<p>"If someone told that person “I believe drinking alcohol is a sin, so no one should be able to drink alcohol,”</p>
<p>This did happen = Prohibition. Have you read the “social drinking” thread in the cafe?? ; )</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So let’s see, according to you, Bowdoin should be 100% tolerant in officially recognizing student groups and providing funding from student activity fees, but the individual student groups don’t have to be 100% tolerant: they can choose to limit their membership or decide who can seek elective office in the group based on immutable personal characteristics. Sorry, but it just doesn’t work that way.</p>
<p>Let’s be clear: Bowdoin is not unfriendly to Christian groups, or any other religious groups per se. Christian values are not necessarily inconsistent with Bowdoin College values. They have not “banned” any groups. What Bowdoin has said is that if your group will not be open to every Bowdoin student, then your group will not qualify for student activity money (which comes from EVERY STUDENT) or be able to use public college facilities. You can still have your exclusive group with its limited membership. You just can’t expect Bowdoin to support you financially or with the use of public Bowdoin facilities. The cry of “religious discrimination!” is a red herring. If the Red Head Club only allowed those with naturally red hair to join, Bowdoin wouldn’t officially recognize them, either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is just plain wrong. What are the “political/social views” of Bowdoin College? The college officially recognizes both republican student groups and democrat student groups. How is this possible, given your statement above, if the members of these two groups hold opposing political views? Interestingly enough, these groups open their membership to all members of the Bowdoin community.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The NAS report is biased in the extreme. There’s enough information available online that shows how and why this “report” was produced.</p>
<p>I’m probably only about halfway through this discussion so far, but I spent some time looking up the BCF and their public position on line. I noted that they say nothing about sexuality. I also noted that they gave a list of churches to which the members go and/or with which they have some relationship. That list includes Catholic, Baptist, United Methodist, and Evangelical Lutheran churches, as well as non-denominational ones. I did a little research into the positions taken on homosexuality, abortion, and so forth by said churches. Not surprisingly, there are a range of opinions between denominations, and the denominations tend to acknowledge that there is division within their denominations as well. </p>
<p>Suffice it to say that a number of said churches clearly welcome gay Christian members. Some of them specifically state that they are pro-choice.</p>
<p>So I find anwcntb’s assertion that ALL of the members of the BCF share the same “belief” on this or any other topic most likely false on the face of it.</p>
<p>This, according to Bowdoin, was the actual situation:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You might want to look at the ICF. Some of the things they state seem to be at odds with the positions and beliefs of the listed churches.</p>
<p>In addition, it is simply idiotic to say that Bowdoin is dictating the leadership of any group. The members of the group elect their leaders. If the BCF wants to elect a gay leader, if a women’s organization wants to elect a male leader, it is their right. It sounds to me like the ICF is the group that wants to have strict control over who can be elected, not Bowdoin.</p>
<p>Skipping to the end again, a number of people seem to take it as given that groups need or want to establish rules about who can hold leadership positions. </p>
<p>Why?</p>
<p>To me, it makes no sense. The members of the group will elect their leaders. If the membership of the group changes, so will the leaders. Unless the group has substantial assets and fears a takeover by an outright hostile group, why not simply leave the decision to the judgment of the members?</p>
<p>(And no, I don’t think that Presidents of the US should have to have been born in the US, either.)</p>
<p>You might want to look at the ICF. Some of the things they state seem to be at odds with the positions and beliefs of the listed churches.</p>
<p>Have you reached my posts yet connecting them with preaching anti-gay messages to gay students and advocating conversion therapy?</p>
<p>@consolation I so agree with you. Clearly many people, many states, many congregations and denominations, have made significant changes in how they view many things, including homosexuality, in the last number of years. I would think that campus groups may evolve in the same way. This seems to be an explicit attempt to forbid such evolution by pre-emptively prohibiting people with other views. My denomination, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has recently “evolved”. We NEVER prohibited people with one view, or another, from being part of our organization.</p>
<p>
I totally agree. No one in this country has the unfettered right to “practice” their religion. Anyone wondering what evils that would spawn need look no further than the Taliban and ISIS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So it seemed to me. If the group elects its own leaders, where is the harm in allowing any member to run? I asked it several times yesterday but got no answer form those who think such groups should be closed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. The MEMBERS choose to elect whom they wish, not whomever the outside advisers think they ought to elect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think they have the right to vote in whomever they wish. I think they are treading on thin ice if they also want to control who is actually on the ballot to the point of not allowing people to RUN. I fail to understand WHY a student organization needs to be able to dictate the qualifications of candidates for office and restrict the slate in advance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But they will only be leaders IF THE GROUP ELECTS THEM! Why is this so difficult to comprehend? No one is advocating forcing ANY leader on a student group. </p>
<p>Sadly, I think this is just one more manufactured fear…like the “war on men” and “voter fraud.”</p>
