Part I

Facts

The plaintiff Terry Van Dyke was an inmate at the Illinois Department of Corrections. However, before receiving housing in the said facility, the plaintiff was held at Hill Correctional Center in Galesburg. While entering the Department, the plaintiff had indicated that he was Christian as his religious preference. Of importance to note, however, is that he did not put a denomination designation to his religious choice, apart from the fact that he had indicated that he was a Christian (Van Dyke v. Washington, 1995).

Later in 1992, the plaintiff obtained information on the Church of Jesus Christ, Christian (CJCC), from pamphlets, books, and other inmates. This religious denomination came into existence in the 1950s, as a product of Dr. Wesley Swift and is a religious faction of the political Aryan Nation, a right-wing, militant, white supremacists movement which calls for racial purity and separatism, as well as hatred on all non-Aryan races, with much of the hate channeled towards persons of black and Jewish ethnicities. At the time of the suit, the denomination was headed by Richard Butler and had a religious philosophy of Dualist/Identity.

On obtaining the information on the denomination mentioned earlier, the plaintiff asked the prison management to change his records to reflect his religious preference to Dualist/Identity a request that was denied by the defendant and Chaplain at the Galesburg based Hill Correctional Center R. Lane Andrist. Additionally, the plaintiff requested the prison’s management to recognize his newly found denomination CJCC as a religious group at the correctional facility he was situated, and that fellow inmates get an opportunity to meet and carry out religious services with an outsourced preacher. This request was equally denied by Andrist who was backed by an Assistant Warden Wanda Brown and Warden Jerry Gilmore.  Van Dyke, therefore, filed grievances against these decisions, which were not accorded to him. As of the time of this hearing, the correctional facility is yet to recognize CJCC as a religious group and has equally not allowed group gatherings on the same (Van Dyke v. Washington, 1995).

The plaintiff was then sent publications from the CJCC, or concerning the same issue as well as other related organizations, publications that were autonomously rejected by the correctional facility’s publications review committee. The review committee at that time consisted of Harriet McDonald, Diane Rockett, and Marion Yeazle, who are also defendants in the case. Their decision to withhold the publications was equally approved Warden Gilmore after which he forwarded the publications to the IDOC publications review committee. James Simmons, also a defendant in the case, working on behalf of IDOC, upheld the decision of the correctional facility’s committee to reject the materials. In 1993, the plaintiff was moved to Pontiac correctional facility, where he has stayed up to the point of this suit. Similarly, Pontiac officials have declined to recognize CJCC as a religious group, although none of those officials are defendants in the case.

Laws in the Case

Firstly the plaintiff argues that his first amendment rights that allow all American citizens to freely exercise religion as well as his fourteenth amendment rights that accords equal protection of rights have been violated by the correctional center’s refusal to recognize the CJCC as a religious group. On the other hand, the plaintiff further holds that rights to free speech have as well as that of free exercise of religion have been violated by the rejection of CJCC and related publications. Van Further holds that free exercise claims should be subjected to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). On the other hand, the accused argue that they are entitled to immunity against all claims by the plaintiff and that within the jurisdiction of all applicable standards their actions as explained by the plaintiff are justifiable while citing the RFRA as unconstitutional and not relevant to the case at hand.

Analysis

By denying him access to group religious services as well as rejecting his request to re-designate his religious preference within the correctional premises, the plaintiff believes that Gilmore, Brown, and Andrist violated his free exercise rights. On the other hand, he argues that McDonald, Yeazle, Washington, Simmons, and Rockett violated his free exercise rights by denying him access to religious publications in prisons.

Qualified immunity

On the Issue of qualified immunity, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, government officials acting within the state law are subject to personal liability claims for civil damages if they deprive an individual of constitutionally protected rights. However, the officials may be shielded from liability for civil damages where they partake in discretionary functions, provided their conduct, and subsequent actions do not violate an established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable individual would have identified. Courts demand that officials while setting operational guidelines for their institutions, they must adhere to rules that have been explicitly made for institution operation. To this end, the court must decide whether the plaintiff asserts a violation of federal constitutional right or whether the legal standards in question were in place at the specific time in question. However, while upon conviction an inmate forfeits several rights, t is necessary to note that some rights are retained even within their prison confinement (Van Dyke v. Washington, 1995). These include those afforded by the first amendment which is inclusive of the clause dealing with the free exercise.

Thirdly, the defendants hold that the case is moot given that the plaintiff is currently in a different facility, other than the one he is suing. In essence, only James Simmons and Odie Washington, are not employees of the Hill correctional center. Additionally, religious activities vary from one prison to another, and this is a jurisdiction entirely left to the chaplain and wardens of each facility. As such, it is clear that if the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, asking the wardens to allow his re-designation and accept groupings under his preferred denomination. As such, whereas the plaintiff claims that his equal protection rights have been violated, given that other groups such as the Nation of Islam and Moorish temple are allowed to associate, and aces religious publications, the issue of immunity and case mootness automatically disqualifies the case.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ensures that all religious freedoms are protected. This protection would imply freedom to form a group as well as privileges to receive publications and materials regarding one’s choice of faith. In this case, therefore, the court would have found the defendants culpable of the accusations leveled against them by the plaintiff (Wiseman, 2017). However, based on the facts presented, which implicates CJCC as a racially themed Christian faction, as well as the mootness of the case and immunity accorded to the officials, such a law would be unconstitutional in this case. On the other hand, by the time the actions brought forward were taking place the 1994 publication guidelines that would demand a step by step review of publications was not in place. However, since the publications were racially themed. The new regulations would still ban the publications; hence the plaintiff’s complaints would not be protected under these guidelines.

