<p>I think this was from one of the New York Times articles I read today, but may have been the Christianity Today feature that I stumbled across trying to find more details on the current Vanderbilt situation. And yes, the article implied that Hillel had cases where non-Jews were unexpectedly elected leaders, but I am not particularly surprised at strange stupid pranks that college students will do so didn’t think to question the source when it mentioned non-Christian examples of effects of recent changes caused by groups having to toss out eligibility criteria for officers. You are probably right that Hillel has a ‘cultural’ component not just religious so not exactly equivalent to the situation with conservative Christian groups or Catholic groups.</p>
<p>My guess is that groups can still have eligibility criteria for officers, it’s just that they can’t be discriminatory criteria based on immutable characteristics. For instance, the group could have a rule that says only seniors can be elected president of the group. That’s fine, as long as any senior can run for that office.</p>
<p>This is almost silliness. No team or group runs on any member doing what he or she wants or else there is no team or group. </p>
<p>And for the record, Bowdoin tried to recruit my son, even though he was not trying to be recruited - and the list of team rules sent to my DS would surprise you. And that was but one team. So, yes, I can say Bowdoin’ teams have rules, which must be followed to get on and stay on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK, I understand your bias now. A serious varsity team can exist at any school, but a serious religious group cannot exist at any school; it must be regulated to a religious school. At least your bias is clear. You think you can determine where a serious religious group can exist and what is considered a serious religious group. Thanks for insight.</p>
<p>I really don’t want to comment about a group I know so little about, but …
they should be given freedom, especially as a minority religion.
I do — strongly — believe that they should be allowed the right to
set their own eligibility criteria (for officers and perhaps even members),
especially since so few of us understand their religion well, and
especially due to the historic discrimination.</p>
<p>How they run Hillel to serve this vulnerable community is their
business not mine, not the school administration’s as long
as they are not a threat to the campus.</p>
<p>I realize that private colleges are not ‘required’ to be open
to religious groups in this way, but why
not let Hillel, or any other small minority religious group,
have the freedom, as they would in most states
and in most colleges to do what they think is necessary within
the ‘normal’ guidelines (e.g. Ohio’s “No state institution of higher education shall take any action or enforce any policy that would deny a religious student group any benefit available to any other student group based on the religious student group’s requirement that its leaders or members adhere to its sincerely held religious beliefs or standards of conduct.”)</p>
<p>Who said all rules for all groups need be done under the same justification? That is a made-up straw man.</p>
<p>I can safely say a 90lb female would not be allowed to suit up and play full-speed, full-contact tackle male varsity football, even at Bowdoin. So what’s with that sex discrimination? </p>
<p>Simple explanation: different rules exist for different groups, and you can find discrimination wherever you want, but that does NOT mean the discrimination is not warranted based on some understood principle - on the male varsity tackle football team, the rule exists based on the size difference and the female would be massacred (and the school sued if she were maimed). And, for the religious group, the rule in question exists based on strongly-held religious beliefs. Intellectually, both instances of discrimination are valid, albeit for different reasons. </p>
<p>A 90-lb female OR MALE would be highly unlikely to have the physical ability to play varsity football at a NESCAC, except perhaps as a kicker. On the other hand, a student can be a committed, chaste Christian whether he or she is gay, lesbian, transgender, or straight.</p>
<p>If their only criteria were that the person had to be chaste and Christian, they could easily accept gay members and leaders (and in the past, according to the Orient, they apparently have had gay members).</p>
<p>Some here are conveniently overlooking the fact that in the past, those same “scriptural” sources were used to justify slavery, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws. The precursors of today’s bigots were waving their bibles and proclaiming that maintaining those injustices was integral to their religious beliefs. </p>
<p>Sorry, but I don’t buy that it was true then, and I don’t buy that it is true now.</p>
<p>Certainly, they are entitled to have such opinions, and to express them. I do not support speech codes. But that doesn’t mean that the college has to fund them.</p>
