EDUC 525 Learning Task 1

Trinity Western University vs. British Columbia College of Teachers

Erin Davis, Parminder Kandola, Katherine Mulvihill

University of Calgary
LEARNING TASK 1 1

In the Trinity Western University (TWU) v. British Columbia College of Teachers

(BCCT) (2001) case, the Respondents,TWU, a private institution associated with the Evangelical

Free Church of Canada, made a claim against the Appellant, BCCT, for refusing to approve the

application for accreditation of their Bachelor of Education program. The application was denied

on the grounds that TWU follows discriminatory practices against homosexual individuals, and

as a result, graduates of the teacher education program would not serve the best interest of the

public education system in British Columbia. The discriminatory practices that are referred to by

BCCT relate to a Community Standards contract in which all students and faculty of TWU must

agree to, which prohibits “PRACTICES THAT ARE BIBLICALLY CONDEMNED”, including

“sexual sins including . . . homosexual behaviour” (​Trinity Western v. BCCT​, 2001). The

Supreme Court made a final ruling in favor of the Respondent, Trinity Western University,

allowing the accreditation of the teacher education program on the basis that it is outside of

BCCT’s jurisdiction to consider whether the program follows discriminatory practices, and that

there was no reasonable foundation to support BCCT’s decision. It should be noted that this

paper does not argue for or against the merit of TWU’s Community Standards that students are

required to agree to. Rather, we seek to take a reasoned position on the BCCT’s jurisdiction to

grant the TWU teacher education program accreditation. This paper argues in favor of the

Supreme Court’s judgement based on the following two contentions:

1. Individuals with the same or similar beliefs, biases, or personal judgements that are

deemed discriminatory by BCCT may attend public universities without declaring such

beliefs, and still become accredited teachers.

LEARNING TASK 1 2

2. There is a lack of evidence to suggest that graduates of TWU’s teacher education

program will practice discriminatory behaviour toward homosexual individuals.

The first contention raises a significant point of hypocrisy by the Appellant, which this

paper argues lacks justification. Specifically, the Appellant is claiming to restrict the

accreditation of TWU teacher education graduates, based on the stance that accrediting such

graduates as teachers in the public education system would be against the public good because

such graduates agree to the discriminatory practices that are upheld by the institution in which

they attended. This argument lacks merit, as BCCT takes no measures to ensure graduates of

public institutions do not hold similar discriminatory beliefs. This is to say that an individual

who strongly and openly discriminates against homsexual individuals, but attends a public

university, will face no obstacles in obtaining certification by BCCT unless the faculty of that

institution or their supervising teacher files an official complaint with respect to their behaviours

or beliefs. To further cement the argument regarding the lack of merit of the stance by the

Appellant, the court case states,

“Indeed, if TWU’s Community Standards could be sufficient in themselves to justify

denying accreditation, it is difficult to see how the same logic would not result in the

denial of accreditation to members of a particular church.” (​Trinity Western v. BCCT​,

2001, p. 30)

Through this statement, the hypocrisy of the Appellant's judgement to discredit TWU teacher

education graduates based on a statement of faith, while simultaneously failing to take measures

against the accreditation of individuals graduating from public universities who may also hold

discriminatory beliefs, is evident. Donlevy (2004) argues that when considering policies that
LEARNING TASK 1 3

govern educational institutions, “[it is necessary that] pedagogical policymakers eschew what

some may see as the politically correct position” (p. 322). It can be argued that many students

throughout the province of British Columbia may have chosen to attend TWU due to the desire

to be part of a religious campus community, but chose a public university with an accredited

teacher education program that was closer to their place of residence. If this is the case, and

BCCT upholds their position that individuals with such discriminatory beliefs are unfit to serve

the public education system, then BCCT is failing in their duty to uphold this stance. Moreover,

it cannot be reasonably assumed that refusing to accredit the teacher education program at TWU

will prevent the students of TWU from choosing to obtain a Bachelor of Education from an

accredited public university. As a result, the refusal to accredit the teacher education program on

the basis of discriminatory practices or beliefs that may be upheld by the graduates of such a

program is inconsistent with the practices of accreditation by BCCT, and therefore lacks merit.

