Abstract

In this dissertation, I examine the discourses of Trinity Western University (TWU) and the law societies of British Columbia and Upper Canada during the approval processes for TWU’s proposed law school. TWU is an evangelical university with the stated goal of developing graduates with thoroughly Christian minds. At issue in the law school’s approval was the university’s religious code of conduct, or Community Covenant, which required students abstain from sexual intimacy outside of marriage between one man and one woman. Some opponents of the law school argued that the Covent functioned as a discriminatory admissions policy against LGBTQ students and should therefore be considered by the law societies in deciding whether to approve TWU’s law school. Unlike much of the existing research, which has focused primarily on the decisions of the courts arising from the TWU law school controversy, this dissertation instead examines the decision-making process of the Law Society of Upper Canada and the Law Society of British Columbia. It asks whether their decisions produced a version of religion similar to that identified at other levels of Canadian constitutional law—one that is individual, an autonomous choice, and private—and, if so, how this version of religion emerges in their decision-making processes. Using discourse analysis, I examine meeting transcripts and documents submitted by TWU to the law societies to assess the arguments made for and against approval of the proposed law school. I analyze key concepts—including discrimination, the public interest, and the delineation of the public and private spheres—how these concepts are linked, and how the law societies’ decisions to reject the law school solidified their dominant meanings. Although various versions of religion emerged in the law societies’ debates, they refused to render a version of religion that was institutional, coercive, and public. By rejecting the law school, they instead rendered a version of religion consistent with that found at other levels of Canadian constitutional law: individual, an autonomous choice, and private.