<p>
</p>
<p>Funny, RiceParent–the only use of “banned” in the NYT I could find concerned Liberty University banning the College Democrats.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/us/politics/24liberty.html”>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/us/politics/24liberty.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, if Bowdoin policy is the standard, I can rest assured the groups would be left alone.</p>
<p>OK, I can tell you are not a CEO or leader of anything in the real world who has had to deal with unions and various alliances across several industries. It is also clear you have never seen or read a union constitution and have seen union voting rules. Alliances are often even more restrictive because they often try to accommodate different groups’ viewpoints, leading to a very narrow available pool of a candidates. </p>
<p>And these are just the beginning of the groups, which have open and clear restrictions on leadership (and members), which would be IN DIRECT VIOLATION of the current Bowdoin and other colleges’ policy. But, does not matter since the schools’ policies do not mean jack in the real world. And, for these real world groups, which would be in direct violation of the schools’ policy, the ACLU is nowhere in sight. Therefore, what you state does not hold water. </p>
<p>Hum…but this does raise an interesting point - if such leadership restrictions are not even considered discrimination by unions and other groups in the real world, who are the schools to say they are solving some perceived societal discrimination on their campus, as established law does not even support the schools’ policy, outside of their right to institute policy. In fact, I know of NO LAW that the schools cite that says what those groups were engaging in illegal discrimination. I may have missed it, but I have seen NO legal argument for what the schools are doing. However, I have seen general anti-discrimination policy arguments, but no legal law cited that the groups’ can be charged that they are in violation of. This is a pure policy play, not a legal play. (Please correct me if I am wrong and groups have been CHARGED with violating a federal or state law, not just school policy)</p>
<p>More importantly, you seem to completely not understand that Bowdoin and the schools’ are NOT legal institutions, and policy-wise they can call wearing green unlawful and illegal within their walls, even it means nothing on the outside. Therefore, you and the schools can consider it discrimination for a group to ask that its leaders agree with its principles, but such requirements of the groups is NOT unlawful in the least. The requirements are only against school policy - school policy is NOT law, as we use the term. (Though, it can be said school policy is against the supreme law, the Constitution re the right to freely associate and right to religious freedom, but that is another discussion) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And this is the most important point - there is no established law, of which I am aware, that says what the college groups’ were doing is discrimination (unions prove that since they have even more restrictive rules, including seniority, age and region identification rules, not to mention the beginning point is one MUST agree to tow the entire party line.). It is just that Bowdoin and other schools have the right to institute college policy. However, it follows that to compare established legal law to ad hoc college policymakers, who decide policy on a whim, is basically two ships passing in the night. Nothing in relation at all.</p>
<p>Therefore, I repeat what Bowdoin and the schools are doing does not exist in the real world. The colleges are exercising policy, not law. And in irony, groups on the outside have even more incredibly restrictive policies, as is their right to be restrictive if they want. </p>
<p>Let’s see - we deal with about 15 unions and alliances and NONE could survive or exist under the Bowdoin policy - now, that is the real world. Gees, none of our company’s groups could survive. And none of our competitors’ groups could survive either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I did not miss this. I already stated that Bowdoin and other schools can do what they are doing. I do, however, find it wrongheaded to teach students that others’ beliefs do not matter and need not be respected. </p>
<p>It really goes without saying, but looks like it needs to be said here for some reason - in 98+% (my guesstimate) of groups in the real world, no way will one be allowed to try and get a leadership position under the EXPRESS and OPEN stipulation that one does NOT believe or support what the group believes or the group’s mission. Can such groups exist? Sure. However, I darn sure have never seen any in my lifetime.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Christian groups are among the largest (the Catholic Student Association and
a few of the others at Vanderbilt for example were quite large) so they will
obviously get more attention, but it would be misleading to describe these
recent rules changes as affecting only Christian groups among the campus
religious groups at the affected institutions.</p>
<p>The confusion stems in part due to three factors:</p>
<p>1) groups that didn’t like the changes but took the “lesser of two evils” approach
and signed anyway (perhaps the smaller Catholic medical group at Vanderbilt?).
Some non-Christian groups signed the agreements to avoid losing all influence on campus.
Whether such an agreement can be signed morally/honestly obviously can be quite complex
and vary due to the religion and due to the exact text of the restriction imposed.
