<p>Most rules can be interpreted either rationally or irrationally. Most co-ed colleges have policies that forbid discrimination on the basis of gender, and have for many years. Yet, these rules have not been interpreted to preclude single-sex sports teams, nor, more to the point, have they been interpreted to require that all religious groups on campus adopt total gender egalitarianism in their ritual practices. Similarly, prohibitions on discriminating on the basis of religion have not led to requirements that groups allow members of other religions to lead their services or take communion. </p>
<p>As far as I can see, schools seem to be applying these prohibitions in rational ways. They’re not going to force you to change your ritual practices. They’re not going to say that you can’t preach that homosexuality is a sin, or that women should be subordinate to men. And the reason for that, I think, is that it is pretty easy for any reasonable person to see that, for instance, forcing all Jewish groups to let non-Jews lead their services would pretty much spell the end of most religiously oriented Jewish groups on campuses. On the other hand, it is much harder to see why allowing an involved, knowledgeable non-Jewish student to serve on the board that helps plan and publicize events would be any kind of threat to Jewish campus life – or why having a gay student lead a bible study class on the Gospel of Luke, purchase cookies for the Welcome brunch, or organize a prayer meeting would be clearly destructive to the purposes of a Christian Fellowship. </p>
<p>Until I see some good evidence of irrational application of these rules, I’m not going to get hysterical about disrespect for religious freedom. </p>
<p>Sure it can, as long as it doesn’t discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation or religion. Title IX covers the varsity sports in terms of gender equity, school policies and the constitution cover everything else. If religious groups want their own special privileges over other clubs then they may find them at religious schools. Otherwise, they can play by the same rules as every other club.</p>
<p>The protections for religious groups are mostly applicable for public colleges not private colleges.
Supreme court cases like Widmar vs. Vincent and various state laws (like the one from Ohio quoted earlier) which protect freedom of religious groups on campus (to set rules, behaviors, eligibility requirements related to their beliefs) apply to public colleges and do not protect religious groups at private institutions which may be discriminated against.</p>
<p>For the sake of argument, let’s say what you say here is accurate, as to the situation at Bowdoin. I still do not see how it changes the arguments re the right to choose one’s leaders.</p>
<p>The limiting rule put in place and subsequent disagreement in question revolve around the right to choose one’s leaders and to set the qualifications for said leaders. I think we all understand this to be the case.</p>
<p>The “discrimination” issue I am talking about is the right to set qualifications for its leaders based on the group’s beliefs and values. If one sets rules for something, by definition, the rules discriminate against something else, as they are qualifying. </p>
<p>From what I understand, gays can be members, however, if a belief of a religious group is that heterosexual relationships are what God intended, the religious group should have the right to choose leaders who represent and promote the group’s values, not leaders who represent another diametrically-opposed belief. If being gay does not represent and promote the group’s religious beliefs to the public, then the group should have the a right to say no to such a person in a leadership position, as leadership tells people what your group believes and values. And this means setting the qualification of who may be on the ballot, so whichever leader is chosen the group knows it has a leader that represents the group. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I get that, but I disagree with the position that qualifications cannot be set for the slate before electing. </p>
<p>Anyone can choose to be a member of a group, as that is a personal choice and decision. But, that is distinctly different than assuming just because you are a member you represent the group’s values and beliefs because you may not - and the group should have the right to set such qualifications for those running to be its leader before the leader is chosen.</p>
<p>If the group is never going to elect a sexually active person as leader due to an “implicit” requirement understood by members (which sounds like what some were saying is good enough since the group would never elect anyone who disagreed with the group …) rather than an “explicit” requirement in the group’s constitution, it seems more honest to me to have these fundamental requirements (“chastity?” or some foundational theological belief?) listed in their constitution (at least if they are logically tied to the group’s stated purpose). It is easier to understand whether you want to join a group if the group is honest about listing its purpose/mission/requirements. </p>
<p>In addition to Bowdoin not hiring someone who does not represent and promote its values, it does not even have to spend time, energy and money interviewing such a person either. And I put money that they do not, as they weed those people out early. I see this as the same as a group not wasting time and energy putting people who do not represent the group’s values on a leadership ballot. </p>
