<p>Matmaven, you should give others a little credit yourself. Some of us have personal experience with people who call themselves Christians and then espouse hate–at the dinner table, on social media, even in church. And the alignment between certain branches of Christianity and certain political platforms is a little too convenient to be a coincidence every time. To continue with the discussion of Liberty University–religion and politics seem almost one and the same there.</p>
<p>@sally305 Fair point. I don’t doubt that what you state is true and it is truly unfortunate. </p>
<p>I know very little about Liberty. I think you asked a question a bit back about my opinion re: allowing certain types of organizations at Liberty. Have no idea what the details are. Based on what little I know, I think it would be a very slippery slope for Liberty or any school to deny the recognition of an organization just because they represented an unpopular point of view. So theoretically, I would say I agree that they should allow the types of organizations I think you mentioned.</p>
<p>On the other hand (you knew that was coming), I still adamently disagree with the position Bowdoin’s administration took with the Christian organizations in question on their campus. In this case, I believe it was the administration that politicized the issue. </p>
<p>Anyone can say a belief they have is religious. Religious just means “believe it super-duper strongly,” no?</p>
<p>Here’s an interesting hypothetical, though:
Church X Fellowship has male and female students and every Sunday (or whatever) they perform the rituals / service associated with their faith. According to Church X, certain rituals can only be performed by men, others only by women. What’s the reaction if they were to write in their bylaws that only men can apply to be this and only women can apply to be that? </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.”</p>
<p>They had the freedom to elect whoever they wanted, so I don’t know why you keep saying that they didn’t have the freedom. Yes, they weren’t permitted to strike non-Jews off the ballot, but they weren’t forced to cast one single solitary vote for a non-Jew. And obviously being Jewish wasn’t an important criteria for them for these specific positions. I find it a little odd, but their “freedom” would only have been violated if it had been MANDATED that a non-Jew be on the slate or be an officer. </p>
<p>Pizzagirl - I don’t know about Church x, but I haven’t heard of Orthodox Jewish groups losing sponsorship under these rules. However, none of the Orthodox Jewish campus groups I’ve encountered have leadership roles reserved for men either - there are ritual practices that only men can fulfill, but the leadership roles are things like President, Social Chair, etc. Even if there is a leadership role that involves organizing services, women can and do serve in that capacity. They just don’t themselves lead the service, but rather organize it by assigning people to read from the Torah, lining up a speaker, figuring out what should go into the weekly announcements, etc. </p>
<p>As to the larger question, I think there’s always a balancing act between preserving institutional values and respecting individual difference. Personally, I think universities are right to continue funding Orthodox Jewish groups despite their non-egalitarian nature - but I also think one could reasonably decide that there is a point past which they are not willing to extent toleration (in the form of sponsorship). For instance, there are some Orthodox Jews - although not usually the ones who wind up attending secular colleges – who believe that it is immodest for a women to take on a public leadership role, and would oppose a female president even if the position didn’t involve ritual functions. If a group were insisting on that, I think it would be fair for a college to decide that that stipulation went a step too far, and that while they weren’t going to question what actually went on during services, they wouldn’t support a group that maintained a “no girls allowed” policy at the highest levels of lay leadership. </p>
<p>That’s a great and interesting distinction. Thanks for the thoughtful response.</p>
<p>
And, in fact, doesn’t setting a criteria that even people who might seek leadership positions must meet actually limit the freedom of the members to choose someone from the group who they think might be better?</p>
<p>
What I know is that I no longer feel any need or inclination whatsoever to “respect” any “belief” that has the seed of hate at its very core. I have a feeling I’m not alone in that sentiment.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I find this ‘anti-constitutional’ (libertarian?) sentiment surprising. I am not a leader of a student group, but I will defer to the tens of thousands of such groups who deem constitutions useful and the clarity that they provide in clearly, honestly stating eligibility requirements for members and leaders and in clearly defining the group’s mission and purpose and rules helpful. Obviously we all know that a constitution is not meant primarily to ‘limit freedom’ it is meant to facilitate good governance (no matter whether it is for a relatively small group or a large country like ours). One of the purposes of constitutions is to define election criteria and eligibility (although there are other purposes for constitutions). That many college groups find such criteria helpful is not my business, but rather theirs. If the group doesn’t like their constitution they can change it, if the group wants no eligibility criteria so be it, but unless their constitution is a danger to themselves or the university, administrators should use great caution in overriding groups. They are in charge of smooth governance of their group, and eligibility requirements often provide both clarity (‘intellectual honesty’) and limit disputes. I picked a random college constitution template from google search:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.studentaffairs.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/PDFsandForms/SORC/ConstitutionRequirementsRevised5.1.12.pdf”>http://www.studentaffairs.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/PDFsandForms/SORC/ConstitutionRequirementsRevised5.1.12.pdf</a></p>
<p>Note that in this template eligibility requirements for members and leaders and election process MUST be specified. They can be broad or narrow as it best suits the group’s purposes. I don’t know their goals. I or some administrator should not force my views on them unless they are a danger. Especially in an academic institution, intellectual freedom is important and that freedom may even include the ability of the group to ‘model’ their constitution and eligibility requirements after a national group that I dislike (unless that is a clear danger to the University).</p>
