Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1886 [PAGE 78]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

70

' 'Resolved, Tliat the Regent be and he is hereby instructed to lay before the AttorneyGeneral of the State of Illinois the petition of Foster North, with the accompanying papers, and to ask on behalf of this Board that the Attorney-General will give thereupon his opinion upon the claim of the said North that his constitutional and legal rights have been violated by the action of the government of the University toward himself as set forth in these premises." The facts to which this resolution relates, as given in the statement of the Regent, are as follows; » ' 'From the opening < ithe University in March, 18H8, the students of the University have > been required, and have been accustomed, to assemble daily in some suitable place. This daily assembly has been deemed an important aid in the orderly and methodical conduct of the University business, furnishing an opportunity for giving publicity to such orders, directions, notices, etc., as wTere suitable and requisite, and for giving such instructions of a general nature as might be deemed useful and necessary adjuncts to any course of liberal education. At the time of this general assembly of students, and as a customary part of its exercises, portions of the New Testament Scriptures have been read, hymns have been sung and prayers have been offered. For the last five years the prayer offered on each occasion has been that known throughout the Christian world as the Lord's Prayer, recited by ibe Eegent. In these exercises, particularly in the reading of the New Testament, and in the singing, the students have been invited to take part, and many of them have so taken part, but no person has been required to participate therein against his wish. Before entering the assembly room or chapel, the students are gathered into companies and the rolls are called, the military organization being used for this purpose, The names of all absentees are reported to college officers appointed to receive them, and the absentees are required to present to such officers satisfactory reasons for failure to attend. It has, however, been held, that if any student should present to the Kegent and Faculty a statement that his attendance upon the above described general assembly of the students, and his listening to the exercises therein conducted were in opposition to his religious belief, and an infringement upon his rights of conscience, he should thereafter be excused from attendance. After nearly six years of acquiescence in the regulation concerning attendance upon chapel service, in March, 1885, Mr. North absented himself therefrom. In the absence of the Regent he was called to excuse absence by the Vice-President of the University, and made reply substantially that the government of the University had no authority to ask his attendance. "On the 21st of April the Eegent called Mr. North to his office and offered to excuse him from further attendance at chapel if he would present to the Faculty a statement that his objections to attendance were on account of conscience. On the 24th of April he filed in the liegent's office his reply. In this reply he refused the offer- of excuse on account of the repugnance of the chapel exercises to his religious convictions, saying that he 'had no religious convictions for the chapel exercises to be repugnant to,' an,d taking the ground that the Faculty had no right to make any regulations requiring students to attend chapel, and that even the act of formally expressing his wish not to attend would be a recognition of a right which he strenuously denied. Whereupon, on April 30th, the Regent, by direction of the Faculty, informed Mr. North that he was from said date suspended indefinitely from the University. The statement made by Mr. North does not differ materially from the foregoing. "The question here raised involves the right of the Trustees and Faculty of 1 he University to hold chapel exercises in the manner and form substantially as they have hi herto been held, and the validity ot the rule requiring the attendance of all students on said exercises unless excused therefrom. Mr. North contends that the rule referred to is void on account of being in conflict with that portion of Section 3 Article 11, of the Constitution of the State of Illinois which declares that 'no person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship against his consent, nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.' " It is evident that, so far as the rights of Mr. North are concerned, only the first part of the above cited clause of the Constitution is involved. By section 1 of an act to provide for the organization and maintenance of the Illinois Industrial University it is provided that the Board of Trustees shall have power to make and establish by-laws for the management and government in all its various departments and relations of t he Illinois Industrial University. By section 2 of the by-laws of the Faculty, adopted by the Trustees, it is provided that "the Faculty of the University, subject to the direction of the Board of Trustees, shall, have general control of the discipline and studies of the University, and shall make in that behalf from time to time such regulations as they may deem expedient." It is under this powTer that the regulation with regard to chapel exercises was adopted. I do not believe that the constitutional objection urged by Mr. North is well taken, or that any of his constitutional rights are violated by the rule in question. That rule does not require him to attend any ministry or place of worship against his consent. In the first place, he was not required to attend the University. His attendance upon that institution was purely voluntary. Attendance upon the University was not even one of his rights as a citizen of the State of Illinois. It is, on the contrary, only a privilege accorded to such persons as come within the conditions prescribed in the statute and imposed by the laws of the State and the by-laws adopted by the Trustees, acting under authority of the law. It is presumed that the Trustees are competent to decide wliat regulations are proper for the government of the institution, and the law gives them the power to enforce obedience under penalty of forfeiture of said privilege on account of disobedience. Students are admitted to said University for the purpose of instruction and discipline and in accepting the privilege of attendance thereon either tacitly or formally agree to conform to the regulations for the government of said institution. It is unnecessary to say that discipline is essential to every educational institution, and that this discipline must be administered by those in authority. The general rule is that whenever any person joins an organization or .accepts a privilege he consents to obey the rules of the organization, and to fulfill the conditions of the privilege. He has no right to say that he will obey part and disobey part, and still continue his membership in the organ-