A federal judge’s rulings are stripping religious protections from nuns and shrugging off claims of anti-white hostility in academia.
U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone, a former CNN reporter and Obama nominee, invalidated exemptions for nuns and dismissed a professor’s racial discrimination lawsuit, as Just the News reports. Her decisions, rooted in progressive priorities, spark outrage among those who value religious liberty and fair treatment. The clash highlights a judiciary increasingly at odds with traditional values.
In 2020, Penn State Abington’s writing program adopted policies that former professor Zack De Piero calls overtly racist. De Piero, a white academic, faced what he describes as relentless shaming for his race during university training. His supervisor’s quip, “Reverse-racism isn’t racism,” captures the dismissive tone he endured.
De Piero’s lawsuit against Penn State alleges a hostile work environment driven by anti-white rhetoric. He cited five instances of racial discussions and derogatory emails that created a toxic atmosphere. Yet, Beetlestone’s initial ruling in January 2024 allowed only half his claims to proceed, signaling a high bar for proving discrimination.
By April 16, Beetlestone dismissed De Piero’s case entirely, claiming the twelve incidents he documented weren’t “severe or pervasive” enough. Her ruling suggests workplace hostility must reach cartoonish levels to count as discrimination. This logic leaves many shaking their heads at the judiciary’s disconnect.
De Piero’s appeal to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals argues Beetlestone ignored Supreme Court precedent on faculty speech. He claims she set an impossible standard for discrimination and overlooked cumulative hostile acts. The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, backing his case, sees this as a pivotal fight for academic freedom.
“This case is positioning itself as a landmark decision,” says the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism. Their optimism hinges on reshaping how courts view discrimination in academia. But Beetlestone’s rulings suggest universities can push divisive policies without consequence.
The Foundation warns that universities’ diversity initiatives may silence faculty who question them. “It will significantly influence how universities approach diversity initiatives,” they note. Without pushback, such policies risk becoming unchallengeable dogma.
James Kerwin, senior counsel at Mountain States Legal Foundation, puts it bluntly: “Public employers have gotten away with demeaning white employees.” His words underscore a growing frustration with institutions cloaking bias in “anti-racism” rhetoric. De Piero’s forced exit from Penn State after harassment complaints proves the point.
Meanwhile, Beetlestone’s Aug. 13 ruling struck down a Trump-era regulation exempting nuns from funding contraceptive healthcare plans. She called the exemption “arbitrary and capricious,” issuing a nationwide injunction. The decision overrides religious objections to drugs like ella, which the FDA’s 2021 label says may prevent a fertilized egg’s implantation.
The Little Sisters of the Poor, who intervened in the case, are shielded by a separate 2018 injunction. Yet, Beetlestone’s ruling threatens broader religious protections. Her dismissive approach to constitutional concerns has critics fuming.
Mark Rienzi, lead attorney for Becket, didn’t mince words: “It’s bad enough that the district court issued a nationwide ruling.” He’s right -- invalidating federal conscience rules is a bold overreach. Worse, Beetlestone sidestepped constitutional issues without even holding a hearing.
Rienzi added, “The district court simply ducked the glaring constitutional issues.” His frustration is palpable, given the five-year wait for a ruling that ignored core questions. Becket’s promise to appeal signals a looming battle over religious liberty.
Beetlestone’s history adds context: a former CNN reporter and current University of Liverpool chancellor, she was nominated by Obama. Her rulings reflect a worldview skeptical of traditional values, whether it’s religious exemptions or workplace fairness. Critics see a pattern of prioritizing ideology over principle.
De Piero’s and the nuns’ cases converge on a troubling trend: a judiciary that seems to downplay clear injustices. From anti-white hostility to religious protections, Beetlestone’s decisions raise questions about fairness in the courts. As appeals move forward, these cases could redefine the boundaries of free speech and faith in America.
