<p>
</p>
<p>And who are you to make that judgment for that religious group? What makes you an overseeing arbiter of what the group sees as opposite of what it believes?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, you mentioned Bowdoin specifically, using language that makes it seem like you don’t believe in the school’s commitment to free speech and academic freedom. I was just wondering if my reading of your words was correct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree.</p>
<p>An interesting potential complication here is that Maine has had a number of referendums regarding gay rights over the last 20 years, and most recently one in which gay marriage was approved by popular vote. So this has been a very lively subject, and student groups could exist which were formed to work on specific ballot initiatives. Currently, Maine law forbids discrimination against gays, and gay marriage is legal. (This pertains to Bowdoin’s statement about Maine law.) </p>
<p>Personally, I tend to think that colleges and universities should attempt to avoid funding political groups of any kind. Certainly, they should allow and encourage civic involvement. Letting all comers sign up to use free space, letting all comers post meeting notices, that’s fine. (And yes, that includes groups that I personally find odious. Supremacists and bigots of any stripe should be able to engage in discourse and lose fair and square in the court of public opinion. I really despise speech codes.) It’s great that there are College Democrats and College Republicans. But I question whether they, or any other group formed specifically for political purposes or specifically to influence ballot measures should get college funding. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is ironic coming from you, @awcntdb. I have asked you repeatedly for the examples of Christian persecution (and the opposite bending over backwards for Muslim groups) that you have used as the basis of your outrage over Bowdoin’s policies. And you have provided nothing at all.</p>
<p>Of course I could provide less extreme hypotheticals, as could others. Forgive me for thinking a pro-jihad or white supremacist group might be something we could all agree is undesirable on most college campuses. </p>
<p>With respect to Bowdoin specifically, I still find the reporting a bit murky on exactly what the BCF advisors wanted to be able to do or say, and whether some kind of compromise could have been worked out. There was a previous incident at Bowdoin in which funds for speakers at chapel services were yanked after one speaker made comments that were viewed as homophobic. It was smoothed over, but that involved speech.</p>
<p>I just find that there are too many people who like free speech until they don’t.</p>
<p>Sally, I thought his implied criticism was directed at Matmaven. B-) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The BCF advisers were asked to sign an agreement stating that they would comply with college policies, including non-discrimination. They refused, citing religious beliefs, and lost the ability to be advisers for the group in an official Bowdoin capacity.</p>
<p>As far as the funding for speakers goes: refusing to pay for speech that you disapprove of is not the same thing as limiting free speech.</p>
<p>I agree with post #338. I was typing fast and should have made the distinction about leaders, not general members. as I understand that is the distinction here. </p>
<p>However, it is a bit more muddled than stated in that one cannot run for a leadership position without being a member, and I really wonder the usefulness of such a policy when there are members who, for example, does not support the group’s positions or even believe in what the group believes in. I just do not get the point. </p>
<p>Open policy is one thing, but open policy is very different than saying you could disagree or even outwardly not like a group, yet still be able to join. There is something just not right about that to me, in terms of respecting the group, any group.</p>
<p>“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>Freedom of association has been used to exclude people from things, to keep them out of the loop. For example, private golf courses and country clubs came under scrutiny for their membership practices, excluding women and minorities, because such places are where a lot of business went on (and sadly, still does), lots of deals are sealed on golf courses, or institutions like that because they tend to be expensive create networking opportunuties…if it is white male only, it is creating a discriminatory environment that in effect supports marginalization of women and minorities, since they don’t have access to this networking. It is how potential candidates to be hired are found, it is how people find board members for their companies, and it is an exclusivity being used to limit who could be considered.</p>
<p>In terms of a college, one of the mission statements of a college is to foster openness, to get people to interact with those not like them and rules like this one are designed to try and make the clubs neutral, to allow those who are different than yourself to learn. </p>
<p>This isn’t stifling belief or free association, the campus isn’t saying “you can’t say those things or believe those things”, what they are saying is that there are certain core rules that clubs need to meet to be considered an official group, and clubs have the option of following them or not. Bowdoin college is a liberal arts college who feels in their mission that clubs be as open and inclusive as possible and they apply it across the board, they aren’t discriminating against the religious groups, they are saying their beliefs if in conflict with the university rules means they cannot have official status. </p>
<p>And yes, there are some groups that may be banned, simply for what they represent, and while it should be used sparingly, there may be reasons to do so. One of the goals of any school is to maintain an orderly environment, to provide a place where people can feel safe. If you had a group called “The Nazi Student Union”, no matter whether their activities were legal or not, the very name Nazi is so associated with horrors that any reasonable person would understand why it shouldn’t be allowed, no matter how innocuous. It would be the same with a group with the name “Jim Crow forever” or “friends of the KKK”, no matter how innocuous the name, it sends out the message that the community tolerates hate. In terms of the government, they could not so such a thing, but in a university whose mission statement is to make all feel comfortable, those extremes would be out. Likewise “Islamic Jihad”, “Friends of Al Qaeda” or “ISIS” would be kind of suspect at this point,or if a club started called “God Hates F**s” or something, same thing, it is something that creates an unhealthy atmosphere and makes it look like the university condones it. </p>
