Prominent American university attempts to squash religious freedom

[Kathryn]

Any club that thinks this is a serious risk would always have the option of re-forming as a group unaffiliated with the university, finding meeting space off-campus, and foregoing the funding the university provides to its clubs. Problem solved.

It would be a lot easier simply to refrain from enacting stupid, politically ubercorrect campus rules, though, wouldn't it?

Oh, I forgot - some people, especially petty bureaucrats, actually ENJOY that sort of thing.

 

[Kathryn]

Not at all.
You don't have to an expert in something to be the leader of a group.

Couple of things though -

1. It's one thing to be the leader simply by default - no one more qualified will step up to the plate, for example.

2. It's makes ever so much more sense to have a leader who actually supports the goals of a particular group rather than one who disagrees with the basic tenets of the group. I figure that if Penguin had actually held photography in disdain, it would have been a serious lack in judgment for the group to trust him with leadership.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It would be a lot easier simply to refrain from enacting stupid, politically ubercorrect campus rules, though, wouldn't it?

Oh, I forgot - some people, especially petty bureaucrats, actually ENJOY that sort of thing.

I don't think the rule is stupid. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a university to have an anti-discrimination policy.

BTW - do you know of any case where a university club actually got taken over the way you're suggesting? Other universities have similar policies, so there would be opportunity for it to happen, right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

2. It's makes ever so much more sense to have a leader who actually supports the goals of a particular group rather than one who disagrees with the basic tenets of the group. I figure that if Penguin had actually held photography in disdain, it would have been a serious lack in judgment for the group to trust him with leadership.

I didn't join the clubs for any activities I held in disdain. I wouldn't see the point, frankly.

Even if I somehow managed to stage a coup of anti-photography people to take over the photography club, what would I accomplish?

I wouldn't even be able to get to use the club's money (normally a couple of hundred bucks at most, IIRC) for my nefarious ends, because one of the rules at my school was that clubs weren't allowed to hold money outside their account with the Federation of Students, and the Feds would've frozen the account if the club's board of directors got up to shenanigans or violated the mandate of the club.

 

[Kathryn]

I didn't join the clubs for any activities I held in disdain. I wouldn't see the point, frankly.

Zealots tend to see things a bit differently from most people.

Even if I somehow managed to stage a coup of anti-photography people to take over the photography club, what would I accomplish?

Some people would really get off on this sort of thing - you know that, don't you? I mean, just the word "coup" and it's history should tell you that.

 

[lunamoth]

Even if I somehow managed to stage a coup of anti-photography people to take over the photography club, what would I accomplish?

I can imagine that someone who does not like a particular club might join in order to disrupt and undermine the club.

 

[Kathryn]

I don't think the rule is stupid. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a university to have an anti-discrimination policy.

Hey, no one's brought Hitler into this thread yet, have they?

Hitler made the trains run on time - that's a good thing, right?

This rule at Vanderbilt goes beyond an "anti discrimination policy."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can imagine that someone who does not like a particular club might join in order to disrupt and undermine the club.

If the problem is with people disrupting and undermining clubs, then why not make a rule that addresses it directly?

Also, I think if you're going to have a coup of, say, a Christian club, it's more likely to be by dissenting Christians than by angry atheists, IMO.

 

[Kathryn]

Principle.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It would be a lot easier simply to refrain from enacting stupid, politically ubercorrect campus rules, though, wouldn't it?

Oh, I forgot - some people, especially petty bureaucrats, actually ENJOY that sort of thing.

There's nothing petty or stupid about guaranteed equality.

 

[Pegg]

The constitution prohibits the government from restricting the freedom of assembly or speech or religion. Private organizations can do whatever they want*. This website can ban speech, the government cannot. So no they're not exempt because it's not covered.

*Other laws, accepting government funding, etc. may alter this.

wow, thats scary.

In australia, the laws that apply to the government apply to everyone and they set the standards for everyone else to abide by.

