what is going on at colleges,this can not be real(it sadly is)

<p>I agree that religious beliefs need to be respected, but I’m tired of pretending that anti-gay bigotry is anything other than vile, ignorant prejudice. </p>

<p>That doesn’t mean I want the government or even a university telling religious organizations that they need to start performing gay weddings or teaching that gay sex is OK. But the idea that a university should support an organization that won’t let a gay student join or run for office? Nope. Just not buying it. And if the sincere religious belief of a particular sect mandates that gays be prohibited from membership, then no, I have no problem if they lose recognition or decide that that college isn’t a welcoming enough place for them. </p>

<p>Are there any non-regligious colleges that don’t have inclusiveness and tolerance as part of their mission? </p>

<br>

<br>

<p>AFAIK - the best known Christian religious colleges, at least in the US, would list those as core values. Perhaps a few non-religious colleges might disagree but I don’t think anyone on this thread disagreed (that I could see) with the idea that Universities should be inclusive and tolerant. The discussion began about Wake Forest and complaints from some religious groups on campus who apparently were worried about a new procedure allowing filing of broad bias complaints since bias is inherent (in a sense) in any strongly held philosophical or religious system. Other posts on this thread mentioned restrictions (not allowing posting of notices, meeting on campus etc.) on various campus groups (mostly Evangelical Christian but also a big Catholic group at Vanderbilt) at three or four Universities. Being respectful of others and tolerant at a University is a given and not likely to be an issue in dispute by many (or any) in this thread (I hope). Allowing Christian groups, even groups that you disagree with, free speech, is important to academic freedom though.</p>

<p>It is intriguing that in another thread about finding conservative or christian schools the very same people who told a poster to go to places like Bowdoin because these schools are places where different beliefs and ideas are allowed to flourish and are exchanged and debated are the very same people now saying that colleges should be narrow-minded and control how a student group chooses its leadership.</p>

<p>Yes, a college can do this if it wants, but how about a simpler ideal - respect all groups beliefs and leave them alone to choose their leadership. In basic terms, tolerate and include all different beliefs, even devout christian ones with which the college may disagree. 100% tolerance should be the goal, not pick and choose tolerance at the college’s whim.</p>

<p>Not all beliefs deserve respect. A university committed to a comprehensive liberal arts education should extend respect to a wide range of groups and beliefs, including those with which they disagree, but that respect needn’t be limitless. It isn’t OK for campus groups to exclude blacks, and it isn’t OK for them to exclude gays, either. </p>

<p>Fortunately, there are few if any mainstream religious groups - including those with an official policy against homosexuality - for whom this should be a burdensome requirement. Most religious groups don’t have an official policy specifically denying leadership roles to men who sleep with their girlfriends, even if they preach abstinence, and they don’t need an official policy specifically denying leadership roles to men who sleep with their boyfriends either. </p>

<br>

<br>

<p>

</p>

<p>Is it necessarily true that someone with a strongly held philosophical or religious belief would necessarily act in a biased or undesirably discriminatory manner against someone else? For example, if the person applied such beliefs only to his/her personal life, without expecting others to abide by them, would there be any bias or undesirable discrimination involved?</p>

<p>Of course, not all such persons are satisfied with personally following their strongly held beliefs. Some aggressively want to convert others, get others to follow the same rules, or show hostility to others not following those rules, which is where conflicts happen.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Once again this false alarm…the groups DO choose their leadership. They just can’t rig the election.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>A belief that people think deserves respect today might be totally wrong. And many beliefs are grounded in ideals others do not believe or even understand. You are in no position to say your beliefs are more right than theirs thus their beliefs do not deserve respect. The most you can say is your belief is different. . </p>

<p>I say let all debates happen among the differing beliefs and ideas and let the arguments win or lose on their merit in the court of intellectual public opinion. And part of putting forth the best debate is for groups to choose who best represents their ideals and best explains them.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>Wasn’t that the point of various earlier posters on this thread, that ‘normal’
bias complaints were not the issue but that the expanded scope at Wake could technically
allow bias complaints over personal religious beliefs? The overt racial prejudices
seen at some southern colleges years ago were not what anyone
was talking about - they were talking about the open ended
nature of the Wake Forest forms which were apparently were more subjective
and broad.</p>

<p>It could be considered a form of intellectual dishonesty to hold strong personal beliefs, but not
be willing to share them (respectfully) at appropriate times, or to hide them, especially in
an academic setting. Much of the reason that colleges emphasize diversity is so that
students can learn from each other. I certainly learned from others in College
whose religions differed markedly from mine, but that was a different, more open time.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It is not a rigged election if a group stipulates AHEAD of time what the criteria are to run for the position. If one does not meet the criteria, then one cannot run. Rigged is cheating; this is not cheating - it is being upfront about required qualifications. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Sharing one’s personal beliefs is not necessarily the same as being pushy about them. For example, a person may, out of strongly held personal beliefs, avoid eating specific foods as a personal choice, and may explain to others the beliefs behind it. That would be quite different from expecting everyone else to also avoid eating those foods.</p>