To speak to the second contention, when a defendant is accused, there often exists some

concrete evidence that proves the defendant guilty of said accusation. In the case of TWU,

BCCT made a proactive accusation that its graduates would hold certain prejudices against

homosexuals. The BCCT claimed that “signing the contract makes the student or employee

complicit in an overt… act of discrimination against homosexuals and bisexuals” (​Trinity

Western v. BCCT,​ 2001, p. 5). It is true that the mandatory acknowledgement via signature of the

Community Standards laid out by TWU did explicitly state that homosexuality was not

acceptable. However, the BCCT acted presumptuously in assuming that just because a student

would sign TWU’s Community Standards, that they would project those discriminations in their

classroom. However, TWU argued that based upon British Columbia’s ​Teaching Profession Act,​
LEARNING TASK 1 4

the BCCT’s jurisdiction did not extend to matters of religious beliefs, and therefore the BCCT’s

initial ruling was discriminatory towards TWU (Donlevy, 2004, p. 308). Even though the BCCT

intended well by considering the public’s interests, they failed to consider the real impact those

TWU beliefs have “on the public-school environment,” and therefore “acted on the basis of

irrelevant considerations” (​Trinity Western v. BCCT,​ 2001, p. 4).

Additionally, the argument that the fifth​ ​year at Simon Fraser University (SFU) would

have altered any ill teachings that may have occurred in the first four years also seems

unreasonable. After spending four years at TWU, it seems improbable that the fifth​ ​year at SFU

would be dedicated to teaching values that ran contrary to the values in question in the TWU

Community Standards. I would predict that the program at TWU is a professional one that has a

primary goal of teaching pedagogy to its students. Thus, allowing TWU to become accredited

and remove the necessity of its students to attend a fifth​ ​year at SFU would not have any impact

on a) the integrity of the educational program and b) the student’s beliefs and their ability to

foster a healthy safe classroom environment. The BCCT’s requirement that TWU students take a

fifth year at SFU is a wholly unnecessary step that undermines TWU’s right to religious

freedom. After the BCCT’s initial rejection of TWU’s request for accreditation, the Supreme

Court determined that “the limitation on Trinity Western’s freedom set by the College was not

supportable in fact and… in principle” and, according to Donlevy (2004), “The protection of

value pluralism is fundamental to a free and democratic society.” (p. 319).

Furthermore, it is a fact that B.C legislature had passed five bills in favour of TWU

between 1969 and 1985, thereby suggesting that it did not consider “training with a Christian

philosophy was in itself against the public interest” (​Trinity Western v. BCCT,​ 2001, p. 31). In
LEARNING TASK 1 5

BCCT’s accusation and refusal to grant accreditation to TWU, the message that they were

sending was that their graduates would treat homosexual students unfairly. However, the

evidence up to the date of the appeal “is that graduates from the joint TWU-SFU teacher

education program have become competent public school teachers” and there existed no

evidence of any discriminatory conduct by those graduates (​Trinity Western v. BCCT​, 2001, p.

31). Based upon this, the BCCT’s argument against TWU was problematic from its inception as

it argued against a future hypothetical situation that did not yet have a tangible foundation.

Donlevy (2004) suggests that in the “absent evidence of actual damage to others, all of these

rights and values which underlie them, should be viewed as of equal importance regardless of the

Zeitgeist of the times.” (p. 322).

In conclusion, we reason that the Supreme Court’s ruling in favour of the Respondent’s

request for accreditation is just and fair according to existing laws and policies. This is not to say

we agree or disagree with the moralistic merit of TWU’s Community Standards - instead, we

essentially contend that the BCCT’s limitations on TWU’s freedom was based upon a future

hypothetical, and therefore outside of their reasonable jurisdiction. The BCCT’s previous

requirement that students take a fifth and final year at SFU was an unnecessary barrier to TWU’s

accreditation. There is no evidence to suggest that the fifth year at SFU holds empirical merit for

the graduates of TWU or the students they would go on to teach. While it is possible, and

perhaps even advisable, that TWU’s Community Standards agreements be revised in the future

to better accommodate students of all circumstances, the Supreme Court justly defended TWU’s

right as a legitimate educational institution to independently issue B.Ed. degrees to its graduates.
LEARNING TASK 1 6

References

Donlevy, J. K. (2004). Value Pluralism and Negative Freedom: The Surrey and Trinity Cases.
McGill Journal of Education 39 (3) pp. 305-325. See:
http://scc.lexum.org/en/2001/2001scc31/2001scc31.html

Trinity Western University v. College of Teachers [2001] 1 S.C.R. 772, 2001 SCC 31 Retrieved
from ​http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2001/2001scc31/2001scc31.html