 

[Kathryn]

There's nothing petty or stupid about guaranteed equality.

Never said there was.

Private schools are allowed to "discriminate" when it comes to religion. For instance, a Buddhist school may legally require teachers to be Buddhist.

A Professional Women's Club may "discriminate" based on gender.

A cheerleading squad is allowed to "discriminate" based on disability.

If a person can't join a group, then it stands to reason they can't be PRESIDENT of that group.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Never said there was.

Yes you did. In the post of yours I quoted.

 

[Kathryn]

I may change my mind on the whole matter after researching it a bit more. MAY. I also may not. Apparently the issue is not just about anti discrimination, or money.

Apparently the issue is "FUNDING" (not quite the same as "money") by Vanderbilt College, and using the Vanderbilt name. If a student group receives funding from Vanderbilt/uses Vanderbilt in their name, they must abide by the entire anti discrimination policy enacted by the university.

If Vanderbilt wants to say that at the university it's illegal to discriminate based on hair color or what city you were born in, then if your group wants to continue to be funded in part by Vanderbilt, it has to abide by that policy.

Vanderbilt is a private institution and can draft and enforce it's own anti discrimination policies as it sees fit.

The issue is whether or not these groups can be REGISTERED student groups at Vanderbilt. They cannot.

If I were one of these groups, I'd say, "Keep your funds - we'll operate without you." I wonder if that would be allowed.

But he next pressing question would be this: Would a private group, not receiving funds from Vanderbilt, be allowed to meet in Vanderbilt facilities? This is an expressed concern by these groups. Would they be forced to meet off campus? From what I have been reading - from both sides of the issue - is that "meeting space" is considered a part of "funding."

Interesting article - the student comments are the most interesting part.

Vanderbilt administrators defend nondiscrimination policy to packed town hall | Nashville City Paper

 

[Falvlun]

What he is saying in that it is fine to "discriminate" against people while selecting a leader if the characterestic in question is strictly related to the fundamental core characteristics the group is built upon.

Non-religious groups are not built on religious characteristics. Therefore, members of any religion should be eligible. Any other particular characteristic could be taken in consideration though depending on what the group is about. For example, to be a leader of the 'cooking group' the ability to cook could be taken into consideration.

Someone wants to be part of the volleyball team but he doesn´t play volleyball. They don´t let him in because he deson´t play volleyball.

Someone wants to be part of the synchronised swimming group and he rocks at synchronized swimming. He is not allowed because he doesn´t play volleyball. Does this make sense? Why of course not.

It´s the same with religion. Only things that are relevant should be dis/qualifiers. Sometimes religion will be relevant, sometims it won´t be.

I completely understand what you guys are saying; it seems like a law like this is anti-common sense.

The main problem I see with the comparison to sports clubs, etc, is that historically sports have not been a protected interest. If we want religion to be a protected interest, and most religious people do, then that comes with the cost that all religions are equally protected under all circumstances.

I just don't think you can expect everyone to raise religion upon this pedestal of safety, but when that lofty position becomes inconvenient for religion, decide to remove it at will.

I don´t think it´s apropiate for the atheist who is very well knowledgeable of christianity, good diplomat and good organizer to be the leader of the club of christian anything.

Probably a member could be reasonable as he abides by the rules, etc. But religion should be completely fair basis of disqualification as leadership. It is a specifically religios group made by students.

I would think that an atheist who upheld the values of the group would essentially be indistinguishable from any other member. Again, I think that if religious protection is desired, then this protection can't just be suspended simply because it is inconvenient.

 

[Falvlun]

My point is that leadership is usually from WITHIN the group. The more people with similar interests that join a group, the more voting power they have.

Each group is different, but it would certainly sway the whole focus of a group to flood it with those who didn't fit the belief system or purpose of the group and then they could vote en masse.

This is akin to having someone head up a home schooling coalition, who is anti homeschooling - or someone being head of a gay rights group who hates gays and is opposed to gay rights.