<p>As far as advocating for traditional marriage, if the university policy allows political advocacy groups, then yes, it should be allowed, if that is its policy that is fine. At NYU we had a young republican club, there was a socialist club, a democrat aligned club, a libertarian society, and they were fine. </p>
<p>The key thing here is that religious groups should not have special privileges, argue free speech all you want, but the same thing would apply to the womyn’s spiritual upraising group if they refused to allow a transgender woman or a man to join, or the bosnian students union who wouldn’t allow someone of serbian descent to join (or run for office). To a bosnian, remembering the horrors in yugoslavia, it might be distasteful to have a serb join and worse, be able to run for office, but that is the rule. If you carve out an exemption for religious belief, where does it end, and then could they say you can’t join if you are fully “Christian”? You end up with balkanization, which is what they are trying to avoid. </p>
<p>BTW, this also is typical of many such cause celebre, it is making a mountain out of a molehill for political reasons. Conservative Christians, especially because they are losing influence (put it this way, even the GOP is starting to realize their social positions are a boat anchor), are trying to paint themselves as victims being persecuted, martyrs, over an issue that isn’t really one. What makes this incident such a joke is the obvious one, that many have pointed out, that it is kind of a strawman argument at best, because if the club is truly one where the members have deeply held beliefs, they would never elect someone to be a leader who didn’t meet their beliefs, period. The idea that someone repugnant to them, whether an openly gay or lesbian woman, or someone who brags about having sex before marriage, would not get elected, period, so it is a strawman issue. What this is is crying victim, which the religious right loves to do, they claim it is religious discrimination that they cannot refuse to hire gay and lesbians or other types of ‘non Christians’, they claim it is a violation of their faith that the law allows same sex couples to marry (of course, never dawns on them other Christians and many Jews see it as the opposite, that denying same sex couples the right to marry is a violation of their beliefs), the whole argument isn’t about freedom or freedom of speech, it is making a political statement to back up the political argument of the hard right, that colleges are bastions of filth and depravity and liberalism out to undercut the righteous, ‘real’ america out there…it is like so many non issues that get made into causes, it is all politics, about martyrdom, more than any deep seated belief IMO. </p>
<p>@ apprenticeprof-<br>
Nicely put, I totally agree. </p>
<p>“Are you saying that any student who believes in the traditional definition of marriage is in conflict with the mission of Bowdoin?”</p>
<p>There are students advocating the traditional definition of marriage between a man, two sisters who are his first cousins, and also their female servants? Well, heck no! I can’t possibly support that! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting that your definitions are extreme as well. </p>
<p>You use the word persecutions. I do not recall ever using that term, as I do not think this is about Christians being persecuted. I think a religion is not being respected as it should, but to use the word persecuted, just shows how differently we look at the issue. </p>
<p>My examples about Christians are about the right to freely exercise one’s religion, not extreme examples of violence and hatred toward a group, .i.e., my examples are not about persecution, as it is understood. It is important to understand the difference. </p>
<p>I recommend getting off the extreme viewpoints of persecution, violence, blowing people up etc. and understand that this discussion is looking at the higher-order and broader question of a college group (any group on any college) and how a college’s policies may best respect the beliefs of the group and the right to choose its leadership, while simultaneously advancing a college’s right to have some sort of open policy. I am not convinced these two aspects really can intellectually exist INSIDE the walls of a group. They can exist OUTSIDE in discussion at the administration table and in written policy, but in practice, I am skeptical.</p>
<p>@hunt-
That is very true, but this isn’t about free speech. How is Bowdoin restricting free speech by requiring that any group has to allow any student to run for office in their group, or be a member? If Bowdoin told these groups they couldn’t advocate their positions, then yes, it would be a violation, but how is membership free speech? </p>
<p>The other thing is that in society, free speech is not absolute. For example, you can be arrested for speech that is threatening or harassing or is designed to intimidate, Clarence Thomas for example for one of the few times in his term on Scotus, disagreed that Cross Burning was free speech, and he argued that cross burning was designed to intimidate certain groups seeing it, that the image of the burning cross was usually associated with violance, threatened or often all too real, that they would burn a cross then lynch a black man or kill someone they didn’t like. He wrote that a burning cross was designed to say “either you stop doing what you are doing, or else” and thus is not free speech. Someone going around a campus with a T shirt saying “God Hates F**s” or yelling homophobic remarks at someone else, or yelling anti semitic or anti black slurs, it is about intimidation, and free speech doesn’t apply there. While I tend to agree with Brandeis that the answer to ‘bad’ speech is 'more speech, good speech", I also believe that people have the right, whatever their beliefs, to be in an environment where someone is not allowed to intimidate them, and speech can be used to do it. The same would apply to the Christian varsity, while I find more than a few of their beliefs about the world bad (Christian Varsity, unless it has changed, generally believed that the law should enforce Christian morality, back when I was in school some of them advocated that the US should be dry…), I also would be over anyone who got in their face or tried to make them feel badly about their beliefs, respectful discourse is one thing, denigration is another. if a radical atheist said to one of them “you are morons, you believe in fairy tales” I would be all over them. On the other hand, there were some of the religious crowd at my school, and at some others, who claim that the existence of a school pride day or LGBT groups 'made them feel uncomfortable" or “was denigrating to their faith”…</p>
