Religion and Sex in the Yale Dorms: A Legislative Proposal Requiring Private Universities to Provide Religious Accommodations

Abstract

t B.A., 1995, Yeshiva University; J.D. Candidate, 1999, University of Pennsylvania Law School. I would like to thank Professor Pamela Harris of University of Pennsylvania Law School for her invaluable comments and suggestions regarding structure of this Comment, as well as her recommendations of various lines of research to pursue. I would also like to thank my parents, Isaac and Mona Weinberger, for their support, and especially my mother, who provided technical assistance with Internet research. I further owe a debt of gratitude to editors of Law Review for all of their efforts in publishing this Comment. Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank my wife, Tal Weinberger, for endless encouragement and patience, as well as her thorough editing of Comment. Her involvement and contributions greatly improved quality of work. 1 See Plaintiffs' Complaint ?? 60-67, Hack v. President of College, 16 F. Supp. 2d 183 (D. Conn. 1998) [hereinafter Complaint]. Although media has referred to these students as Yale Five, see infra note 4, only four students were plaintiffs in lawsuit. Initially, there was a fifth student who intended to join others in filing. At time, she was engaged to be married a few months later. As discussed below, allows an exemption to residency requirement at issue in lawsuit for married students. Thus, to exempt herself, and avoid necessity of joining suit, she and her fiance had a civil marriage ceremony performed. See Complaint, supra, at ?1 57 (detailing exit of fifth student from suit). As a result, recognized her marriage and exempted her from dorm requirement. After civil ceremony, however, she had no intention to-and did not-live in a true marriage relationship with her fiance until after their religious marriage ceremony months later. Id. Thus, when story was first reported by media, there were five potential plaintiffs. Even after fifth litigant left case, name the Five survived. 2 See Hack v. President of College, 16 F. Supp. 2d 183, 186 (D. Conn. 1998) (Yale's 'Dormitory Regulations' provide that '[a]ll freshmen and sophomores are required to live on-campus, except freshmen who are married or who are over twenty-one years of age.'). Before 1995-96 academic year, this regulation did not apply to firstor second-