<p>@2018RiceParent - I am all for listing requirements formally re group’s constitution. However, culture is interesting. There are many aspects and practices, which are understood, but not written. Even listing major things leaves a lot unwritten, which can be disqualifying, and which is the group’s right to use as disqualifying. I agree listing major explicit qualifications is a start, but not sure how far it would move the ball in someone finding something to be offended about. Being offended by others’ beliefs is like the major rage of the day, and I do not see that ending anytime soon.</p>
<p>I do feel that if the group feels the best leader(s) might not meet that particular criteria but perhaps meet others, they should be free to choose who they like. To put out a red herring of sorts, if the options are a straight woman who is a total selfish jerk who shows up but doesn’t contribute anything positive or a pious lesbian who leads bible study with gusto and inspires others (or whatever)…why should the group be limited to the first if the second is in most ways a better leader? As a member of the group I’d prefer to have the option.</p>
<p>Awcntb, one issue here, I think, is that many of us are skeptical of the tendency of some religious groups to treat homosexuality as not just forbidden, but as a uniquely awful and disqualifying characteristic, and especially as a uniquely awful and disqualifying characteristic for the purposes of taking on a typical leadership role in a student group.</p>
<p>I suppose one could have a gay student in a Christian fellowship committed to spending a good portion of his time at the fellowship railing against church teachings on homosexuality and explaining in great detail why the sex had with his boyfriend last night was a divinely sanctified event. But that’s a strawman. Far more likely would be the following types of gay student leaders or potential leaders.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>A gay student who believes that homosexuality is wrong and/or forbidden, and has therefore committed himself to a life of celibacy.</p></li>
<li><p>A gay student who believes that he should be celibate, but has not always been able to uphold that ideal.</p></li>
<li><p>A gay student in a relationship that may or may not be chaste; no one knows because we don’t generally go around quizzing people about what they do in their bedrooms. </p></li>
<li><p>A gay student who believes that the church is wrong about homosexuality, but agrees with the vast majority of its teachings and so avoids that one subject altogether. </p></li>
<li><p>A gay student who believes the church is wrong about homosexuality, occasionally mentions his struggles with this teaching, but otherwise acts no differently from any other leader in the group. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>It is really hard to see why any of these students would be such a threat to a the organization that it warrants overriding university non-discrimination policies - or why an attempt to exclude them would be anything other than prejudice. This is especially true if the group doesn’t hold all deviations from Orthodox doctrine or accepted practice to the same high standard. </p>
<p>At least for the Vanderbilt case I actually don’t think any of these five examples would have been a problem for the large Catholic group on campus (which was banned) and probably a few others. Remember that at some of these the restrictions went farther than you describe, not allowing leaders of religious groups to be required to have the same faith or any requirements on leaders at all (which is much broader than what you describe).</p>
<p>Remember that frat prejudices (e.g. at Vanderbilt) or misbehavior of non-religious groups was the cause of many of the rule changes and in most cases not misbehavior by the big campus Christian groups, which as you noted shouldn’t feel threatened - but the unintended consequences remain (groups which can not accept having absolutely no belief or conduct requirements are not allowed).</p>
<p>But what I don’t get is what, in practical terms, would have changed for the Catholic group at Vanderbilt if they had adopted the policy.</p>
<p>In the first place, outside of paranoid fantasies, you’re not going to have loads of non-Catholics infiltrating the organization in order to bring it down from the inside. It is quite likely that EVERY student who runs or applies for a leadership role will, in fact, be a professing Catholic of one stripe or another. </p>
<p>If a non-Catholic student were spending enough time around the Catholic group to want to be a leader, there are multiple positions on the board for which religious affiliation seems utterly unimportant. Why, precisely, could a non-Catholic not be the treasurer of the organization?</p>
<p>The reasonable way to respond to the supremely unlikely event that non-Catholics will want to serve as leaders in capacities for which belief would be relevant would be to tighten the requirements for leadership. Say that you have to have attended a certain number of events. Say that for certain positions, you need specifically to have attended a required number of services or bible study sessions.Disafilliating because you have to accept the remote possibility that a non-Catholic will become so actively involved in your group that he or she would want to be a faith leader AND would actually be a plausible candidate under fairly stringent rules for leadership if faith were not considered is about as rational as refusing to fly because you think an asteroid might hit the plane. </p>
