<p>
</p>
<p>But that’s exactly what some of these religious groups want to do. Especially those that pick and choose the parts of their holy books that fit their beliefs, and EVANGELIZE to get others to conform to their way of thinking.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what. It is their group, and they should be able to choose who they desire on the ballott. If this is not something you think they have the right to do, then fine. However, it is reassuring that the real world does not work that way, and the students will find that out as soon as they leave college and try that outside the college walls. </p>
<p>Maybe a better example would be Princeton’s “Anscombe Society” named after the famous Cambridge Philosophy prof, Elizabeth Anscombe (who also taught at Penn). Obviously chastity would be important for that group’s leaders since it is part of their group’s apparent mission.</p>
<p><a href=“https://anscombe.princeton.edu/about-the-anscombe-society/”>https://anscombe.princeton.edu/about-the-anscombe-society/</a></p>
<p>Although they seem to try to recruit members, <a href=“https://anscombe.princeton.edu/2014/04/welcome-prospective-students/”>https://anscombe.princeton.edu/2014/04/welcome-prospective-students/</a>, and their views are obviously opposite of many on campus, they are clearly not anti-intellectual, rather the reverse, with talks steeped in philosophy, and the kind of reasoned discourse allowed on campus should allow groups like this to participate (as Princeton does) even if their views are unpopular or countercultural. Their web site has links to similar campus groups at other colleges (Yale, Stanford, Harvard, etc.), and a quick web search didn’t see these societies banned anywhere although hard to imagine a place like Bowdoin letting the group participate since their missions would be in conflict.</p>
<p>awcntdb: I have to disagree with your comment in #138. Christianity is a religion. There are multiple denominations of Christianity, which do not agree on all of the teachings, nor on all of the practices, but this does not make them separate religions.</p>
<p>@QuantMech - I can agree to that if you want to use religion then denominations, as the different factions. There are a couple schools of thought there, but the important point was what one denomination does or agrees to does not speak for a different denomination or speak for Christianity, as a whole.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha ha, bearpanther, thanks. I figured there had to be a logical reason.</p>
<p>This is an interesting discussion. It seems to me that any campus organization might reasonably want to set some eligibility requirements for leadership positions. It seems to me that what Bowdoin is saying (or at least, what it should be saying if its rule is sensible) is: OK, but those eligibility requirements can’t include race, sex, or sexual orientation. If I were in charge, I would probably allow the requirement that the leader of a Christian group be “chaste”–as long as the requirement was applied equally to all students (i.e., you can’t assume that gay student isn’t chaste just because he’s gay). A more interesting question would be an eligibility requirement that called for a potential leader to sign a statement of agreement with doctrines that included a provision that homosexuality is a sin. I guess on this it would matter to me whether it was part of a list of a bunch of other sins, or whether it was inserted specifically to keep gays out of leadership.</p>
<p>By the way, I was a leader in an Intervarsity group when I was in college, and I don’t think anybody ever asked me if I was chaste or not. I also don’t recall any discussion of homosexuality at all.</p>
<p>“Christians of a different religion” is an interesting concept. Now that I think about it some professed Christians DO seem to be of a different religion. </p>
<p>Hunt: Did LGBT groups exist on campus when you went to college? I don’t think we can really compare the times. I remember Campus Crusade for Christ and there was definitely an expectation of chastity. Friends were always lapsing and re-dedicating themselves, and there was a whole lot of discussion as to what chastity really meant. I wasn’t a member.</p>
<p>I don’t buy into this argument that intolerance must be tolerated. At some point someone has to make a stand.</p>
<p>I can’t figure out how to link to sites from the machine I’m using today. If you google intervarsity LGBT you will find accounts of intervarsity visiting LGBT groups to explain Christian teachings and the bible. One site is Reclaiming the Rainbow. They also seem to support/advocate conversion therapies.</p>
<p>eta: to explain their versions of the bible. My son’s priest would give a much different talk. I want to be careful not to equate intervarsity with all Christians.</p>
<p>Also, responding to riceparent from last night – of course some religious colleges are inclusive and tolerant. However, some aren’t. I can’t think of any non-religious college that doesn’t claim to be inclusive.</p>
<p>Re: 162 - The Anscombe Society would only be banned at Bowdoin if it formally prohibited gay students from running for office. I suspect that most gay students who haven’t committed themselves to a life of celibacy are not interested in joining the Anscombe Society. If they did, and ran for office, they probably wouldn’t be elected, so problem solved. </p>
<p>
