Prominent American university attempts to squash religious freedom

[Kathryn]

Very interesting perspective, Vandy - thanks for chiming in and giving an insider's POV.

 

[Faxecura]

VandyStudent, thanks for your perspective. It's good to hear an opinion from someone "on the inside".

Did you attend the "Town Hall" meeting that the administration put on? If you did, what were your impressions of this?

A blog that I subscribe to, has also covered what's going on in Vanderbilt very briefly. Here's the article. I cannot vouch for its accuracy, as I don't know much about the author myself. but I do agree somewhat that such restrictions are an attack on intellectual freedoms.

 

[Me Myself]

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.

I can only say one thing about this:

Told ya people

 

[Falvlun]

I can only say one thing about this:

Told ya people

Told us what?

 

[PRV357]

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.

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.

:sorry1: to see that Vanderbilt doesn't seem to respect the rights & freedoms of all it's students, alumni & benefactors...
as the administration should demonstrate tolerance for the diversity of all organizations, regardless of Religious affiliation or lack thereof