Universities to Religious Clubs: Let non-believers lead you!

[prisonchaplain]

http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2014/september/intervarsity-now-derecognized-in-california-state-universit.html

 

To summarize briefly, Intervarsity Christian Fellowship is no longer recognized as a university-approved student club in California's 23-university public system.  LDS groups have also had these kinds of troubles.  The reasoning is that the groups discriminate in their leadership choices on the basis of creed and sexuality.  This kind of thing makes my head want to explode!  Those who lobby for or hand down these kinds of "derecognitions" are smug, self-righteous, anti-religious bigots. 

 

Or, am I over-reacting, and are these university decisions based in sincere open-mindedness?

Edited September 11, 2014 by prisonchaplain

[RMGuy]

We had a similar problem here at our univeristy with regards to institute.  The universities guidelines on student organizations are that they must be non-discriminatory and leadership must be elected by a vote of their peers (members of the group). 

 

So when the bishop selected the president of the organization it ran afoul of the universities guidelines. 

 

Here's how I see it.  We believe that we should have the freedom to set the membership rules of the organization because it is affiliated with the church.  The university believes it should be free to establish the membership rules for the organization because it is affiliated with the university. 

 

I ended up facilitiating a meeting between the stake presidency and CES rep and university officials here.  The result was that institute still exists here, BUT it is not a registered organization, it may not utilize campus resources to promote itself, and it is not given university funds. 

 

Campus Crusade for Christ however runs under the universities guidelines and is entitled to all of those benefits including building use on campus and funds for activities derived from the university general fund.  Their approach was slightly different in that they didn't figure many individuals would want to join a group they didn't agree with, and that even if those members did there would never be enough interest to vote in someone opposed to their beliefs. 

 

 

[Gretchen]

In that case, we should ban all school Latino-based clubs because they racially discriminate against non-Latinos. Same for any other cultural clubs. Heck, let's nip this problem in the bud, and ban all clubs because they have to discriminate against SOME type!

 

 

/sarcasm

[RMGuy]

In that case, we should ban all school Latino-based clubs because they racially discriminate against non-Latinos. Same for any other cultural clubs. Heck, let's nip this problem in the bud, and ban all clubs because they have to discriminate against SOME type!

 

 

/sarcasm

 

Not sure where you go to school I guess there could be some that are close minded...a couple come to mind..., but I am pretty sure that at most institutions of higher learning (and I have taught at a couple) the Latino club would be open to more than just individuals of Latino descent.  For example, though I am not a student I am a member of the Saudi National club on campus simply because I find the culture fascinating.  I was welcomed warmly. 

[MarginOfError]

My understanding of this was that the group could no longer receive public funding if they were to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  And in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that groups didn't have a right to receive public funding while putting membership policies in place that discriminated based on sexual orientation.

 

In that case, we should ban all school Latino-based clubs because they racially discriminate against non-Latinos. Same for any other cultural clubs. Heck, let's nip this problem in the bud, and ban all clubs because they have to discriminate against SOME type!

 

If the Latino clubs are going to prohibit members based on race, then yes, disaffiliate the club.  But if the Latino group is going to welcome anyone of any race to come and learn about their culture and values, then let them be.

[estradling75]

My understanding of this was that the group could no longer receive public funding if they were to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  And in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that groups didn't have a right to receive public funding while putting membership policies in place that discriminated based on sexual orientation.

 

If the Latino clubs are going to prohibit members based on race, then yes, disaffiliate the club.  But if the Latino group is going to welcome anyone of any race to come and learn about their culture and values, then let them be.

 

 

Do note that this is not a question about membership...  But who can lead the group... so a better example would be a Latino group being lead by a white guy, or a womans group being lead by a man...  Leadership is a different story

[Gretchen]

 

In that case, we should ban all school Latino-based clubs because they racially discriminate against non-Latinos. Same for any other cultural clubs. Heck, let's nip this problem in the bud, and ban all clubs because they have to discriminate against SOME type!

 

 

/sarcasm

 

Not sure where you go to school I guess there could be some that are close minded...a couple come to mind..., but I am pretty sure that at most institutions of higher learning (and I have taught at a couple) the Latino club would be open to more than just individuals of Latino descent.  For example, though I am not a student I am a member of the Saudi National club on campus simply because I find the culture fascinating.  I was welcomed warmly. 

 

 

And a Christian club would be open to Christians, as well as people who are curious as to what Christianity is. One of my friends who attends something called Young Life told me that they where welcoming to her friend who is not Christian, and is Bi.

[MarginOfError]

Do note that this is not a question about membership...  But who can lead the group... so a better example would be a Latino group being lead by a white guy, or a womans group being lead by a man...  Leadership is a different story

I don't see an problem with a latino group being led by a white guy, or a woman's group being run by a man, so long as the members of the group have chosen to be led by that person.  Nor do I have a problem with a christian group being led by an atheist or a lesbian so long as the group chooses that person to be the leader.