I don’t pretend to understand the complex, long developed, nuanced belief systems of
other religions so won’t even attempt to say whether their decisions were correct
for their particular belief system.</p>
<p>2) These groups are smaller in the US</p>
<p>3) Conflation of “misbehavior bans” or “political” bans of religious groups with “religious belief or practice” bans.</p>
<p>Muslim groups have of course been banned recently not just Christian groups, but
the most commonly reported were not due to their religious beliefs
If you ignore the distractions of the misbehavior bans
(UC Irvine banning the Muslim Student Association because some of its members
were disruptive at a speech on campus that they didn’t agree with and another example the
east coast colleges where groups had distributed the satirical anti-Israeli political fliers
and been banned as a result) and focus on bans of religious muslim groups,
they have happened but are rarer due to the three factors noted above.</p>
<p>An example of a campus religious ban is a recent ban on a Muslim group at a large University due to the Muslim group’s religious seating practice (voluntary segregated seating at events) which apparently is a common religious practice (at least based on this description <a href=“http://www.5pillarz.com/2013/12/13/gender-segregated-seating-why-the-uproar/”>http://www.5pillarz.com/2013/12/13/gender-segregated-seating-why-the-uproar/</a>). The ban was covered widely in the news:
<a href=“http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/15/ucl-bans-islamic-group-over-segregation”>http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/15/ucl-bans-islamic-group-over-segregation</a></p>
<p>Recent bans on non-Christian religious groups at colleges are more rare but have occurred.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Precisely my point, but it has been stated elsewhere that (evangelical or conservative) Christian groups were singled out.</p>
<p>Of course I wouldn’t describe what happened to the Muslim groups in your examples as “banned” either. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are beliefs that are intolerable to most of us. Infanticide. Incest. Pedophilia. I don’t respect those beliefs or the people who hold them–nor do most normal people.</p>
<p>What is your position on the FLDS sect of Warren Jeffs? Would you respect his strongly held religious belief that he should take your 12-year-old daughter as a “spiritual wife”? </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Certainly they were the most commonly affected.</p>
<p>I read those earlier comments as indicating that the most commonly banned groups were Evangelical Christian groups (second most common may have been Catholic groups) which seems supported by fact, at least if we are talking about the US and focusing on the last few years. I don’t think that that is identical with saying that they were ‘singled out’ although that is a possibility I guess. In some cases these may have been unintended consequences, and some Universities (the Ohio State example) took the obvious straightforward approach of simply fixing the problem by clarifying their rules to avoid running afoul of supreme court precedent (cases mentioned before, and possibly others including the “Lamb’s Chapel” case which decision prevented denial of public meeting space at schools/Universities to Christian groups if non-religious groups are allowed to meet and use the same facilities, and the Rosenberg case which allowed funding of religious publications out of student fees if non-religious publications are allowed to be funded).</p>
<p>There’s a difference between “not being a professing member of religious x” and “being fundamentally opposed to the core values of the organization,” and a difference between “being opposed to the core values of the organization” and “actively trying to subvert the organization.”</p>
<p>I’m Jewish. I do not personally believe in the divinity of Christ. But, I think it is great that churches exist to provide community and spiritual life for practicing Christians. I like a lot of the moral/social justice imperatives of certain churches in the area that I’ve visited with friends. And I think it is great to encourage people to grow spiritually and seek meaning in whatever higher power speaks to them. So, while it would never have occurred to me to spend enough time in a Christian campus group to run for leadership, the fact that I’m Jewish doesn’t, in theory, put me into conflict with the aims of a Christian group in the way that being a Democrat would put me in conflict with the aims of a Republican group. </p>
<p>And by the way, I doubt that Democratic or Republican clubs on campus have bylaws asserting that leaders have to affiliate with the party in question, as there would be absolutely no need for such an assertion. Democrats can show up at Republican club meetings. Republicans can show up at Democratic club meetings. Even registered Democrats are unlikely to agree with every single component of their party’s platform. But if you disagree on too many issues, or the disagreement is too fundamental to what most members see as a core party value, you’re not going to get elected. And, if you’ve got a Pro-Choicer at a Republic Club, you don’t have to permit that person to derail or monopolize conversations with endless speeches about bodily autonomy, or agree to his suggestion to sponsor a pro-choice rally, or appoint him to leadership roles. If he acts really obnoxiously and disrespectfully, you can even kick him out. But you’re not kicking him out because he’s pro-choice, you’re kicking him out because he’s being a total jerk about it. </p>
<p>Nothing in the Bowdoin policy would preclude a campus group, religious or secular, from expelling a student who was acting in a disrespectful way that interfered with its core function. Certainly, it isn’t forcing them to elect them as leaders. The reason for the denial simply can’t be “Sorry, you can’t run because you’re gay.” </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>