In other words, it's pretty stupid.

I think this is an essentially impossible prospect. After all, the rules and mission of a club usually don't just begin and end with "We are Christians" or "We are volleyball players". All school clubs (at least at CMU) had to have a club constitution indicating the clubs' mission, appropriate member conduct, and various member and leadership criteria (such as GPA, attendance at various events and projects, dues, competency in subject, duration of membership etc).

If the sole purpose of a new member, or group of members, was to disrupt meetings, or subvert the mission of the club, that would be grounds to kick 'em out, grounds that have nothing to do with their religious affiliations.

 

[Falvlun]

I was the president of the photography club at my school. I was a pretty crappy photographer at the time (still am, really), but I had an interest in photography and didn't mind doing the administrative stuff needed to keep the club running. Was this wrong of me?

This just reminded me. The president of my Clinical Lab Science's club was not even a student in the program. But she had become involved in the club, helped us put on various events and programs, and had a passion for running and leading stuff. It was a great fit, for both she and us.

 

[Koldo]

I just don't think you can expect everyone to raise religion upon this pedestal of safety, but when that lofty position becomes inconvenient for religion, decide to remove it at will.

It was raised upon a pedestal of safety exactly to make it convenient.
If it becomes inconvenient then it defeats the purpose.
Which means, it should be fixed to be convenient once again.

 

[Falvlun]

It was raised upon a pedestal of safety exactly to make it convenient.
If it becomes inconvenient then it defeats the purpose.
Which means, it should be fixed to be convenient once again.

I don't think convenience was the reason for anti-religious discrimination laws.

 

[VandyStudent]

I am a Vanderbilt Student and I came across this forum. I would like to weigh in my perspective as a student who attends Vanderbilt

The main concerns of those who oppose this policy come in the form of two hypothetical situations:

First: Does the policy protect the rights of all opinions on campus? Consider the example of two groups which support political candidates "A" and "B". There are 10 people who support candidate "A", and 11 who support candidate "B". Those supporting candidate "B," now enabled by the non-discrimination policy, join en-masse, put their candidate up for election, and win. The funding that was previously allocated to group "A" is now controlled by group "B". The result: one view has been suppressed and the campus is less diverse as a result.

Usually, the protection of minority opinions on campus is too important to be brushed aside so casually. Here however, the administration seems to be disregarding all the usual catchwords of "diversity" and "tolerance" in order to specifically target religious groups.

Second: The Dean of Students admitted that organizations will be investigated if there is reason to believe that discrimination took place. Of course, it stands to reason that groups which meet specifically for the purpose of preserving and discussing a faith, that they would prefer to be lead by those of that faith. A Catholic organization would prefer a Catholic leader, a Protestant one a Protestant leader, a Muslim group a Muslim leader and so on. There is some doubt as to how these investigations would procede. Currently, the University sets a policy of "preponderance of the evidence". This is quite loosely defined even in a formal legal setting, and even more so in informal settings like a University hearing. In other words, if there is even a small possibility that a person was discriminated against, there can be sanctions against a group.

In other words, if an Protestant joins a Catholic organization and runs against a prominent, active, long-standing member, the Protestant now has grounds to call an investigation. How hard would it be to prove that the majority Catholics chose the Catholic guy because he was a "good Catholic" and didn't vote for the Protestant because he wasn't? There's very little to suggest that any such hearing could procede in a "innocent until proven guilty" way.

Then there is the question of what happens after the members of a group are found guilty. Do they have their funding pulled merely for electing the "wrong guy"? Will the Administration attempt to install the guy who lost the election in the organization? Will they be banned from campus? These are legitimate concerns for religiously affiliated groups. Refusing the right of an organization to elect its own leaders is a grave assault on freedom of association.

Of course this could all apply in any which direction, for instance Christians taking over atheist organizations, but seeing as how the administration is bending over backwards to be "politically correct," there is little doubt that in order to keep on being politically correct, the administration might step in in that case.