## Facts

- A public university required incoming students to participate in a mandatory orientation program intended to encourage critical thinking, introduce academic life, and provide a common experience.
- For one year’s program, the university assigned students to read limited portions of a book discussing selected Qur’anic passages and to write a short paper related to the assignment.
- After public controversy, the university revised the assignment to allow students with religious objections to opt out of the reading and instead submit a paper explaining why they chose not to read the material.
- Papers were collected but not graded, and students still attended discussion groups regardless of whether they read the assigned material.
- Prospective students who identified as Christians alleged the assignment promoted Islam, presented Islam favorably, and burdened their religious exercise by requiring them either to read religious material or justify their refusal.
- After earlier dismissal of Establishment Clause claims and injunctive-relief requests, the only remaining claim alleged a violation of the Free Exercise Clause, and defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether a public university violated the Free Exercise Clause by requiring students to read and write about material concerning the Qur’an, with an alternative option to write about religious objections to reading it.
2. Whether the assignment coerced students to affirm or deny religious beliefs or imposed a substantial burden on religious exercise.
3. Whether the program was a neutral, generally applicable academic requirement such that it did not trigger heightened Free Exercise scrutiny.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the Free Exercise claim.
- The court held the orientation assignment had a secular, academic purpose and did not require religious observance or acceptance of religious doctrine.
- The court found no compelled profession or renunciation of faith because students were required only to engage intellectually with course-related material or to explain their objections.
- The court concluded plaintiffs failed to allege a constitutionally cognizable burden on religious exercise, emphasizing the opt-out option, absence of grading or sanction, and ability to express religious objections.
- Because the Free Exercise claim was the last remaining claim, the court dismissed the action in its entirety.

## Legal Principles

- Exposure to religious ideas in a public university’s academic setting does not, without coercion to believe or worship, constitute a Free Exercise violation.
- A requirement that students read, discuss, or write about religious subject matter for secular educational reasons generally does not burden Free Exercise where it does not compel affirmation or denial of belief.
- Availability of an opt-out accommodation and lack of penalty for religiously motivated abstention weigh against finding a substantial burden on religious exercise.
- A facially neutral and generally applicable academic policy is typically upheld where it is rationally related to legitimate educational objectives.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the Free Exercise challenge because the university’s orientation assignment was a neutral academic exercise, did not coerce religious belief or practice, and—given the opt-out and lack of sanction—did not impose a substantial burden on plaintiffs’ religious exercise.


Yacovelli v. Moeser, 324 F. Supp. 2d 760 (M.D.N.C. 2004)