American law embraces the idea that college admissions ought to be based on individual merit—students should neither be favored nor penalized by extraneous factors such as their race, sex, or religion. In its 2023 Students for Fair Admissions decision, the Supreme Court made clear that discrimination in admissions was unacceptable and must end entirely.
Nevertheless, discrimination continues, sometimes because school officials think they can get away with it and, on occasion, because laws or regulations actually prevent a college from having a nondiscriminatory admissions policy. That is the case with regard to Thomas Aquinas College (TAC) in Northfield, Massachusetts.
TAC has two campuses. Its original campus in California opened in 1971. The school was founded with the intention of providing a traditional Great Books education in a traditional Catholic setting. It proved to be very successful, earning a “best college value” designation from Kiplinger magazine. The school’s leadership felt the need to offer the same education to students in the eastern part of the U.S., and, in 2019, they opened a second campus, in Massachusetts, on land that had been purchased by Steve Green, the president of Hobby Lobby.
Students drawn to the curriculum and environment of Thomas Aquinas College need no governmental protection from Catholic school officials.
TAC is every bit as popular in Massachusetts as it is in California, but it faces a problem there—a hostile state regulation that is not even directly about education but, rather, health insurance. Massachusetts compels all employers to offer contraceptive coverage in their health-insurance packages. That causes a problem for employers who have moral objections to contraception, which includes TAC, since Catholic theology holds that contraception is inherently sinful.
Massachusetts does recognize an exception to its mandate for “qualified church-controlled organizations.” To count as such an organization, TAC must not offer goods, services, or facilities “to the general public.” The officials running TAC in Massachusetts can avoid the insurance entanglement with the state by admitting only Catholic students, thus not offering services “to the general public.”
Does that make any sense?
Even if you believe that it is proper for the government to mandate specific health-insurance benefits rather than leaving that to the choices of the parties involved, why should securing an exception to that rule depend on discriminating against all applicants for admission who are not of a certain religious faith? In the case of TAC, students who are not Catholic would not be any worse off if they enrolled at the school. If they are drawn to the curriculum and environment of TAC, they need no governmental protection from Catholic school officials.
This reminds me of the years-long attack by the federal government against the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic organization that did not want to be compelled to pay for abortion and contraception in their health benefits. To some government officials, religious organizations that simply want to be left alone are irresistible targets for high-handed, draconian tactics.
TAC can, of course, survive this discriminatory mandate, but it should not have to.
George Leef is director of external relations at the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.
From the Academy content may be reproduced with permission. Please write to republish@jamesgmartin.center. All republished articles should include our author’s byline and must prominently name From the Academy as the original publisher.