<p>That you all believe that these (unpopular?) religious groups should have restricted ability to write constitutions I find odd, as there is pretty good precedent on this for the past 30 years due to the Supreme Court case cited earlier, at least at public universities. I don’t necessarily agree with these groups, but they know their mission and I would tread very carefully in deciding I know their needs better. If religious groups are funded differently that may be ok - but ‘speech limitations’ (no notices, not allowed on campus, no meeting space allowed near where students can gather) need to be very, very, very carefully applied.</p>
<p>Ohio State’s model quoted earlier (similar to many hundreds of universities) seemed the simplest way to address this. I don’t see any academic data in support of a need for blanket rejection of the ‘normal’ constitutional governance model used by the clubs/groups at the vast majority of US universities.</p>
<p>And just to remember, the classic canard about free speech rights that they only go so far as the tip of someone else’s nose – such rights are not absolute, rather they are balanced by how the exercise affects others. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please, stop implying that the “religious” groups are being singled out among all the student organizations. All the groups must play by the same rules. There is no “targeting” of religious groups. The restriction at issue is pretty simple: you can’t discriminate in your organizational document as to who can be a member and who can be a leader.</p>
<p>You seem to think that groups should have unrestricted ability to specify membership requirements for members and leaders, unless those requirements pose a “danger” to the group or school. What if the investment club wants to specify that only whites can be members? Is that OK? Does that pose a “danger” to the group or university? If not, do you see any problem with the school officially sanctioning this group, perhaps even providing funding, some of which comes from the student activity fees paid by non-white students?</p>
<p>I mentioned religious groups, and noted that they are apparently unpopular based on the tone of some of the responses on this thread, for the obvious reasons - simply because the overwhelming majority of groups that have been banned from campuses (at the handful of Universities discussed in this thread which made recent changes) as a result of the changes of the last three to four years have been religious groups. Some groups compromised, and signed off on the changes, some did not. Perhaps the religious groups which did not sign were simply trying to get attention. I don’t know. I am not a member of these Evangelical groups. It may also because some of these groups are relatively large (Intervarsity, Catholic Student Association in the Vanderbilt example). I don’t know their reasons but the effects are obvious, clearly for whatever reasons, the recent changes have primarily affected religious groups.</p>
<p>I realize that the Universities (e.g. Vanderbilt but also the others) were not intending to affect religious groups and I don’t know why some groups chose to comply and others did not.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Actually I do not believe that, but my personal opinion is that the Ohio State example quoted earlier (which is typical for public universities) is a good model for a typical University in balancing academic and personal freedom, free speech, and the needs of the University. Note that these changes (to forbid groups the ability to set constitutional requirements for eligibility) were generally not prompted due to misbehavior by student groups and even in the cases where there are eligibility requirements such requirements have rarely been an issue, even rarer for religious groups on campus. Note that many student groups may make no additional eligibility requirements for leaders and that is fine. It is their group not mine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>NO NO NO</p>
<p>This thread has primarily focused on the Bowdoin Christian Fellowship at Bowdoin College, and the difficulties this group has faced. As I have pointed out more than once in this thread, the BCF was not banned from Bowdoin College. Words matter. Please get your facts straight. The BCF was told that it would not be officially recognized by the college unless it amended its organizational document to allow any Bowdoin student to be a member or seek a leadership position in the group. This NOT the same thing as being “banned.”</p>
<p>Me:
</p>
<p>You:
</p>
<p>What you wrote previously about groups setting their own membership requirements:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@MiddKid86 the two examples I just mentioned were at Vanderbilt. I did not reference BCF in those recent posts. The New York Times article cited other Universities. I do not know the current status of BCF at Bowdoin but it is not related to the point I made about Universities which banned groups. There is no doubt that a handful of US Universities have banned religious groups due to rule changes over the past three years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please clarify what you mean by “banned.”</p>
<p>No groups were banned anywhere. A few lost college sponsorship (some combo of funding, ability to use college boards and events to promote group, meeting space). That is not banned. </p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p>Guys, this isn’t my term. USA Today used it as did most other news coverage of the Vanderbilt situation. What else are they to say?</p>
<p>The Catholic student group on campus which had well over 500 members, and was one of the largest was
- told to leave campus
- told to change their name (they are now ‘University Catholic’ and presumably renamed the signage on the nearest Church(es))
- not allowed to post notices of their events on campus or meet on campus any more</p>
<p>A group of other religious organizations (mostly Christian groups) were also told to leave since they could not or would not comply with the Vanderbilt rule changes (that followed the unfortunate frat incident mentioned earlier).</p>
<p>I don’t know what other term to use other than banned - that is what the news coverage used and it seems appropriate. The groups were on campus for years, the university changed the rules, the groups couldn’t/wouldn’t change (who knows why, maybe all for different reasons) and they were banned.</p>
<p>The fact remains - some well known groups, long existing on campus, mostly Christian, have been banned over the past few years at a handful of well known Universities due to rule changes. That part is not in question.</p>