Conclusion

The court offered a summary judgment in favor of the defendants holding that there were no material facts as presented by the plaintiffs’ counsel. Furthermore, the defendants were entitled to the shield of qualified immunity from civil damages, and that equitable relief on the filed claims is moot since the plaintiff transferred to Pontiac.

Part II

Utilitarian Perspective

Utilitarianism is part of normative ethical theories that have the locus of right and wrong on the outcomes or consequences of picking one action over others only. This perspective goes beyond the scope of an individual’s interests taking into account those of other persons within a setting (Dell’Asta, 2017). Key points taken away from Utilitarianism is that it identifies the fundamental roles of pleasure and pain in human life, acknowledges or disapproves an action based on the amount of pleasure or pain brought about by the consequence, equates evil with pain, and good with pleasure, and asserts that pleasure and pain are quantifiable. John Stuart Mill, however, adjusted these points to fit the greatest Happiness principle where a specific action is useful only where it promotes the happiness and wellbeing of the most significant number of people.

In the Van Dyke v. Washington case, therefore, the defendants were ethical under the utilitarian perspective. Firstly from the given facts, it is evident that Van Dykes re-designation and request for religious service within the confines of the prison would have caused considerable discomfort among other inmates given that the church and its ideologies were racially themed (Van Dyke v. Washington, 1995). As such, accepting the requests to service and regroup would have endangered other religious and ethnic groups. While allowing him his demands as well as to access related material would have made him happy and comfortable, not giving him that freedom ensured the happiness of the rest of the inmates, all of whom were of a higher number than him (Dell’Asta, 2017). The defendants chose to forego the happiness of one individual risked a lawsuit in order to protect the other inmates making them ethical.

Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism is a theory elaborates on evolution in relation to the natural selection of human society. In this instance, social Darwinism proposes a struggle among groups where the fittest will survive. In essence, this theory promotes conflict amongst groups and is primarily associated with the rise of Nazism and the Aryan Race as presented by the facts in the case (Mogilski, 2016). The theory, therefore, states that morality is limited to the members of the same social group and does not apply to members outside the group. In any case, this theory has been called tribal and racial, since it only advocates for the good of a single group, one that intends to impose its ideologies over others, as superior.

Given that Van Dyke was a proponent of the CJCC ideologies in the entire conflict, it, therefore, follows that he was ethical under the social Darwinist ethical theory. From the facts given, the CJCC church is a political arm of the Aryan Nation, which is a right-wing militant white supremacist which calls for racial purity and separatism while showing hatred to other minority ethnics groups especially those from Black and Jewish ethnicities. From this point of view, Van Dyke the plaintiff probably believed in these ideologies, and he sought to make his beliefs known to the rest of the prison by re-designating and pushing for recognition which leads to a lawsuit at the end (Van Dyke v. Washington, 1995). However as previously stated, the wardens realized the impact of accepting such ideologies to thrive in their prison thus stopped him on his tracks.

Jesuit Values

Cura Personalis

This Jesuit value advocate for caring for the person and respecting each individual as a child of God and taking into consideration of all of God’s creation (Kuttner, 2011; Claywell, Pennington, & Spade, 2014). In applying this to dissolve the issue, Van Dyke would have understood that each person is part of God’s Creation. And for this reason, he would have denounced a denomination that seeks to impose one race over others in the society. Instead of attempting to expel or humiliate the minority races due to the superior nature of the white person as assumed by the CJCC, Van Dyke would have used his position to care for the less fortunate. On the other hand, the wardens were equally superior to Van Dyke in the conflict, with more rights and powers to initiate or revoke policies. However, upon understanding the path taken by the plaintiff, an attempt to explain to him what the CJCC stood for would have resolved the conflict. However, Jesuit values also warn against using force while trying to impose them.

Finding God in All Creation

This Jesuit core value invites a person to look for God in al situations, and that God is present in all creation. This Jesuit core value implies that despite an individual’s predicament, there will always be an opportunity to find God (Kuttner, 2011; Claywell, Pennington, & Spade, 2014). In this case, Van Dyke had the chance to nourish his Christian faith with the rest of the Christians in prison without necessarily re-designating his denomination to one that would work to cause chaos. Instead, the wardens would have explained to him that the religious programs within the prison were fit for him. Additionally, reinforcing the previous Jesuit value, Van Dyke would have been made to realize that through the minority groups that the white supremacists sought to expel an individual could still enrich their faith.

References

Claywell, L., Pennington, K., & Spade, C. (2014). An Exploration of the Influence of Ignatian Values. Jesuit Higher Education: A Journal, 3(1), 1-8.

Dell’Asta, A. (2017). Aestheticism and utilitarianism: the principles of a new logic in Dostoevsky. Church, Communication and Culture, 2(3), 220-232.

Kuttner, R. (2011). Jesuit Values & Alternative Dispute Resolution: Parallels and Challenges to Alternative Dispute Resolution Scholarship and Education. Journal of Religion & Society, 13(1), 1-14.

Mogilski, J. (2016). Social Darwinism. In T. Shackelford, & V. Weekes-Shackelford, Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science (pp. 23-26). Geneva, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Van Dyke v. Washington. (1995). Van Dyke v. Washington, 896 F. Supp. 183. Retrieved from JUSTIA US Law: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/896/183/1593830/

Wiseman, T. A. (2017). Why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Cannot Protect Sacred Sites. American Indian Law Journal, 5(1), 140-165.