[RMGuy]

And a Christian club would be open to Christians, as well as people who are curious as to what Christianity is. One of my friends who attends something called Young Life told me that they where welcoming to her friend who is not Christian, and is Bi.

 

 

That is excellent.  Good for bot the club and your friends friend.  I would bet that if she is a member of the club and decides to run for office and wins election they would welcome her in that role as well.  Which is how it should be at a publicly funded institution and university.  If that is not the case (see institute) then they should not be supported with public funds. 

[RMGuy]

As an example of that philosophy MoE, our current campus LGBTQIA group is led by a straight female.  They elected her president at the end of last year for the 2014-15 academic year. 

[estradling75]

I don't see an problem with a latino group being led by a white guy, or a woman's group being run by a man, so long as the members of the group have chosen to be led by that person.  Nor do I have a problem with a christian group being led by an atheist or a lesbian so long as the group chooses that person to be the leader.

 

 

I don't either...  But it is an entirely different set of concerns about your Leader accurately representing you, which this is, then just not wanting to be around someone different, which a membership restriction would be.

[MarginOfError]

I don't either...  But it is an entirely different set of concerns about your Leader accurately representing you, which this is, then just not wanting to be around someone different, which a membership restriction would be.

 

So explain to me what's problematic about denying public funding to groups that disqualify members of the group from leadership based on sexual orientation or religious affiliation.

[RMGuy]

If you are worried that they won't accurately represent you, then don't vote for them.  That doesn't mean that you prohibit them from leadership positions simply because you don't agree with them. 

[estradling75]

So explain to me what's problematic about denying public funding to groups that disqualify members of the group from leadership based on sexual orientation or religious affiliation.

 

Add race in there too...  I see nothing wrong with it as long as it is equally applied.  If a white Christan Straight Male has no restriction to being the leader of any other group (say like a African American, Female, Homosexual Alliance. as a mythical example) that receives public funds then it would seem to be ok.  But if any other group gets to have it then they all do.  If you could understand why that mythical group might think it wise to restrict its leader qualification, then it only fair to think the same about other groups.

[MarginOfError]

Show me a group that has the benefit of public funding and disallows members from being chosen and leaders based on race, gender, sexual orientation, blah blah blah....and I'll sign the petition to pull their funding. (I'm an equal opportunity persecutor).

 

But from what I'm gathering about Intervarsity, it seems like their claiming some kind of persecution because they aren't getting a special benefit.

[prisonchaplain]

My understanding of this was that the group could no longer receive public funding if they were to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  And in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that groups didn't have a right to receive public funding while putting membership policies in place that discriminated based on sexual orientation.

 

If the Latino clubs are going to prohibit members based on race, then yes, disaffiliate the club.  But if the Latino group is going to welcome anyone of any race to come and learn about their culture and values, then let them be.

 

MOE...you've explained the reasoning.  However, do you agree?  Is it really correct for government to tell religious associations that they cannot operate as other clubs because they unite around a religious creed???  As for the Latino club, it's more sensitive, but if I was a member, and I was Latino, I'd really struggle with making our President some white, non-hispanic person who thought my culture was interesting.  I would think institutions of higher learning could distinguish between bigotry and people who are united by "like precious faith."

[prisonchaplain]

I don't see an problem with a latino group being led by a white guy, or a woman's group being run by a man, so long as the members of the group have chosen to be led by that person.  Nor do I have a problem with a christian group being led by an atheist or a lesbian so long as the group chooses that person to be the leader.

 

BUT...for the university to say that they MUST make allowance for this???

[estradling75]

Show me a group that has the benefit of public funding and disallows members from being chosen and leaders based on race, gender, sexual orientation, blah blah blah....and I'll sign the petition to pull their funding. (I'm an equal opportunity persecutor).

 

Seems fair enough to me...  Although I can see why certain groups would consider restrictions on there leaders and thus I don't think such a restriction on funding should be in place

[prisonchaplain]

That is excellent.  Good for bot the club and your friends friend.  I would bet that if she is a member of the club and decides to run for office and wins election they would welcome her in that role as well.  Which is how it should be at a publicly funded institution and university.  If that is not the case (see institute) then they should not be supported with public funds. 

 

I suppose this is technically correct.  However, this "being supported by public funds" language sounds a lot more substantive than it is.  Generally, official recognition grants these clubs access to the students.  They have an easier time reserving rooms that are not in use, for meetings.  They get precious little funding. 

