<p>Oh no, there’s definitely a difference. The college isn’t telling the group that they can’t make their own membership rules; what they’re saying is that they won’t support the group with money and a meeting place if the group doesn’t allow all Bowdoin students to be part of the group. You say that’s disrespecting the religious beliefs of the group; Bowdoin says that it’s ensuring that all of its students have equal access to student groups that all students fund through the student activity fee. There can still be a group, they can meet in dorm room, they just can’t expect the college to give them money and other support unless the group allows any student to join. The group members don’t have to disavow their beliefs, they just can’t be exclusive in their membership requirement if they want to be officially recognized.</p>
<p>The original linked article says that people have a form to report when they encounter, “an incident of hate or bias.” It says an incident not a belief. An incident of hate or bias is when an individual acts upon a belief in a way that impacts others around them in a negative way. </p>
<p>I would assume it would count as an “incident” because one person is acting on a personal belief in a way that extends out to another person in a negative way. It isn’t the thought police where you aren’t allowed to think and feel a given way, though.</p>
<p>Interesting idea. So it comes down to that fundamental question: is Bowdoin’s political and cultural identity simply not compatible with various conservative Christian groups?</p>
<p>Just got a chance to lookup some of the background on the Bowdoin case - so the requirement of the Bowdoin Christian groups in question was that their leaders be ‘chaste’ (probably more so than the requirement that they be ‘Christian’) which is considered in opposition to Bowdoin’s policy that sexually active gay college students be allowed to lead campus groups. Looking at the Bowdoin web site and also the analysis of Bowdoin by NAS in <a href=“http://www.nas.org/images/documents/What_Does_Bowdoin_Teach.pdf”>http://www.nas.org/images/documents/What_Does_Bowdoin_Teach.pdf</a>, does help piece together a picture similar to what sally305 implied - that Bowdoin’s institutional values are not compatible (at least in some key areas) with the theology of various religions (including the two mentioned in the article referenced earlier in the thread). That is not really a problem - Bowdoin is free to bar groups that are incompatible with its mission, as long as Bowdoin is clear about its institutional values.</p>
<p>Could you please give the names of conservative Christian groups you are talking about? I honestly have no idea.</p>
<p>FYI: Bowdoin is the sort of college that will end up on the list of a family/student looking for a gay friendly campus environment. I don’t think this would be a surprise to many?</p>
<p>“Bowdoin Christian Fellowship” and “Intervarsity Christian Fellowship” were the two mentioned in the news coverage.</p>
<p>I had heard of Intervarsity before, it is a big group nationally, and doesn’t appear particularly unusual as Evangelical Christian groups go. Looking at the Intervarsity web site</p>
<p>. . .The value and dignity of all people:
created in God’s image to live in love and holiness,
but alienated from God and each other because of our sin and guilt,
and justly subject to God’s wrath.</p>
<p>Well that’s certainly the iron fist in a velvet glove :-S </p>
<p>No groups can discriminate at Vanderbilt, according to the handbook: **Registered student organizations must be open to all students as members and must permit all members in good standing to seek leadership posts. **</p>
<p>thanks for the links. The last article talks about the “orthodox Christian teachings on human sexuality.” Which Christians get to decide what is orthodox? </p>
<p>Having read through some of this organizations materials and a couple of their posted Bowdoin related news articles it seems to me that they are conflating their particular denomination and set of doctrinal beliefs with “Christianity” in general. Bowdoin isn’t attacking Christians as a group just requiring that this couple who are private citizens in town follow anti-discrimination policies to hold official meetings and Bible study sessions on campus. </p>
<p>Well, some religions are quite open about publishing their beliefs, ethical systems (and the supporting documentation and theological and philosophical background that led them to hold these beliefs). For other religions it is not clearly stated, but they still may share common beliefs.</p>
<p>For Catholics their beliefs are openly available and you can find them at:</p>
<p>And of course Lutherans and other Protestant denominations also have had Catechisms and statements of beliefs.</p>
<p>Philosophy and Theology of human sexuality has been analyzed for well over a thousand years (at least within Christianity) so this should not be surprising.</p>
<p>Agreed. However, one does not have to agree, which obviously I do not.</p>
<p>EDIT: The underlying issue I do find interesting is how tolerance is considered a one-way street. Group X is considered intolerant if it does not accept or tolerate what Group Y believes. Yet, Group Y sees no need to be tolerant and accepting that Group X has a different belief. Interesting. If tolerance were a two-way street both groups should be able to exist without any one infringing on the other. </p>
<p>Interesting dance going on in the posts here now. </p>
<p>If you believe that groups should be able to exclude persons from membership/and or leadership based on their beliefs/practices, why shouldn’t the college itself be able to exclude groups from recognition (membership) based on THEIR beliefs/practices?</p>
<p>My point was that there isn’t universal agreement. Various denominations teach various orthodoxies. My openly gay son’s church has openly gay priests. Friends who are religious studies professors, or Divinity School professors, do not interpret Christian teachings on human sexuality as including prohibitions on homosexuality. </p>
<p>The error made here is asking which christians. </p>
<p>Christian, in itself, is not a religion. It is a name denoting the founding philosophy of a religion, as in Judeo-Christian. There are multiple religions, which have this base, and each religion decides its main beliefs. They even have different versions of the bible in several cases. However, they are all christians, even if of different religions. </p>
<p>This is why saying Catholics accept Bowdoin’s position says nothing about other Christians of a different religion might believe. Catholic is but one form of christian religion. It does not speak for others. </p>
<p>Yes - that appears to be the point that multiple people have made
in this thread.</p>
<p>My personal view is similar but more idealistic. I view Universities as bastions
of academic freedom allowing free speech and reasoned argument even
about sensitive topics. If the University believes that a group is
a threat to its mission (which was not the case in most of the
examples cited in this thread) I believe that a University can ban
(e.g. in the Bowdoin example) groups that they feel are incompatible
with its mission or politics or philosophy as long as the University
is open about its philosophy and why this group is a threat to the
University’s mission. Otherwise, I believe that academic freedom
and free speech should be presumed. If a student group believes
that restrictions on its leadership (leadership qualifications)
help it better fulfill its core mission and ties in with its values,
then I would hope that Universities use great caution in
restricting the freedom of such student groups to meet
and organize.</p>
</p>