news-record.com

An N.C. Court of Appeals ruling saying Davidson College campus police can’t enforce state laws because of the school’s religious affiliation confuses church-state and public safety issues.

At the attorney general’s request, the N.C. Supreme Court has ordered a stay and will weigh in on the lower court’s controversial decision.

The case goes back to a 2006 traffic stop on a street near the campus. The driver was charged with drunken driving, pleaded guilty, then appealed, saying the college-employed officer had no authority to arrest her.

Her attorney contended that the arresting officer lacked authority because of Davidson College’s religious affiliation. State law grants Davidson and a number of other church-connected colleges broader policing powers. Not all religiously affiliated schools choose to have them, however.

Key to the appeals court ruling is what constitutes religious affiliation. Based on interpretations of prior cases addressing private schools’ legal status, the appeals court ruled that Davidson met the criteria of being church-affiliated. Yet the judges hinted further review by the state Supreme Court could shed more light on complex case law.

The final outcome could affect how private institutions of higher learning, ranging in size from Duke and Wake Forest to Belmont Abbey and Brevard College, police their campuses.

Most relevant could be whether the church-school connection is in name only or if the denomination is actively involved in setting policies.

Many of the state’s private colleges and universities were begun by religious organizations. Some have cut ties while others have kept them. The Baptist Church, for example, no longer plays an active role in governing Wake Forest University but maintains close ties with Campbell University. Davidson College, it should be noted, doesn’t require students to take religion classes despite its affiliation with the Presbyterian Church.    

No matter the extent of the relationship, it should be clear that maintaining a safe environment and watching over students, faculty and campus guests has nothing to do with espousing a particular religious dogma.

In granting such authority, legislators’ sole intent was to further protect the public. It would be a stretch to construe bolstering campus security  as a veiled attempt to endorse religious views — whatever they might be.

Denying colleges the authority to enforce state laws on flawed constitutional concerns would place an additional, costly burden on local governments asked to fill the void.

The Supreme Court should recognize that the issue here is public safety rather than religious persecution. It’s all about safety, not sermons.