<p>RiceParent - If a religious group had a stipulation that members had to be chaste, I suppose that might theoretically be non-discriminatory. In practice, I’m skeptical. Are there really a lot of groups with policies like that? Are they ever enforced? Or are they actually smokescreens to keep out gay students? In any case, I’ve come across plenty of strict religious organizations that manage to function without asking student leaders to sign statements of belief or codes of conduct. The students elect the people they want, who will generally be those who share their values. In this context, asking all groups to abide by a non-discrimination policy that stipulates full inclusion in all non-ritual activities seems less than burdensome.</p>

<p>awcntb - You’re right. Beliefs do change. Maybe in 100 years, society will decide that ISIS had it right after all. Until then, I’m fine with the idea of drawing reasonable limits on what we do and don’t tolerate in various environments. Ironically, what you’ve just said is a recipe for a total relativism that would be completely antithetical to the groups you’re defending. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Wow, I had a philosophy professor rip into a student for this very reason. </p>

<p>The student would not answer or debate some point and the professor got visibly irritated at the student. The class, including me, did not understand the anger at first until the prof said,“Your silence is a lie because you believe something.” That was the first time I ever heard that, but I got it, i.e., the student was hiding his beliefs and the professor called him on it because that class was meant for debate, not hiding. </p>

<br>

<br>

<p>Probably only in religious groups on campus and not all of them. Isn’t it the norm in Muslim (and some Hindu) groups? <a href=“http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2013/01/islamic-cultures-religious-affiliation-and-sex-outside-of-marriage/”>http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2013/01/islamic-cultures-religious-affiliation-and-sex-outside-of-marriage/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I have seen Evangelical groups, even when I was in college, that claimed such restrictions of course. Common enough.</p>

<p>Some Catholic groups too (obviously members of Catholic religious orders and most priests, but probably a few Catholic lay groups too). Notre Dame tries valiantly with its parietals but it is tough.</p>

<p>Most of these policies would predate the current political debates.</p>

<p>Obviously there are plenty of groups that oppose premarital sex. That is different from saying that you can’t be included in their membership rolls unless you subscribe and live up to every single one of the group’s professed beliefs.</p>

<p>As for the leadership issue, that’s a red herring. Lyndon LaRouche ran for president every election for about thirty years. It would be really scary to live in President Larouche’s America, but we never had to worry about that, because there was never a snowball’s chance in heck that he or anyone with his views was going to be elected. Similarly, the members of an evangelical group aren’t going to elect a student leader who openly violates their beliefs. So at best, if the group makes student leaders subscribe to some statement of faith you’re talking about a policy that is patently unnecessary, and at worst, one that is created out of animus against a particular group. Under those circumstances, it seems reasonable to expect groups who aren’t simply acting out of animus to sign on to the non-discrimination clause, as it isn’t burdening or disrespecting their practice in any substantial way. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Not what I meant to say. Reading again though, I do see how you took it that way because I left out a couple pieces.</p>

<p>What I meant (worded slightly differently) is because something is right for you does not mean you can automatically say it is also right for someone else and that what they are doing differently than you does not deserve respect. </p>

<p>I readily acknowledge that beliefs are not the same and that people do determine right and wrong for themselves. But, I fully encourage open debate, do not believe in shutting down debate, and do not believe in telling others how to run and present their organizations to the outside.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I use the term to mean only certain, pre-screened, candidates can run. Obviously an evangelical group that thinks being gay is a sin isn’t going to elect a gay leader so why is it a problem to allow all students to run? </p>

<p>“Yes, a college can do this if it wants, but how about a simpler ideal - respect all groups beliefs and leave them alone to choose their leadership. In basic terms, tolerate and include all different beliefs, even devout christian ones with which the college may disagree. 100% tolerance should be the goal, not pick and choose tolerance at the college’s whim.”</p>

<p>But they ARE free to choose their leadership. No one is insisting a gay person must be installed as the head of the Christian fellowship, any more than they’re insisting a Jew-for-Jesus be installed as the president of Hillel. They’re simply saying that all properly enrolled students should be able to be given the chance to run. Duh, they aren’t going to be elected. </p>

<p>“What I meant (worded slightly differently) is because something is right for you does not mean you can automatically say it is also right for someone else and that what they are doing differently than you does not deserve respect.”</p>

<p>Well, then, I’m going to start a knitting club on campus, and decree that black people have cooties and they can’t join. Should I get official recognition for that? </p>