</p>
<p>Discrimination against gays and lesbians is clearly illegal under many local and state laws, including that of Maine, where Bowdoin is located.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Most of the cases cited were not about discrimination against gays, but rather whether religious groups could have restrictions that leaders share their beliefs (which may include a theology of marriage or chastity). I may have missed something, but AFAIK even Harvard does not ban the Catholic student association, even though the Catholic theology of marriage (and chastity) differs from the view held by many Boston residents. Note that we are talking about religious clubs, not misbehaving frats - the fraternity anti-gay example quoted earlier may have been illegal in some states, but that was certainly not the case with the Catholic Student Associations or most of the Intervarsity cases (not sure if it was a factor in a couple of cases in California as it is hard to get past the hyperbole on both sides).</p>
<p>Note that Harvard’s Catholic Student Association, even though it is in Massachusetts, has the ‘normal’ kind of restrictions found in religious groups and well supported by precedent (and law in the case of public universities). Membership open. Leadership restricted to those who share the groups values. </p>
<p>"Candidates must be practicing Catholics who subscribe to the mission and principles of faith "</p>
<p>See <a href=“http://usodb.fas.harvard.edu/public/index.cgi?rm=viewdoc&id=540”>http://usodb.fas.harvard.edu/public/index.cgi?rm=viewdoc&id=540</a></p>
<p>“practicing Catholics who subscribe to the mission and principles of the faith”.
So no birth control? Is that enforced? </p>
<p>Does it matter? If the group thinks that is a problem (sexually active students being disruptive or whatever) they can update their constitution. It is their group, not ours.</p>
<p>My point is that “tenets of the faith” is (likely) somewhat inconsistently applied. And when the one that’s being applied is explicitly discriminatory, it becomes a problem for the community as a whole. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Intolerable does not mean illegal for it is not illegal for one to possess intolerable ideas. Now, acting on those ideas is another question.</p>
<p>And the salient question is, “Has any of the religious groups ever been CHARGED with condoning illegal activity and for asking their leaders (or members) to commit felonies?” I have not seen one case as much.</p>
<p>Even the colleges have not found the gumption to say or to charge illegality were happening inside these religious groups. I gather here that people are calling things illegal, which they just do not like, not that the things are illegal at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And as for the birth control issue, if it’s part of the group’s strict Catholic charter and one does not agree - then do not join. Better yet, form your own group that does that. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is called leadership for a reason - one is leading a purpose, not some mindless organization. You have to know the beliefs and tenets to lead effectively. And this goes for any group that actually will do anything worthwhile. </p>
<p>I am totally convinced that the only people who sign on to such a policy are people who lead nothing. Make a lot of noise, yes, but lead zip.</p>
<p>Discrimination on the basis of sexuality is illegal in Maine. So wouldn’t condoning discrimination be illegal?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, because that law does not trump the right of someone to have a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin against God and against his religion. </p>
<p>Of course, not all people subscribe to that in an orthodox manner, but freedom of religion and freedom of association are not negated by that law in Maine or any law passed by the any State or even any law by the Federal government, as the Constitution trumps all. </p>
<p>But, the proof is in the pudding as they say - even the schools have not charged any group with such a violation - all the schools did was ask that the groups accept this new policy to remain on campus. Note - off campus, the groups do not have to change their structure and the State of Maine rightfully leaves them alone.</p>
<p>My hunch is this is because the colleges’ lawyers told the schools if that is a religious belief, you cannot force a group to do something against its faith, such as to accept a leader that is contrary to its faith, ergo you cannot charge them with discrimination at that point. </p>
<p>Anyone, please correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that at the level of the Supreme Court such religious freedom cases have yet to lose.</p>
<p>Well, they are not likely to lose under the court we have now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is more interesting is such cases have never lost, to my knowledge, in the entire history of the country, irrespective of the Court makeup. Much more liberal courts have reached the exact same conclusion. (Again, I am open to being corrected here, as there may be a case I am unaware of) </p>
<p>To win on these grounds, one really needs first to repeal the First Amendment.</p>
<p>@awcntdb You are probably correct based on the cases that I have read, linked to from the related Wikipedia articles and some of the academic analysis of the issue of religious freedom, speech and association (at least in the US).</p>
<p>Well, then, why don’t these evangelical groups bring suits? The IVCF has money and I’m sure they would get a ton of support from right-wing groups that see an opportunity here. They could file in separate states where they have been thwarted, or join a group action. </p>