<p>
What if a transgendered student joined their group and wanted to run for leader?</p>
<p>
“Historic” is used to defend a lot of discriminatory practices these days.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>If it causes a problem (safety or allows mean practical jokes which are a danger) let the group carefully modify their constitution, but personally I don’t see how allowing transgendered or those with ambiguous sex to join or be leaders would be a problem - but this is their issue to decide. I am not a woman, and they may face quite scary challenges on campus that I don’t know anything about. My preference is to allow freedom for that person to run in this case or in other ambiguous cases but it is their group, their decision.</p>
<p>Piping up to say that it’s “trans” “trans*” or “transgender” whichever your preference. It is not “transgendered”. You don’t stop being trans so it should never be past tense. </p>
<p>Carry on 
</p>
<p>@Hunt-
The answer is, the university rule simply says that anyone can be a member and anyone can run for office, and in terms of that, he wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. Let me give you an analogy, the US has as part of the constitution that there be no religious requirement for any office, that someone cannot be exclude based on their religious beliefs. Yet, how many atheists have you seen run for the presidency and be open about it (talking openly being so, as a major party candidate). There is a big difference between discrimination from being able to run, and the prejudices of voters. Put it this way, every presidential candidate I can remember not a fringe candidate have talked about faith,having faith, and 90% of voters supposedly say that is important (I dispute that personally, but whatever). A candidate can’t go to the Supreme Court (roughly akin to the university here in terms of power) and sue that voters didn’t like him because he was atheist, any more than a male could sue that he lost the election in the women’s group. When it comes to voting, there is no law that says voters have to vote fairly, if the makeup of the voting pool is legal, and candidates had a fair shot at running, then there is nothing the courts can say. </p>
<p>@alh-
That is an interesting scenario, with the christian varsity people joining the LGBT group or whatever and then putting in prayers services about loving the sinner and so forth, it is interesting. However, having been involved with overseeing student clubs, most universities have rules about belonging to clubs, it is not a ‘come as you are’ kind of thing, and actions by people joining a club that are clearly designed to show disrespect to the club, or alter its mission, would be treated as an attempt to disrupt the group. A group of Christian varsity members suddenly joining the LGBT group would raise questions about intent, and it would be pretty obvious if let’s say the LGBT group has 30 members, and the Christian Varsity gets let’s say 20 members to join and vote (assuming that more than a few of the 30 existing members don’t bother to vote) and win a plurality or majority, it is pretty obvious what they were doing, and if they then put in prayers calling gays sinners or calling for gays to be ‘converted’ it would be out there. </p>
<p>I can’t recall anything like that happening, but I suspect if it did, it would be treated exactly as it looked, as a group trying to game the system to destroy another club, and be dealt with. In reality, if they actually succeeded and the university allowed it, the current members would quit, and after that the student board controlling funding requests would probably cut the funding for the group (even if allowing official recognition of it as a group), and soon the 'Christians" would grow tired of it and it would die. </p>
<p>“While we applaud inclusivity, we believe that faith-based communities like ours can only be led by people who clearly affirm historic Christian doctrine,” InterVarsity stated</p>
<p>@OHmomof2 “Interesting inclusion of the word “historic”. I think that says a lot about how they do NOT want their groups to evolve.”</p>
<p>Exactly what core Christian doctorine would you like this particular Christian group to “evolve” and/or compromise? The divinity of Christ? Their belief in sin and forgiveness?</p>
<p>@alh “I think the fact they believe such a thing as “historic Christian doctrine” exists says a lot.”</p>
<p>It does. It means there are core beliefs they are not willing to compromise. </p>
<p>"^^^^^I really don’t get the “but gay marriage violates my beliefs” argument. Then don’t marry someone of your own sex! Problem solved."</p>
<p>The recent ruling by a (conservative) judge in the Utah and Indiana appeals hit the nail on the head, he said that prejudice and discrimination, even if backed by religious belief, was not a basis for law, that in their arguments they could not show a prevailing reason why same sex marriages should be banned. </p>
<p>I think others hit the nail on the head when they said of this hooplah is from groups afraid of change, who are trying to thwart the evolution that has happened out there. They basically miss a society where it was socially acceptable to be a bigot, whether couched in terms of religious belief or race or whatever, and they realize that rules like this further set the tone on how society should be. It is much like same sex marriage, or laws protecting gays from discrimination, deep down a lot of it isn’t religious belief IMO, rather it is about what they see as society “normalizing” sin, or ‘supporting gays’ or whatnot and challenging their biases. Same thing here, if they have to allow gay members or allow gay members or others they disapprove of to run for office, they feel like it is the university saying they are wrong. </p>