<p>I guess there may be a problem when a campus organization is affiliated with a national organization of some kind. This may be the case with some religious groups (some of which, like ICF, have staff people paid by the national organization), and it can also be the case with fraternities and sororities, as well as others. Those national organizations may have their own rules about leadership or membership. I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong for them to have such rules, or for them to insist that they be applied if the campus group wants the benefits of affiliation with the national group. However, obviously those rules are trumped by the university’s rules on non-discrimination. An interesting example of this dynamic is what happened at University of Alabama last year, when it was revealed that sorority alumnae were vetoing the admission of black applicants over the objections of current members–in that case, it was apparently in conflict both with the university’s rules and the rules of the national organization itself.</p>
<p>There might be situations in which a group can’t be both a recognized and funded campus group and an affiliate of a national organization, because of a conflict in the rules of those groups. I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. In fact I was coming here to post a very relevant example: that of fraternities at northern schools back in the 60s. (And possibly earlier.) Many chapters ceased to affiliate with their national organization and stayed on campus as independents because the nationals would not allow them to have black members. </p>
<p>When the thinking on race at the national level evolved, some of them re-affiliated. Similarly, the thinking of religious bodies on the subject of sexuality and gender has evolved. </p>
<p>If the BCF membership wants to exclude gay members–which I strongly doubt–they are free to continue operating without official college financial support. If the problem is mostly with the ICF couple who have been “advising” them, they can find other advisers or function without them (as apparently most other religious groups on campus do).</p>
<p>“Well being forced to allow sexually active gay (or straight) students to lead the group looks like a direct conflict with the mission of Anscombe society,”</p>
<p>But they wouldn’t be installed as the officers, any more than the Hillel would be “forced” to accept Muhammed the Muslim as their president. This is just a deliberate misreading on your part. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting inclusion of the word “historic”. I think that says a lot about how they do NOT want their groups to evolve.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and we all know how that turned out.</p>
<p>Haven’t read the social drinking thread. Should I grab a bag of popcorn first?</p>
<p>I think the fact they believe such a thing as “historic Christian doctrine” exists says a lot.</p>
<p>So, it appears to me that there is only really a problem when somebody other than current members of the organization wants to be able to set restrictions on leadership–whether this is a national organization, or advisers, or past members of the group. So, it also appears to me that their beef, if there is one, is not really with the college, but with the current members who might violate the national organization’s norms by electing leaders that don’t comply. When you’re just talking about the current members, I don’t see any real difference between setting restrictions and simply not electing somebody who doesn’t fit the goals or standards of the organizations.</p>
<p>But here’s a thought experiment for you: Acme College requires that all organizations have open membership, and that all students, regardless of race, gender, etc., have the opportunity to seek leadership positions. So, a male member of the Acme College Women’s Group runs for President of the group. There is a lengthy discussion, during which many members of the group state that they believe the president of the group should be a woman. Then they take a vote, and he is defeated. He now brings a complaint against the group, on the grounds that he was clearly discriminated against on the basis of his gender. The group responds that he was allowed to seek a leadership position like anybody else, and that he simply lost in a free election. Who should win?</p>
<p>Straight Intervarsity Christian Fellowship students join the LGBT support group at their college. One runs for president. Group members say we can’t have a straight guy as president. He loses. Can he sue? </p>
<p>Enough Intervarsity students join the group that they are a majority. The majority elects a president. The new meeting agenda is bible study with emphasis on love the sinner/ hate the sin. </p>
<p>How do we feel about that?</p>
<p>@Hunt Your point makes sense, many student groups are affiliates of national organizations (some I agree with and some I don’t - but I would prefer that students can have freedom to setup local chapters and join them if they want), and also note there may be a distinction between more generic student groups that are fundable by University fees and other types of student groups that might not qualify for funding but that are “allowed on campus” (and can post notices about their events). I think the two types of groups have gotten conflated in this discussion.</p>
<p>I like the thought experiment, but take it one step farther. I googled for similar groups and picked a random result. The college club list included multiple women’s clubs on that particular campus (which I had never heard of) for example:</p>
<p>“Women in Business”
and
“Virtuous Sisterhood” (“We strive to build a multicultural sisterhood and help educate the whole person through spirituality, virtue, relationships, service, and academic excellence”)</p>
<p>What if those groups made a constitution (perhaps to clarify things after an ugly incident like you describe above) which required that women only be leaders of their group? What if the latter group put requirements in their constitution that leaders keep a certain GPA (“academic excellence” or are “chaste”)? It is their group not mine so why couldn’t they do that? As a guy I really don’t care if they think they need such a club or policy - obviously it is their business not mine. Saying that no eligibility requirements related to the club’s mission make sense in club constitutions seems odd as AFAIK they are reasonably common (I am pretty sure that the college clubs I was in had some sort of constitution and obviously intramural sports had some simple requirements) and make it easier to understand what the club actually is for.</p>
<p>Take the same two example groups, and would it be ok if they set the same requirements in their constitutions on members (instead of leaders)?</p>
<p>If they think that their group requires a constitution like that, but the school disagrees, are they banned from campus and not allowed to post notices (the Vanderbilt example) or simply not allowed to get University funding?</p>