<p>Yes, because free speech is a right that applies to everyone.</p>
<p>Flossy, no–not if it was antithetical to the mission of the college. </p>
<p>How about a group that advocates for jihad and teaches members how to build undetectable bombs?</p>
<p>Free speech is interesting because of speech codes that make it not so free, though.</p>
<p>
That’s (at least) two questions. I wouldn’t allow a group that incited illegal acts. But I would allow a group that advocated for extreme Islam. But I’m a stickler for free speech. I would condemn the white suprematist group, but as long as they obeyed the rules of the college, I wouldn’t punish them for ideas or speech. I’d like to think that colleges would teach something about civics.</p>
<p>@sally305 - So the only comparisons you can make to a group who’s purpose is to use legal means to defend their belief in the traditional definition of marriage is white supremacists and a group that teaches its members how to build bombs? Impressive.</p>
<p>I am not sure I understand your point, but I will accept your compliment. :)</p>
<p>Matmaven, there is nothing wrong with believing in traditional marriage as it relates to your faith. </p>
<p>@sally305 I’m quite sure you don’t :)</p>
<p>Must say I also found your upstream comment that groups who are antithetical to the mission of the college shouldn’t be allowed. Are you saying that any student who believes in the traditional definition of marriage is in conflict with the mission of Bowdoin? Maybe they should list a bunch of things students are supposed to believe on the application so they don’t have to think for themselves.</p>
<p>Have a nice day.</p>
<p>
Just shut up about it, at least on campus.</p>
<p>I don’t want to be too harsh, but you can’t both be in favor of free speech and in favor of silencing speech you don’t like. I think that a college that doesn’t have some specific affiliation, and that portrays itself as a diverse place that favors academic freedom, shouldn’t limit speech of any kind, short of incitement to crime and the like. So, in my opinion, Bowdoin should treat the Students for Traditional Marriage and the Students for Marriage Equality exactly the same, just as it should treat the Democratic and Republican student groups exactly the same. Some of you may recall a controversy over limitations on the school Democatic group at Liberty University–but Liberty University and Bowdoin are not the same kinds of institutions.</p>
<p>As for the latest thought experiment in post #316 - if an LGBT group supporting lobbying and legal efforts for same sex marriage can be funded, then a group, which supports lobbying and legal efforts for traditional marriage should be funded. I have no issue with someone supporting either position.</p>
<p>And to put this thought experiment into proper context re the Constitution and our sovereign rights - I view this thought experiment, as identical to a group called “Bowdoin Students for Gun Safety” wanting recognition and its position is to support laws, which oppose all legal gun ownership and the repeal the Second Amendment. I believe this group should be allowed recognition and funding as well, even though I disagree with its purpose.</p>
<p>Hunt, interesting that you bring up Liberty University. I would be interested in what posters like @Matmaven think about their policies, since they too exclude many forms of free speech under “The Liberty Way.”</p>
<p><a href=“Free Speech TV - Free Speech TV”>Free Speech TV - Free Speech TV;
<p>Hunt, do you think a private college should recognize an American Nazi Party group, assuming they weren’t advocating anything illegal?</p>
<p>For the record, I would allow a Students for Traditional Marriage group but NOT an American Nazi Party or Bring Back Slavery group because whether I like it or not, whether or not gay marriage should be legal is still an actively debated, mainstream social, legal and political question, and I don’t think colleges should be in the business of shutting down those debates. The “We Hate Gay People” group would be a different matter, but at this point I don’t think opposition to gay marriage should be an automatic violation of non-discrimination policies. I’m just curious about how far your belief in free speech extends. </p>
<p>Liberty University is an overtly religious institution, and it requires all of its students and faculties to accept restrictions based on its religious beliefs (which is why, in my opinion, its name is a double misnomer). It doesn’t really honor free speech or academic freedom. And since it’s a private institution, it can do that. Bowdoin is private, too, but it portrays itself as an institution that does honor free speech and academic freedom.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you insinuating that Bowdoin has somehow limited speech or academic freedom?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t object to it. (As I said before, there is nothing preventing an LBGTQ student from being a chaste and devout Christian.) But I would question the judgement of the people who felt it necessary to make such rules.</p>
