The third in my trilogy of anti-feminist cases is against “Women’s Studies Programs,” or as I affectionately call them “Witches’ Studies.” The fight started in 2009 and is continuing with a second federal case now in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Both cases claimed, in part, that Feminism is a religion; therefore, the state and federal governments cannot provide aid to Women’s Studies because it would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Sounds dumb, but it’s not. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, secular beliefs of a purely ethical or moral source and content which impose a duty of conscience can function as a religion. Welsh v. U.S., 398 U.S. 333. Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and other non-theistic belief-systems are religions. Torasco v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488. So if you have an ethical and moral belief system that determines someone’s actions the way a traditional religion does, then it’s a religion—and that’s what Feminism does for its acolytes.
In the first Women’s Studies case, the Second Circuit dismissed the claim that New York and the U.S. aided the religion Feminism because I did not state the obvious—that I was a taxpayer. Only taxpayers or those exposed to a religion can bring lawsuits under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. So in the second Women’s Studies case, I stated my taxpayer status four times in the Complaint.
The Complaint in Women’s Studies II also provided an over abundance of detail to show that Feminism is a religion and is promoted and financed by the state and federal governments at Columbia University in violation of the Establishment Clause. N.Y. actually requires all college programs and studies in the state to conform to Feminist precepts. The State published a policy statement to that effect: Equity for Women in the 1990s, Regents Policy and Action Plan (1993).
On All Hallows’ Eve 2011, a female federal judge conjured up nonexistent facts to throw the case out on the technicality of collateral estoppel. The Judge claimed that in Women’s Studies I the Establishment Clause issues of taxpayer and non-economic standing were fully litigated and decided as they applied to me, the only plaintiff in both cases. That’s factually wrong, but try telling that to a lady judge if you’re a man.
Two other men then came forward to join the case as plaintiffs. I made a motion to the same judge to reverse her decision and allow amending of the Complaint to include the two new plaintiffs. Since the two new plaintiffs were not involved in Women Studies I, the judge couldn’t possibly divine facts that the prior case had fully litigated and decided Establishment Clause standing with respect to them—or could she?
She used a different trick by saying the law didn’t allow for an amendment to add new plaintiffs after the original complaint was dismissed for lack of standing. Strange that in the Women’s Studies I case, a Court of Appeals Judge admonished me for not trying to amend the complaint in that case after the district court judge dismissed for lack of standing. Guess what the law is depends upon whatever will rid the federal courts of men fighting for their rights. The Women’s Studies II case is now on appeal.
Many Feminist organizations receive preferential treatment and much of their funding from all levels of government. If this case claiming Feminism is a religion succeeds, then all that help will stop, which will allow the Feminists to show that they really are “strong and independent persons.”