<p>Now we get to the heart of the matter. Some discrimination based on immutable characteristics is justified. We don’t want the 90 lb. female getting hurt. Even at Bowdoin, she probably wouldn’t make the team anyway. The 90 lb. male probably wouldn’t either, so the issue here really isn’t gender but physical ability to play a contact sport. In any event there’s a really good reason not to let the 90 lb. student play varsity football (even in Division III), regardless of gender. I think that most reasonable people can agree on that. What’s less clear is that there’s a good reason to exclude the lesbian from a chance to attain a leadership position in the Christian group. Doing so doesn’t put her (or anyone else) at risk of physical harm. Bowdoin has determined that a policy of inclusiveness for all officially recognized student groups is more important than letting an officially recognized group discriminate based on immutable characteristics. It’s a question of balancing harms. The Bowdoin College administration believes that what the Christian student group loses in not being officially recognized is a lesser harm than what the Bowdoin community would lose by allowing officially sanctioned groups to discriminate. You can’t please everybody all the time, and Bowdoin has made a value judgment that appears to be supported by a majority of its community members.</p>
<p>There’s all this talk about religious groups, but what do most religious groups on campus actually do? </p>
<p>1) They may have religious services or masses. Will there be lesbian sex going on at the service? Is there any reason why being gay prevents one from sitting quietly listening to readings, singing hymns, reciting prayers, etc.?</p>
<p>2) They may have bible study meetings. The bible is a big book in tiny font. Not many passages address the lesbian issue. Lots of other stuff to study as well.</p>
<p>3) They may have cookouts or other stuff to socialize. Lesbian sex there? Or drinking punch and eating crumpets? Are lesbians not fun to socialize with? (Sinners usually more fun than saints, as it were.)</p>
<p>4) They may have fundraisers and/or other volunteer service opportunities for the poor, abused, homeless, etc. Do the poor turn away offers of help if the helping hand is attached to the arm of a lesbian?</p>
<p>Other than Westboro Baptist Church, most religious groups probably don’t make their sole mission on this earth shouting about how much God hates homosexuals.</p>
<p>Yes obviously as a private university they are allowed to discriminate,
but be careful about terminology.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The issue was not discriminating based on “identity” (gay or straight)
but on whether to allow conduct requirements for [leaders of] religious
groups when the conduct requirements relate to the religious group’s
beliefs. I am fairly sure that these groups have gay members in some of their
national chapters, thus the surprise in the national news at why
“chastity” requirements and “beliefs in bible” etc. had to be removed
from the constitution of the Bowdoin chapter of this national group
(apparently some groups complied other’s chose not to). I realize
that some are cynical about why the requirements - but AFAIK
this kind of group has had some sort of Christian behavior requirements
for a while. On the other hand in the original Vanderbilt case a frat did apparently
have an issue over ‘identity’ and restrictions on that Frat are more
understandable than restrictions on religious groups who ask
their leaders to “adhere to its sincerely held religious beliefs or standards of conduct”
(something which falls within the usual legal protections).</p>
<p>Even if I disagree with the group in various ways, it is unfortunate to
see religious groups which had long existed on campus restricted for
normal freedom of religion expression. And yes, I realize that as
a private University Bowdoin can do what it wants.</p>
<p>Bowdoin is a college, not a university. Do you think that the Christian group isn’t practicing discrimination, when they say that a student can’t be a leader in the group based solely on that student’s sexual orientation?</p>
<p>“My guess is that groups can still have eligibility criteria for officers, it’s just that they can’t be discriminatory criteria based on immutable characteristics. For instance, the group could have a rule that says only seniors can be elected president of the group. That’s fine, as long as any senior can run for that office.”</p>
<p>Right. But they couldn’t have a rule that says the pres must be a man and the secretary must be a woman. </p>
<p>Where did the news coverage say anything about this having to do
with orientation? Rather the news coverage implied that they
were “behavior” and “religious belief” restrictions not identity.
Quoting the New York Times:</p>
<p>“The evangelical groups say they, too, welcome anyone to participate in their activities, including gay men and lesbians, as well as nonbelievers, seekers and adherents of other faiths. But they insist that, in choosing leaders, who often oversee Bible study and prayer services, it is only reasonable that they be allowed to require some basic Christian faith — in most cases, an explicit agreement that Jesus was divine and rose from the dead, and often an implicit expectation that unmarried student leaders, gay or straight, will abstain from sex.”</p>
<p>The issue at Bowdoin was that the Christian group had a policy that excluded gays and lesbians from leadership positions. The other stuff you’re talking about from the Times story isn’t specific to Bowdoin.</p>
<p>However, there is a second equally important piece of that employment - the person must adhere to the Bowdoin employee handbook and follow Bowdoin rules. In said handbook is the mission statement and values of the college. Bowdoin need not hire someone who publicly and openly disagrees with or who refuses to promote the values of the college.</p>
<p>Religious beliefs are unique because they are expressly protected by the Constitution, unlike the guidelines of an employee handbook. Therefore, religious beliefs are not on par with even the employee handbook; they are more fundamentally protected. Thus, the same goes moreso for religious groups who want to “hire” their leaders - they need not elect leaders who do not publicly represent and promote the groups’ beliefs and values.</p>