There were LGBT groups back then (as I recall, although not nearly as visible as today). Also, at my college at least, at that time, Intervarsity was the group for the somewhat less overtly evangelistic (but still serious) Christian students. It was not like Campus Crusade at all (there was no Campus Crusade group at Yale then, but there were other groups). What I’m claiming is that nobody questioned the student leaders about their morals at all. I guess if they were interested in being leaders in a Christian group at Yale, that was considered enough evidence that they were serious about it.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Well being forced to allow sexually active gay (or straight) students to lead the group looks like a direct conflict with the mission of Anscombe society, and if Bowdoin would not allow a “chastity” restriction on leaders for the Christian group highlighted in the news coverage earlier in this thread, then hard to imagine them allowing a group like Anscombe even if it is more academic/philosophical. In any case, seems clear that the Philosophy/Politics of Bowdoin are directly opposed to some of these Christian groups so as long as Bowdoin is open about it they can do what they want. No Christian group that I have ever heard of is going to restrict celibate members (or leaders for that matter) whatever their orientation so that is not the issue.</p>
<p>How does any group “prove” the celibacy of its members?</p>
<p>Thanks Hunt. No LGBT groups existed at my southern state college in the 70s.<br>
…
<a href=“http://www.wisconsingazette.com/milwaukee-gaze/gay-marquette-student-forced-out-of-leadership-with-christian-group.html”>http://www.wisconsingazette.com/milwaukee-gaze/gay-marquette-student-forced-out-of-leadership-with-christian-group.html</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/news/2011/08/catholic-university-punishes-intervarsity-christians-for-removing-homosexual-officer.php”>http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/news/2011/08/catholic-university-punishes-intervarsity-christians-for-removing-homosexual-officer.php</a></p>
<p>It looks like they did elect a gay student to a leadership position.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Does it matter? The Anscombe society takes an academic position in support of “chastity.” If their leaders are willing to claim to value chastity so highly I will take them at their word. If they cause scandal to the group by repeatedly behaving in a way that is in direct conflict with the mission of the group presumably the group’s constitution shows how to deal with that. As someone noted about Campus Crusade members “rededicating themselves” when he was at college - presumably those students did not have values in direct conflict with the group’s primary missions (and rededicated themselves in some way to the group after earlier mistakes).</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>As another example, when we visited Harvard one Christian we met said they loved the college (academics, research etc.) but they felt a ‘siege mentality’ where their views were not respected and they felt it was not as inclusive to (conservative?) Christians as to non-Christian groups. But that is only one data point. Certainly Catholics also would have felt really strange about the proposed on-campus anti-Catholic “Black Mass” (apparently moved off Campus at the last minute) back in May discussed in the Boston Globe article quoted before. </p>
<p>Another recent example I can think of lack of inclusiveness to Christians was a recent Yale graduate student’s experiences, but in his case I think it was the program more than the University as a whole.</p>
<p>I would not describe all non-religious colleges as 'inclusive."</p>
<p>That Marquette case is interesting–it might have turned out quite differently if the kid had stated that he would commit to remaining celibate as long as he was a leader of the group. On the one hand, they might not have kicked him out. On the other hand, if they had, the suspension might have stuck.</p>
<p>“Marquette expects all student organizations to adhere to the university’s Statement on Human Dignity which ‘recognizes and cherishes the dignity of each individual regardless of age, culture, faith, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, language, disability or social class"</p>
<p>Read more at <a href=“http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/news/2011/08/catholic-university-punishes-intervarsity-christians-for-removing-homosexual-officer.php#uyO0Iw5mXgeqUeTG.99”>http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/news/2011/08/catholic-university-punishes-intervarsity-christians-for-removing-homosexual-officer.php#uyO0Iw5mXgeqUeTG.99</a></p>
<p>Marquette is one of the religious colleges with a mission of inclusion.</p>
<p>As a thought experiment, imagine that instead of coming out as gay, the Marquette kid had come out to the staffer as an atheist. But he still wanted to take the position as leader of the group, for whatever reason. Does anybody think that the organization shouldn’t have the right to reconsider his leadership position? It seems to me that there are at least three different elements here: beliefs, conduct, and identity. I think groups should be able to set leadership (and even membership) requirements based on beliefs and conduct, but identity is a different story. Even then, is it OK to have single-sex groups–like the Harvard Glee Club, for example? It seems to me that sometimes it is, but other times it isn’t.</p>
<p>I knew quite a few guys in Christian groups in college that “chose” to be celibate … until they had a choice. The apple was enticing. :)</p>