<p>Possibly the Bowdoin Catholic group allows anyone with an interest in Catholicism to join.</p>
<p>Actually it looks like there are 8 recognized religious groups at Bowdoin: <a href=“http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2014/07/statement-on-religious-freedom-at-bowdoin-college/”>http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2014/07/statement-on-religious-freedom-at-bowdoin-college/</a></p>
<p>
Do you know for a fact what the Bowdoin Catholic group’s policies are?</p>
<p>I feel part of the concern is the use of “bias” and “hate” in the incident form. We all have biases. Some have what we deem irrational biases. If any act of bias warrants a write up I think that has a potential to be problematic. I have always had a problem with the concept of a “hate” crime. It implies that the mere act of hating is in fact the crime not just the behavior that might emanate from it. What is hate and how does one determine that one hates another. If I call someone a racist name do I hate them or am I merely using bad judgement? Do we hate the person, the actions, the culture etc.? Ask Paula Dean that question. I’ve always looked at hate as a motive not a crime. The term can be ultimately used to cast a rather wide net to catch the small number that may truly hate someone. Many other motives are not crimes in and of themselves, such as greed, hunger, even anger. I believe the freedom of speech was intended to protect us from such ambiguities.</p>
<p>That may well be right, and this points up the challenge here. It’s one thing for colleges to police the activities of student groups, and another thing for them to police the opinions or views of those in the groups. So, perhaps, it might make sense for the college to require that all student groups have non-discriminatory membership policies, but it would not make sense for them to ban any student group that supported a male-only clergy. So (perhaps a bit paradoxically), the college would allow a Christian group that preached that homosexuality is a sin–as long as it didn’t exclude homosexual members. As I noted above, a private university will have more leeway to identify the balancing point than a public university would have.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is not point. The number of religious groups. If that is the standard, then let’s impose our beliefs on whomever we want as long as we can point to others that exist. </p>
<p>But, you prove my point. Others can exist, but as long as they toe the line of what the college says. I disagree with that from a religious belief point-of-view. It is only a matter of time until they think some other religious belief is off limits.</p>
<p>It seems to me that the groups may believe what they like but they have to be open to all students. I don’t think that is unreasonable at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where we differ is - not if a person joining disagrees and promotes beliefs different than the group. The group has the right to promote and accept members who also accept and promote its beliefs.</p>
<p>We cross-posted, but there is a somewhat murky line between beliefs that are off limits and actions that are off limits. Imagine a campus that is completely dry and prohibits all alcohol use on campus. They might not let the Catholic student group serve wine at a Mass on campus–while they wouldn’t prohibit the group’s belief that this is appropriate. I think it does get complicated when the group wants to require that its members (or leaders) must adhere to specific beliefs. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Meaning that, within the group, there is no right to free speech. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure I understand. A group should be able to reject members who do not agree with 100% of its beliefs (presumably as laid out in some kind of document or bylaw?), is that what you are saying? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Free speech is a government issue, not a private group issue. Therefore, your argument is highly misplaced. There is no free speech requirement in a private group or in your or my family. In fact, freedom of association codifies this to be the case. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that this would work, for the same reason that letting taxpayers choose where their tax dollars go wouldn’t work. As long as a student organization that receives student activity fees allows open membership, students who disagree with the group’s philosophy can join and try to effect change from the inside.</p>
<p>Remember that we’re talking about private colleges here. They can restrict speech more than public colleges would be able to do. And some of the speech codes may go too far, depending on how they are implemented. But the non-discrimination in membership rule is not a speech restriction, any more than prohibiting use of alcohol by Catholics would be. It might be a free exercise issue–but again, this is a private college, not a public one that we’re talking about. A private college can decide that certain principles–such as extracurriculars that are open to everyone–are more important to it than some of the group’s practices. This is not much different, in theory, from private religious colleges that discriminate against nonbelievers in admissions, and that prohibit extracurriculars that conflict with the religious tenets of the school (except that those restrictions are more restrictive than the ones we’re talking about).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The colleges are a much smaller system. The only reason colleges would say it would not work is the colleges no longer get to choose which groups get support. It is a control issue, as you allude to.</p>
<p>“A private college can decide that certain principles–such as extracurriculars that are open to everyone–are more important to it than some of the group’s practices. This is not much different, in theory, from private religious colleges that discriminate against nonbelievers in admissions, and that prohibit extracurriculars that conflict with the religious tenets of the school (except that those restrictions are more restrictive than the ones we’re talking about).”</p>
<p>So if I’m hearing you right, this is why Wheaton College can require a statement of faith for admissions, and why Liberty U doesn’t have to recognize the Young Democrats club? (or the Pole-Dancers club, for that matter)</p>
<p>If the Catholic Church decided to refuse to accept members who didn’t believe in or practice 100% of its teachings, then the Church would have a even more serious membership problem than it already has. Just look at American Catholic views on birth control.</p>
<p>I just don’t see how this is a problem with respect to campus groups. They are not religious organizations per se–they are not churches themselves. They are student organizations. The schools are not telling them what views they must espouse, just that they must be open to all members of the community to be recognized as a school organization.</p>
<p>Related to issues that Hunt and Pizzagirl has brought up, doesn’t the school itself have some right to ‘freedom of association’ and can’t it decide what organizations it wants to associate with?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, this is correct. </p>
<p>To me, however, the key is that showing more respect for a group’s practices is paramount to teaching respect for individual freedom and religious beliefs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it is much different when practiced at the point of admissions. </p>
<p>At least at the admissions level, the school makes sure the student is not in an environment that does not fit the student by not accepting him. That is vastly different than accepting a student and then disrespecting and limiting said student’s religious beliefs and practices.</p>
<p>The admissions approach is looking out for the student, knowing that the school does not approve of certain beliefs or practices. The other accepts the students and then limits the students’ practice. The latter I find unacceptable, even if it is OK to do.</p>
<p>For example, I make sure, as much as I can, that no one is hired that would not be able to be an individual (that being his religious beliefs are respected) within our corporate structure. That includes wanting to practice certain things that I may not believe in. It would be wrong to hire a person knowing their beliefs would be restricted or not respected.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t buy that a student’s religious beliefs and practices are “disrespected and limited” by insisting that a completely optional club be prepared to admit any student who would like to join it.</p>
<p>OK, but I seriously doubt that its part of dogma of many religions that if you form a club on a college campus, you can only accept members that accept members with 100% acceptance of that religion’s teachings. I doubt you would find that as part of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, for instance. So I don’t see how being ‘open to all students’ would conflict with certain Church dogma/teachings.</p>
<p>These campuses are avowedly pluralistic. They have certain community standards that they expect the organizations that they affiliate with to adhere to. They are not telling the organizations what views they must espouse. I think it’s a good compromise between the pluralistic nature of the campus and the group the students want to create.</p>
<p>Even Hillel on most?all? campuses is open to all students, not just Jewish students. At the same time, Hillel will not partner with groups that deny Israel’s right to exist (among other limitations on partnership). There is some disagreement about these guidelines even within the Hillel community itself, and I do not want to turn this into a discussion of this controversy. </p>