<p>So sure, I think it is a little silly to suggest that every possible position in a religious organization must be technically open to all, or that the presidency of the Black Students Union needs to be open to white and Asian students as well. But it isn’t an assault on religious liberty. No one is saying that the board of the Catholic organization MUST include non-Catholics, simply that they must be theoretically eligible to run and/or apply for office. </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.”</p>
<p>Cool! So I can open up a restaurant and refuse to let black people in, because it’s against my religion to serve them, right? </p>
<p>What you guys don’t seem to understand is that society has moved on from the bigotry of the past, and the way some of you think about gays is just as shameful as how 50 years ago people relegated blacks to the back of the bus. </p>
<p>“Remember that at some of these the restrictions went farther than you describe, not allowing leaders of religious groups to be required to have the same faith or any requirements on leaders at all (which is much broader than what you describe”</p>
<p>You’ve got the word “restriction” all wrong. A restriction would be if they MANDATED that Hillel had to have at least one non-Jew, the Catholic org had to have at least one non/Catholic, etc on the board. Or even the ballot. </p>
<p>“The college telling students they cannot be recognized on campus unless they disavow their beliefs is outright disrespect of the students’ religious beliefs. To be part of the Bowdoin campus, Bowdoin is saying their religious beliefs are not welcomed. Fine, Bowdoin can go that, but the message is clear, we do not respect your religion and its beliefs.”</p>
<p>Is there a right to have a private university “respect” your religious beliefs? Liberty doesn’t allow the Muslim Student Association or Hillel on its campus, either. </p>
<p>Where exactly did Bowdoin say students had to “disavow their beliefs”? Are beliefs only real if there is a club for people who follow them? I could be a Wiccan or a Yazidi at Bowdoin and simply “practice” my religion in my room. Does that mean I am less observant? </p>
<p>Of course, with evangelical Christianity and a few other groups, converting nonbelievers to the faith is a big part of the mission. So I would imagine most of the outrage is coming from those sorts of groups. Rather than let others “live and let live” with their own beliefs, they want to “save” them, “pray the gay away,” and so forth.</p>
<p>As our society becomes more and more secular, I think we are going to see more and more of these sorts of tantrums under the guise of lack of respect for “religious freedom.” And because some of their views line up neatly with certain political viewpoints, they are going to be able to keep pushing cases through the courts.</p>
<p>Based on your previous comments, you seem to be much more interested in making this a political issue aligned with your religious and/or non-religious beliefs than anyone supporting a Christian viewpoint. Your continual swipes at evangelical Christians quite clearly demonstrate your disdain for us as a group while often completely missing and misrepresenting the core beliefs that are most important to us. </p>
<p>Have at it. I have to go in the corner now since I threw a tantrum.</p>
<p>You’re free to have core beliefs. And Bowdoin is free to say that they will not lend the official Bowdoin name, $ and meeting space if you violate their core beliefs. You’re free to believe that blacks are inferior but Bowdoin needn’t recognize your little club to that effect. Same principle.</p>
<p>I note that you don’t have a problem with Liberty U not allowing Hillel or Muslim Student Associations on campus. What’s the difference? </p>
<p>Matmaven, this entire discussion has had a political undercurrent, since people are asserting constitutional rights as reinforcement for discrimination.</p>
<p>I don’t have any problem with evangelical Christians who actually follow the teachings of Christ. Unfortunately, too many these days cherry-pick the parts of the Bible they want in defense of their discriminatory practices. I would have the same disdain for any group that exhibits such hypocrisy regardless of their religion or lack thereof. And I do understand the “core beliefs” of at least some evangelical groups–I attended an evangelical school for six years.</p>
<p>“did visit synagogues with Jewish friends while in college to try to understand them better, and I found that very interesting, but don’t believe that it is fair to have non-Jews running a Jewish group (I can understand non-Jewish advisors, board members, and/or social coordinators but that is different than president or vice-president)”</p>
<p>It’s unusual, but it’s not “unfair” if the officers were duly elected by the membership. “Unfair” would be if a non J officer was mandated, or the Christian student assoc was given a vote.</p>
<p>Which does kind of beg an interesting hypothetical, though. Just to use Hillel as an convenient example, suppose they had an officer position that was interfaith outreach director, and they wanted that position explicitly to be a non-Jew. Maybe they wanted that position filled by someone who was an active member of another faith org on campus (and was, of course, interested in serving in this capacity). Would that be … kosher, ha ha? </p>