<p>“I just find there are too many people who like free speech until they don’t”</p>
<p>Good point. A decade ago when my husband and I were helping our gay child evaluate colleges, social fit was extremely important to us. Colleges like Bowdoin looked like a good bet. We wanted our child at a college where there wouldn’t be someone denouncing gay rights in front of the student union or making what we would consider homophobic remarks in University Chapel. We imagined college could, and should, be a safe haven. Our child already had plenty enough experience with homophobia and didn’t need reminding it existed out in the real world.</p>
<p>As homophobic speech becomes less socially acceptable, it bothers me a lot less. When gay marriage is legal everywhere, I may not even care what its opponents think. It will probably still be very hurtful to my child, but it may not directly impact his rights any longer. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not a thought experiment, this actually happened at Notre Dame. However, the reason given for the rejection was that there were already groups with similar missions so it would be a duplication.</p>
<p><a href=“Notre Dame Denies Official Recognition to Pro-Traditional Marriage Student Group | The College Fix”>Notre Dame Denies Official Recognition to Pro-Traditional Marriage Student Group | The College Fix;
<p>@awcntdb you have said several times that Christian groups on campus are treated differently (worse than, use the word persecution or not, the point remains) than Muslim groups and yet have not given a single example of how this is so. I believe that is Sally’s point and I have asked you for such examples as well.</p>
<p>In all this I’m wondering what college students have the time in the day to join, attend meeting and functions of, and run for president of a group that doesn’t align with their hobbies, interests or beliefs? In real life outside of the hypothetical fantasy land scenarios that people are cooking up, it seems implausible that anyone except the most single mindedly twisted individual would make the commitment required to infiltrate a group and take it over from within.</p>
<p>@awcntdb, this is what you said in post #26:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK, so not “persecute,” but “chastise.” In any case, I find your fixation on “Christians vs. Muslims” very strange. There are about the same number of Jews as Muslims in the U.S., and yet you bring up Muslims in every thread that touches on religion. Why might that be?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And this to me is where the intellectual dishonestly comes in. It just seems like a desperate attempt to find justification for outmoded and discriminatory beliefs in a time of great change. It’s sad, but it has also worked effectively in galvanizing support among core groups.</p>
<p>@musicprnt “it is like so many non issues that get made into causes, it is all politics, about martyrdom, more than any deep seated belief IMO.”</p>
<p>How the heck do you know what people believe and put their faith in. I get that your cynicism supports your personal biases. You have absolutely no clue what anyone believes or the nature of their faith. </p>
<p>@sally-
Yep, though I wouldn’t call it intellectual dishonesty, as much as political chicanery. The pseudo populist view that seems to have been around for a long time, prob 130 years, of the evil big banks and wall street and the elites ‘hurting’ common folks, has been the mantra of everyone from the agrarian/populist types (the Williams Jennings Bryan brigade) to some of the tea party groups today, and it was triggered by another revolution, the industrial revolution and the movement of people from rural and farm areas into densely populated cities and surrounding areas, with a proportionate loss of influence. What the religious right calls "suppressing their right to their beliefs’ often comes down to the fact that people less and less want to hear their beliefs, and will call them on them, etc. “Right to my beliefs’ often translates to “the right to say what I want, when I want it, and you better not respond” or “the right to have my beliefs as law” or “you better not teach as fact in school what violates the teachings of my religion, if religion and science conflicts, my religious view should be respected, so don’t teach science”. People have the right to their beliefs, to believe whatever they want, but it doesn’t mean they have the right to inflict those beliefs on others or use them to make other people feel badly about themselves or otherwise suppress other people’s rights because 'they don’t like it”. Prohibition in part came from strongly held religious beliefs about ‘demon rum’, and the history of this country is full of where people’s religious beliefs we forced on others, whether it be blue laws, the banning of books and movies, suppressing publication of magazines and books deemed ‘inappropriate’ by religious figures. A magazine was forced out of business in the 1920’s because it supposedly violated postal codes on ‘smut’, whose only offense was it contained an ad for a book promoting family planning and birth control, and was acted upon because some cardinal complained to the head of the post office, who issued the order of suppression…and yes, the Cardinal claimed that the book in question violated the religious beliefs of catholics, so therefore shouldn’t be allowed to be published or advertised. </p>