<p>@matmaven I think it means they want to define which doctrine they consider to be “historic”. </p>
<p>Different people, groups, denominations, theologians within those denominations, differ a great deal as to how they interpret much doctrine and such interpretation has moved quite a bit over time. Examples that come to mind are interrracial marriage (curse of Ham stuff), women being silent in church, etc. As I’m sure you know many Christians don’t read the various New Testament references to homosexuality in the same way - some believe Paul was referring to idol worship and temple orgies, not regular gay people, that sort of thing. Nevermind the Old T with abominations on gayness vs cloth and shellfish and sacrifices and so on.</p>
<p>Edited to add, I think a fairly recent “evolution” in belief that even the most conservative theologians accept is the interracial marriage stuff.</p>
<p>@ matmaven-
The problem with “historic Christian doctrine” that others are referring to is that there is a lot of ‘historic christian’ doctrine (or what was promoted as), that no longer is viewed as core belief, even by them. For example, traditional Christian teaching in many churches was that a woman’s primary role was to be a mother and that her role was subservient to her husband, and it was true across a wide swath of mainstream protestant groups (this is true today in the Southern Baptist and some of the evangelical churches even today). Others have changed core doctrine on the bible, many Christian churches recognized that the bible is not literal and by the 19th century recognized there is no such thing as an original text of the NT,and most churches now recognize and even teach about the history of the bible, whereas other Christians, specifically fundamentalists, about 170 years ago declared the bible to be the literal word of God and treat it as such, which was very new…exactly what is “historic Christian Doctrine” is therefore hard to define, since there have been a variety of views for a long time. </p>
<p>@musicprnt and @OHmomof2</p>
<p>I have a feeling if this discussion goes too far down the road we are now on, the thread will be terminated. I usually don’t weigh in on these types of topics because, frankly, the debate becomes a bit pointless. I responded because I was finally compelled to defend a faith to which I belong and means a lot to me. </p>
<p>As to your comments, I think a thorough response would likely belong in a different forum somewhere in the Interspace. I will only say that, while I respect your opinions, I strongly disagree with your understanding of what makes up core Christian theology. I can promise you I wouldn’t have made it through a day with my wife of 28 years if I had ever treated her as “subservient” </p>
<p>To try to bring this back to the leadership debate. I have a baseline problem with the idea that any group at a college or anywhere else would be coerced, forced, or mandated to install a leader who did not stand for and protect it’s core values. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree completely. The groups under discussion here are not, though. They are being forced to allow those students to join and run for office if they wish to - they are not being installed or mandated, but elected by the group members. One assumes the group elects leaders whose core values are in accordance with their own.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This sort of makes my point. Christians disagree on what is “core” and “historic” Christian theology.</p>
<p>@OHMomof2 - They are being forced to allow those students to join and run for office if they wish to - they are not being installed or mandated, but elected by the group members. One assumes the group elects leaders whose core values are in accordance with their own.</p>
<p>So does this imply that no organization that is recognized and in some way funded by the school can establish any qualifications for membership or seeking leadership positions within their organization? Seems like that has the potential to make a mockery of many organizations and their beliefs, whether it be religous, political, service, athletic, etc. So what about fraternities and sororities? Should they be prohibited from “choosing” their members because it discriminates against those who weren’t chosen? Should the Football Team be required to allow anyone who wants to play on the team? How about the orchestra? Can I force my way into the violin section because I took lessons in 4th grade? Or is this only targeted at faith-based organizations?</p>
<p>@matmaven
I don’t believe Bowdoin has frats or sororities and yes, they say that any org that gets college $ and support must be open to any student. </p>
<p>It might potentially “make a mockery” but apparently it does not. And no, it is not only faith-based orgs that have this rule.</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 a transgendered student joined their group and wanted to run for leader?"</p>
<p>Women’s colleges such as Wellesley or Smith have to deal with this issue. Smith elected a transgender student to be student body president a few years back, and the latest winner of hoop-rolling (a Wellesley tradition for seniors) was a young man (who was female upon entering) - he had, IIRC, a younger and an older sister at Wellesley and his mother was an Wellesley alum too. </p>
<p>PS: Indeed Bowdoin doesn’t have greek life. As far as the football team, I don’t think varsity teams are covered by this rule (and in any case would not be allowed to keep gay people or anyone else out if they were otherwise qualified). Club sports seem to fall under the student org umbrella and do indeed appear to be open to all. </p>
