This has a familiar ring to it

[eisely 13]

Column pasted from Townhall.com

 

________________

 

Anti-discrimination policy threatens 1st Amendment

 

Is it reasonable for a university to insist that campus Christian groups accept non-Christian or anti-Christian students as group leaders? Ask a hundred ordinary Americans, and you would very likely get 99 or 100 nos. Ask Rutgers University, though, and you'd get an answer that would earn a summa cum laude for political correctness.

 

 

In September, Rutgers banned a Christian group from using campus facilities and stripped the group of university funding because it selects leaders on the basis of religious belief. Rutgers is punishing the InterVarsity Multi-Ethnic Christian Fellowship for violating the university's non-discrimination policy. That policy states that "membership, benefits and the election of officers" cannot be biased on the basis of race, sex, handicap, age, sexual orientation, or political and religious affiliation."

 

 

"Political and religious affiliation" is not really the sticking point at Rutgers, though the anti-discrimination language here would require a Democratic club to allow a Republican president, a Jewish group to allow a Holocaust-denying president, and a Muslim group to accept a leader who believes in Christianity, animism or voodoo. The real intention is to break or banish religious groups with biblically based opposition to homosexuality.

 

 

Using apparently non-controversial anti-discrimination rules, this tactic pressures a group to deny its own reading of Scripture. Evangelical groups have been the primary target. Two high-profile efforts to coerce campus evangelicals failed two years ago at Tufts and last week at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

 

 

A month ago, UNC-Chapel Hill threatened to revoke university recognition of the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship unless it modified its charter by Jan. 31 and waived its doctrinal requirements for leadership positions. But the university backed off after evangelicals and the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) filed suit in the Rutgers case. FIRE sent UNC-Chapel Hill chancellor James Moeser a friendly warning letter on Dec. 27, and three days later Moeser capitulated. He said the university opposes discrimination but wishes "to uphold the principles of freedom of expression," so it is withdrawing the threat against the evangelicals.

 

 

"UNC couldn't defend in public what it was willing to do in private," said Alan Charles Kors, president of FIRE. "Everybody on campus would immediately see the absurdity ... if an evangelical Christian who believed homosexuality to be a sin tried to become president of a university's Bisexual, Gay and Lesbian Alliance. The administration would have led candlelight vigils on behalf of diversity and free association."

 

 

At Tufts, a student tribunal defunded and "derecognized" an evangelical group for refusing to allow a bisexual member to become a leader in the group. The group said it knew that the bisexual woman was "exploring sexuality" and had no trouble with it and made no effort to expel her. But while the group supported gay rights, it said it could not accept a leader who challenged the group's conclusion that homosexuality is incompatible with Scripture. By ruling against the evangelicals (without a hearing), Tufts in effect said that the Christian group would have to abandon its principles to remain on campus. Tufts backed down under pressure from FIRE and David French of Lexington, Ky., lawyer for the evangelicals.

 

 

The primary lesson here is not that universities are torn between freedom of religion and anti-bias rules. Rather the lesson is that administrators are willing to respond to a powerful campus group, the gay lobby, at the expense of one that is weaker and usually disfavored on campus. Though written in the bland language of brotherhood, anti-discrimination laws give critics of private groups "a public hammer with which to beat groups they oppose," said Richard Epstein, professor of law at the University of Chicago.

 

 

Such laws also provide a way for outsiders to reach into a dissenting group to determine its membership, policies and officers. Using a verbal screen of "diversity," "fairness" and "non-discrimination," university officials delegitimize religion by substituting campus orthodoxy for religious principles. Even if a university feels torn, said French, its anti-discrimination rules shouldn't trump the First Amendment's protection of freedom of religion, association and speech. Anti-discrimination laws are in fact becoming a threat to these freedoms.

 

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Well, it's nice to see my alma mater in the news again. (If you'll recall, the Rutgers Gay Alliance was the organization of which James Dale was an officer, which set in motion the events that led to the Supreme Court case. At least that was their name when I was there, long before Mr. Dale; I worked at the college newspaper across the hall from their office in the Student Center.)

 

I have read this article and the similar ones linked in the other thread. I think it's much simpler than all this. It's a state university, therefore a government agency. A religious organization should not be receiving government funding. As far as whether they can have an office or meeting place in the student center, I don'f feel strongly either way. They did when I was at Rutgers. The Jewish and Christian groups were right down the hall from the gay group, one big happy diverse student family. I remember once late on a Friday afternoon, a group of Orthodox Jewish students (one short of a "minyan," apparently) practically carried me (the closest thing to a a religious Jewish male who they could find on short notice) into their meeting room to participate in a prayer service. (I had to fake the Hebrew, which isn't easy when nine people are looking at you.) But, you know, if they couldn't have done that there, they would have found a place in someone's home or in a synagogue or elsewhere. The same is true for the organization in this article, regardless of whether the school's true motivation is to prohibit discrimination against gays. Let them all go off-campus, discriminatory and non-discriminatory alike. I'd rather have a clear separation between religion and government.