<p>I would prefer to allow members of the group, now and in the future, to freely exercise their own conscience, without a “dead hand” hampering them. If chastity and some specific theological statement are important to the group, presumably they will be discussed among the group, and they will support each other in attaining those ideals. If at some point they choose to elect a leader who struggles with chastity, or who openly admits some crisis of faith, I think that is their business, not that of some outside sponsor or some student members from a decade ago.</p>
<p>@Matmaven - More than one idea should be able to exist in a discussion without anger or assuming malice and violence on the other party, but not everyone is capable of accepting as much. </p>
<p>You know an argument is weak and and lacks an intellectual foundation on its face when the only examples, which can be provided are the most extreme and negative possible. I believe the saying that “an empty can makes the most noise” is applicable. Alternate ideas draw anger and calls for censorship in certain people, and I cannot explain why. </p>
<p>And this is the issue I think we are discussing here - should a college allow a group to properly and freely support its causes, even if others think the position a negative. Well, if that were the test, then practically all students can complain about another group. And I do think telling groups that they should be able to accept members who are antithetical to their beliefs strikes me, as a negation of the students’ natural freedom of association (yes, I understand it is a private college and can do that) and disrespect for the groups beliefs. The good news though is this issue on the college evaporates once the students graduate, as groups in the real world would not accept such a condition.</p>
<p>
We were discussing the issues a bit more broadly. We can use an imaginary private LAC if that would help you keep track of where the discussion is going.</p>
<p>I also don’t think allowing a non-Christian to assume leadership in a Christian fellowship is tantamount to allowing an anti-abortion advocate to be head of a Pro-choice group. The pro-lifer is, by definition, actively opposed to the very specific goals of the pro-choice group. The goals of a campus religious group are not so narrow. You can be a non-Jew totally on board with Hillel’s mission of creating a space for Jewish observance, education and culture. It would be more unusual for a non-Christian to be on board with a mission of “bringing students closer to Christ,” but in theory one could be, and in fact it isn’t hard to see how a non-believer with, say, a cultural and intellectual interest in Christianity might at least take on certain leadership roles without any conflict.</p>
<p>The rule we’re talking about doesn’t say one can’t consider faith as a relevant factor in leadership decisions. It just says you can’t have a rule of blanket exclusion. Similarly, it doesn’t say prohibit groups from regulating the content of group activities and expecting leaders to abide by those regulations. The Christian fellowship doesn’t have to allow a Jewish leader to give a sermon entitled “Why Jesus isn’t really the messiah”, or a gay one to give one on “Why the church is wrong on homosexuality.” That’s different from saying that Jews or gays are categorically forbidden from leadership. </p>
<p>
Here’s where I would make a distinction between membership and speech. I wouldn’t allow a white suprematict group restrict its membership to whites–at least, if it wanted recognition and funds from the college. I’d let them believe and say whatever they want (within legal bounds), but they’d still have to have open membership. The same would be true for any group. Since the college is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, I think having all groups have open membership is consistent with that. If students want to have more restricted groups, they can have them without college sponsorship. But that’s not the same as telling the groups what they can believe, say, and advocate–and they should also be free to select their own leaders (as long as its the current members who are doing so) based on the criteria they choose. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess I see them as more comparable than some here do. Liberty is “overtly religious,” while Bowdoin aims to be “overtly tolerant.” I am not a fan of Liberty (surprise), but I respect the university’s right to create an atmosphere that supports its mission and values. Same goes for Bowdoin. And I would question the wisdom or common sense of a student who enrolls at an institution whose culture and stated principles are at odds with their own, at least with institutions on the extreme. (And for the record, I don’t think Bowdoin is the extreme opposite of Liberty–I’d say Hampshire might be a good counterpoint.)</p>