<p>Here is a list of all clubs at Bowdoin: <a href=“http://students.bowdoin.edu/”>http://students.bowdoin.edu/</a> - the Demcrat club is presumably open to Republicans, Libertarians, Communists and Fascists while the Asian club is apparently cool with non-Asians hanging out and learnign about Asian culture. The fencing and rowing clubs take on total beginners and the Finance society may well have hidden spendthrifts in its midst. </p>
<p>While members of these groups might “make a mockery” of these groups’ beliefs, I guess that’s the risk they take in being willing to accept all students. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Two advisors who were banned for not signing a statement which conflicted with their religious beliefs and a Christian group being banned from campus. I don’t think fees and college $ were ever at the heart of this issue.</p>
<p>Bowdoin banned the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship’s local chapter on campus because of the organization’s rules. The group required that its leaders be “Christian” and “Chaste.” Presumably the latter was interpreted to be in conflict with the University’s diversity requirements. As a private University Bowdoin may do this, but it should be clear that its values and that group’s values (and presumably those of similar campus groups mentioned before) are not compatible. I found disturbing that they claimed it was a violation of state law to allow this group, as this group is allowed at other Universities in the state, and religious groups have been given some limited freedom by the Supreme Court (Widmar vs. Vincent) even in public colleges.</p>
<p>There is additional information in the New York times article describing this <a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/us/colleges-and-evangelicals-collide-on-bias-policy.html?hp&_r=4”>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/us/colleges-and-evangelicals-collide-on-bias-policy.html?hp&_r=4</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the basic point I really wonder why some find so difficult to understand. I have no concern who runs the groups these people are in, BUT zero desire to tell them the qualifications of whom can join and run for a leadership position. I just do not have this need or desire to be in other people’s business like that, especially since it would clear I do not even understand the underlying foundations of what they believe.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These two words do make sense in terms of the discussion. </p>
<p>This is another point I do not understand - why is it difficult for some to understand that there are tenets of religion that others find sacred to the level that there can be no compromise for compromise would be tantamount to a rejection of one’s faith? Who are others to say that another’s faith should be compromised to conform to some secular agenda? I believe no group should sign or agree to any rules that violate its faith.</p>
<p>I may disagree with someone’s religion and his beliefs, but I have no nothing in my makeup that makes me want to tell him his beliefs should be compromised to fit my world. I am comfortable with what I believe and have no desire to tell anyone what he should believe or do. Just not part of my makeup.</p>
<p>And, of course it is historic. Most religions are thousands of years old. But, not sure why historic has to be turned into a negative with regards to faith. It should be pointed out the venom projected at religion is one reason many do not engage the secular world. Who wants to engage with people who are angry at his faith and think his faith is not as serious and should be compromised? No one I know because the discussion often starts from the point of disrespect for faith and its tenets. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This thread proves this point of why certain qualification and membership guidelines are necessary to preserve integrity of a group and to avoid infighting because some do not believe what the group believes in. If someone does not believe what a group believes in, there are two respectful choices: 1) do not join or 2) form a new group that aligns with one’s beliefs. </p>
<p>@2018riceparent - the group wasn’t banned. The advisors wouldn’t sign off on the policy of allowing any student to join and run for leadership so they became ineligible to receive college $ and support. </p>
<p>They gave the group a year to decide whether or not to agree and they didn’t, so they forfeited their right to advertise on campus, get cheap meeting space, funding and be in the activities fairs.</p>
<p>See <a href=“BCF advisors refuse to sign policy, vacate role at College — The Bowdoin Orient”>http://bowdoinorient.com/article/9029</a> - it’s unclear if only the advisers left and the group continues to be fully funded and on-campus or if the group as a whole didn’t sign.</p>
<p>@OHMomof2 - Indeed Bowdoin doesn’t have greek life. As far as the football team, I don’t think varsity teams are covered by this rule (and in any case would not be allowed to keep gay people or anyone else out if they were otherwise qualified).</p>
<p>Did you say “otherwise qualified”? So it’s OK for a varsity athletic team to qualify members based on their athleticism and skill, and it’s OK for the orchestra to qualify members based on musical ability and the ability to be part of an ensemble. But it’s not OK for a faith-based group to qualify members based on their beliefs. Sorry but I think this rule is targeted at faith-based organizations. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously, the standard is for student groups and clubs. All the music and athletic clubs are open to all, just like the faith groups, so, no, the religious ones have not been targeted.</p>