[SR540Beaver 116]

NJ,

 

Or how about leave it as it is and let everyone stay on campus, do their own thing and leave them alone.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Kwc says:

 

Or how about leave it as it is and let everyone stay on campus, do their own thing and leave them alone.

 

Because it's not their property or money. It's state property and money, and university property and money. The state and university rules say you can't discriminate on our property and using our money. These groups don't want to follow the same rules as everybody else. It seems to me that this argument is often used by people trying to keep gays out of the BSA. But here, it actually applies. Let these groups discriminate on their own property and with their own money. Don't ask me (and in this case, it is actually me, as a taxpayer of the state in question) to subsidize their discrimination.

[berkshirescouter 11]

NJ

I disagree.

This logic could also be applied to Gov. supplied Clergy in the military. I looked foward to Friday night service at boot camp when I was in the Navy. I could not leave the base.

When I was in collage many students did not have transportation so you only had what was on site. The money to the religous groups was no more or less then any other group. Also the money came from student fees not the state.

[firstpusk 10]

"I disagree.

This logic could also be applied to Gov. supplied Clergy in the military. I looked foward to Friday night service at boot camp when I was in the Navy. I could not leave the base."

 

No, it actually can't. You were not required to attend service. It was your choice. The military does not require chaplains to be of any particular religion.

 

"When I was in collage many students did not have transportation so you only had what was on site. The money to the religous groups was no more or less then any other group. Also the money came from student fees not the state."

 

The fees are required as a condition of attendance to the university. The university distributes the funds. The government (the university which is chartered by the state in some form) is not allowed to discriminate. If they give funds to a group that discriminates on the basis of religion, they violate their own rules and the law and the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. The other student groups are required to conform to these policies. Why should InterVarsity be allowed to discriminate?

[berkshirescouter 11]

You were not required to attend service. It was your choice. The military does not require chaplains to be of any particular religion. This part is true but, if you deny the Military all clergy you deny free exercise.

 

If you deny funds to religious groups in Collage you then discriminate on the basis of religion. The proper point is fund everyone or no one.

 

[evmori 11]

"A religious organization should not be receiving government funding. "

 

Why? Don't quote the Constitution because it's not in their. Actually, by denying a religious organization government funding the Constitution is being violated!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[slontwovvy 10]

This whole case is ludicrous.

 

First, the university would be breaking the law by not allowing these people to meet. Second, since one would consider them an organization founded upon the principles of their beliefs, it is reasonable that the leaders come from people who adhere to those principles.

 

If anyone can be a leader of the Christian fellowship, I want to see an evangelical Christian lead the school's Gay-Straight Alliance. Let's see what happens then, and how the people who have been brainwashed with political correctness respond.

[CubsRgr8 10]

There was a similar situation at the University of Wisconsin, where a law student sued because his student fees were being used to support student groups which he did not like. I believe the Supreme Court ruled that it's an all or nothing proposition for the university. The university must allow all student-run non-profit groups access to its facilities and a share of the collected student fees or it cannot allow any. Similar to access to the public schools by BSA, et al. NJ, does this ring a bell?(This message has been edited by CubsRgr8)

[scomman 10]

From www.ifeminsts.com and www.foxnews.com A column I happpen to agree with pertaining to this issue.

 

A federal lawsuit filed on Dec. 30 will determine whether Rutgers University can de facto ban Christian student groups. It may set national policy.

 

 

On campuses across North America, Christian student groups are being ordered to either accept leaders who violate their beliefs or lose the official "recognition" that allows them access to university funding and facilities.

 

The universities say the groups' exclusion of gays and non-Christians from leadership roles is sexual and religious discrimination. The groups reply that their membership is open to all but their leaders must hold certain beliefs or the group will cease to be Christian.

 

Civil libertarians add that the non-exclusion requirement violates both freedom of speech and freedom of association. Moreover, the universities are targeting the leadership of Christian groups while allowing gay, feminist and minority groups to determine their own leaders as well as membership.

 

One student commented that his university's "Women's Resource Center" holds "a vast array of events" from which he is explicitly barred from attending. "I was asked to leave meetings ... because my presence as [a] straight white male was unwelcome."

 

In recent months, the debate has heightened.

 

At Tufts University near Boston, a Christian Fellowship was placed on probation in October. At the same time, Central College in Pella, Ill., debated whether to strip InterVarsity Christian Fellowship of official recognition. In both cases, the proximate cause was the group's refusal to allow homosexuals to serve as leaders.

