would help them balance the expectations of all stakeholders. Moreover, it can allow them to remain true to their religious beliefs.
References
Adams, J. M. (2016, May 31). California bill takes aim at religious colleges that seek to bar transgender students. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2016/california-bills-take-aim-at-religious-colleges-that-seek-to-bar-transgender-students/564869
Gray, A. J. (2011). Worldviews. International Psychiatry, 8(3), 58-60. https://doi.org/10.1192/s1749367600002563
Haskins, A. S., & Evans, E. A. (2020, October 6). What lawyers and litigants need to know about Senate Bill 1146. Daily Journal. https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/359854-what-lawyers-and-litigants-need-to-know-about-senate-bill-1146
Khan, H., Rehmat, M., Butt, T. H., Farooqi, S., & Asim, J. (2020). Impact of transformational leadership on work performance, burnout, and social loafing: A mediation model. Future Business Journal, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-020-00043-8
Lang, N. (2016, October 4). THE ADVOCATE – CALIFORNIA PASSES LAW PREVENTING COLLEGES FROM DISCRIMINATING AGAINST LGBT STUDENTS. Equality California. https://www.eqca.org/advocate-1146/
SCU. (n.d.). A framework for ethical decision making. Santa Clara University. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/a-framework-for-ethical-decision-making/
write