 

This relatively new direction of schools stinks.  Most academics disagree with rigorous religion--especially from "conservative" groups.  They know that it is these groups who will be the least likely to compromise on who their members and leadership can be.  So, they use the public funding argument to protect their students from the dangerous ideas of the religious right.

 

This is not about anti-discrimination.  This is about silencing the opposition.  The administrations are bullying these groups.

[Just_A_Guy]

So explain to me what's problematic about denying public funding to groups that disqualify members of the group from leadership based on sexual orientation or religious affiliation.

 

The funding issue doesn't bother me.  However, if a (public) university is also refusing to let non-registered groups of students meet on university property or advertise via university-run communications fora, and is also denying registration to would-be student groups based on those groups' political or religious opinions and the organizational structure that those opinions lead the groups to adopt--that would seem to me a very troubling trend. 

Edited September 11, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

But from what I'm gathering about Intervarsity, it seems like their claiming some kind of persecution because they aren't getting a special benefit.

 

Special privilege?  A Christian group says its leaders must be Christians.  The schools derecognize them, accusing them of discrimination (a kind of blacklisting, no?)  You agree, and say the group is clammering for special privilege?  Really?

 

BTW, many of these clubs have been on the campuses for decades.  The schools changed their rules, and are going after these clubs retroactively.  Unintended consequences or intentional?

[prisonchaplain]

The funding issue doesn't bother me.  However, if a (public) university is also refusing to let non-registered groups of students meet on university property or advertise via university-run communications fora, and is also denying registration to would-be student groups based on those groups' political or religious opinions and the organizational structure that those opinions lead the groups to adopt--that would seem to me a very troubling trend. 

 

By unregistering the groups their access to students is more limited, more difficult, and yes, more costly.  The schools don't "fund" registered clubs much.  Rather, these groups get access to rooms not in use, to student fairs, etc.  Unregistered groups are treated like outside advertisers, and must pay for everything, apply well in advance, etc.  All this because Christians refuse to allow non-believers to stand for club offices???

[prisonchaplain]

Just to show that universities can choose reason, the Huffington Post article on this same story (9/9/14) points out that some schools have made allowances:

 

Ohio State University rewrote its student organization registration guidelines to read, “A student organization formed to foster or affirm the sincerely held religious beliefs of its members may adopt eligibility criteria for its Student Officers that are consistent with those beliefs.”

[RMGuy]

Let's try this from a slightly different standpoint though completely hypothetical. 

 

Let's assume for a moment that a muslim group forms on a local campus.  Their stated goal is to study the Koran to better understand the words of Allah. 

 

Jim Jones from backwoods middle of nowhere is attending the university.  He is an atheist.  In his required math 101 class he meets Ibrahim, a member of our muslim group.   Ibrahim invites Jim to their next meeting.   Jim decides to attend why not, he is friends with Ibrahim and is curious about his religion and culture. 

 

A.  He shows up at the meeting and is told he may not join because he is not Muslim.  Even though the group is meeting in a building funded by Jim's tuition dollars and his parents taxes. 

 

B.  He shows up and is welcomed to join the group. 

 

We go with scenario B.  Jim attends the meeting and at the end decides to join the group.  He is still an athiest and there is a lot of suspicion among some members of the group. 

 

Jim attends meetings and activities regularly.  He makes a number of friends.  Though he still doesn't believe in Allah or Islam he still finds value in his participation.  3 years later Jim is a senior.  Some of his closest friends on campus are members of the group.  He decides to run through the election process for treasurer.  That is when is is told:

 

A.  Sorry, no one can have a leadership position in this student group unless they are Islamic and appointed by the local Imam. 

 

B.  Please feel free to run.  The members of the group will vote you in or out as they deem fit. 

 

Why are we so afraid of second option in both of these instances?  All the school is saying is that if you want to use our facilities then you have to provide equal access to all students.  The group is still free to not vote for the atheist in the second instance.  If you want to discriminate against LEGALLY PROTECTED CLASSES then we cannot be a party to that discrimination.  You will need to do so on your own time, your own location, and at your own expense.  

 

If this muslim student group meets at the local mosque they are free to not allow anyone in their doors they choose.  They are free to select their leaders anyway they like. 

 

Seems pretty simple to me. 

[RMGuy]

..or consider it this way.  I would like to bring my non-member neighbor in to see the celestial room.  I pay tithing after all so I should be permitted to do this, correct? 

 

No?  Why not?  Because the building is owned by the church.  They are permitted to set the rules governing who is admitted or not and under what conditions. 

 

The university or college is permitted the same right.  They own the buildings and the power to recognize registered student organizations or not.  That doesn't mean the students can't organize, and it doesn't mean they can't meet.  It just means they can't reserve a room at the university or call themselves a university group if they aren't willing to abide by the rules the governing organization has set, which rules are not based on a whim, but in compliance with applicable law.