 

At Harvard, a grant to the Harvard-Radcliffe Christian Fellowship was postponed while administrators assessed the group. The associate dean stated that requiring leaders to share the Christian beliefs was discrimination.

 

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill agreed. In December, three Christian organizations were ordered to remove discriminatory language from their constitutions or have their recognition revoked. In the wake of national criticism, the University backed down.

 

Rutgers is standing by its suspension of the InterVarsity Multi-Ethnic Christian Fellowship (IVMECF). The Christian group isn't budging either. Its lawsuit against Rutgers is being financed by the Alliance Defense Fund, which supports religious organizations who conflict with government policy. David French -- the attorney representing IVMECF -- bluntly states: "You can't have a leader of a Christian group not be a Christian. That's nonsense."

 

Given that Rutgers is a state university -- as are most of those involved -- its actions may also violate its responsibility to respect the constitutional rights of students.

 

Several court precedents have found that freedom to exclude is part and parcel of "freedom of association." Although that phrase does not occur within the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions have protected freedom of association as an aspect of the First Amendment's protection of speech, assembly, petition for the redress of grievances, and the establishment of religion.

 

The protection applies especially to "expressive" organizations -- that is, to groups dedicated to a specific message or point of view.

 

For example, in the 1984 decision Roberts v. United States Jaycees, the court found that the ability to determine membership was essential to "expressive" organizations. Otherwise, black rights groups could be shouted down by white members, Jewish anti-defamation groups could be disrupted by Nazis. Freedom of assembly and free speech would be de facto denied.

 

But does the First Amendment protect groups with open memberships, which impose leadership restrictions?

 

The most relevant case is probably Dale v. Boy Scouts of America, decided by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in January 2000. This case addressed whether the Boy Scouts -- an organization with relatively open membership -- could terminate a gay scoutmaster. By a narrow margin, the court found that groups should not be forced to include people who would significantly damage "the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints."

 

Being forced to include non-Christians in its leadership would certainly affect IVMECF's religious mission. Indeed, French claims that universities are conditioning access to campuses "on compliance with an anti-discrimination position that essentially tears the heart out of the religious nature of the group."

 

Ironically, a victory for Rutgers might be more devastating to its politically correct policies than a defeat. If Rutgers successfully argues in court that no organization with "discriminatory leadership" can be officially recognized, then it may be required to impose that same standard on every organization -- especially those with discriminatory membership as well:

 

Feminist groups on rape and sexual harassment might have to admit males. Gay groups might have to welcome straight members. And, as many males and heterosexuals have discovered, a significant number of those groups viciously discriminate in both membership and leadership.

 

The key difference between such groups and IVMECF is honesty. Every group must submit its bylaws and constitution for review before being officially recognized. Politically correct groups include the standard non-discrimination language of the university, and then act in an exclusionary manner. Christian groups are refusing to lie. And, so, they are "derecognized."

 

If Rutgers wins, all student organizations may have to apply the non-discrimination standard not merely in words but in deeds as well. Or be disbanded. Simply by going to court, the IVMECF has won ... whatever the verdict turns out to be.

 

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

 

(This message has been edited by scomman)

[littlebillie 10]

The image of college as birthplace for new thought philosophy, a marketplace of ideas, seems dead, now - or worse, about to be buried alive.

 

cookie cutter, assembly line brains stamped out of a milquetoast curriculum, or worse, an envirnoment wherein individual professors can promote certain positions but students can't?

 

sigh... out of the 60's, into the night.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I am not sure how to ask this, I have started to post this question a few times, but eaxh time backed off, as I didnt want to look silly or foolish (imagine that). But I must be missing something. I might be mistaken, but the issue is one of leadership, right? I mean, to take examples from the original post, a republican has every right to run for the presidency of the democratic club. I just dont think there is a snowballs' chance in August in Death Valley for a victory. The same with the other groups, sure people with completlety opposite views CAN run for leadership positions, but the group has to elect them right? And the ability to vote on leadership isnt at risk here is it? If an Atheist wanted to be a leader in a Christian, Jewish organization, I dont see why they couldnt run for office and I dont see why the electorate wouldnt laugh them out of the group. W

 

What am I missing?

[littlebillie 10]

OGE, what may be missing (or present!?!) is defined, written requirements for that leadership role. um - kinda like the President's gotta be a natural born citizen. no naturalized foreigners for us! hmmm - so is the Constitution itself unconstitutional?

 

of course, the basic position of open up leasership and let the members themselves choose who gets to be President or Pack Leader is one of the positions of the localists, here, eh?

 

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Littlebillie,

 

Sorry, still confused, what do you mean?