Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you're ok with religious discrimination? Could the photography club say "no Baptists allowed" because being Baptist is merely one's choice, a person could choose something else. Maybe the founding members of the club just don't like Baptists, so they want to have a Baptist-free club.
Did the poster say that? I personally wouldn't be okay with that either, since nobody should be excluded from any clubs in college... if a Black person wants to join the Vietnamese club (saw that happen at my college), or a Baptist wants to join Hillel, they should be allowed as long as they're following the behavioral guidelines. Just as we say at my synagogues, all who respect our "home" are welcomed.
Most college groups are more social in nature anyway, which is why I often saw people in clubs where they didn't necessarily "belong" - like the examples I gave above, where it was usually a case of them having a friend in the club. I also knew a non-Jewish guy who joined Hillel at his school, just because he liked Jewish girls and wanted to date one.
Their belief. The Gospel. It will be distorted. Seriously, would you want a Republican becoming president of the Young Socialists Club? Would the Muslims want a Jew as president of their organization?
How about the administration? Should a Math Professor be allowed to Chair the English Department?
The President of an organization should demonstrate not only the best knowledge but also uphold the basic beliefs of an organization. This is not that hard a concept to understand.
Logical, yes, but everyone has the right to TRY... and if they fail to prove their worth as a leader, they will not be elected. Right? I'm sure a few non-conservatives have attempted to run on Republican tickets, and probably didn't get far once their beliefs were made clear. But they're still allowed to run, aren't they? Nobody is being forced to ELECT anyone, they're only required to open the possibility to anyone who so desires.
So you're ok with religious discrimination? Could the photography club say "no Baptists allowed" because being Baptist is merely one's choice, a person could choose something else. Maybe the founding members of the club just don't like Baptists, so they want to have a Baptist-free club.
I'm okay with discrimination that has something to do with the purpose and mission of the club. Being Baptist wouldn't conflict with being a photographer, so no, keeping a Baptist from joining a photography club wouldn't be okay. I realize that it can present a potentially gray area in some scenarios, but this is not one of them. The university, in all their knowledge, should've been able to figure this one out.
And all the university has to do is zip it about a club's criteria in regards to what a potential candidate chooses to do (requires even less effort than taking out "exclusionary language"). When are you going to get to the part where you explain how this isn't nonsensical, btw?
Sorry but if a club is going to take money from the university to support the club's activities, the university has every right to demand that the club remove explicit discriminatory language from its charter and other policy documents. If the club doesn't like it? Simple. Don't take money from the university and the the club members can write all the discriminatory policies they like.
When are you going to get this exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Irrelevant. And that the university has the legal right to deny funds doesn't make it a morally correct thing to do. I don't particularly care if this is a matter of Christian persecution or a "war on religion". But I do care that such an idiotic, needless invasion comes from an establishment that is supposed to be about getting smarter.
Having a zero tolerance policy toward discrimination is moral.
Sorry but if a club is going to take money from the university to support the club's activities, the university has every right to demand that the club remove explicit discriminatory language from its charter and other policy documents. If the club doesn't like it? Simple. Don't take money from the university and the the club members can write all the discriminatory policies they like.
When are you going to get this exactly?
Just because you can do something (e.g., cut funding because you disagree with something and can't explain why), doesn't mean you should. The university does not have "every right" to do this. It has the legal right, that is all. There is no justification for it, and it is you who should've gotten that.
"Discriminatory policy" What you don't seem to be understanding is that there is a such thing as justified discrimination. If the choices you make come in direct conflict with a club's interests, they have every right (both legal and moral) to deny you membership and especially a chance at leadership of their club. You should be able to understand this, and the powers that be at a university should DEFINITELY be able to.
I do not believe any college should allow a religious group to practice exclusivity on college property. That nonsense should be on private property a long way away.
Just because you can do something (e.g., cut funding because you disagree with something and can't explain why), doesn't mean you should. The university does not have "every right" to do this. It has the legal right, that is all. There is no justification for it, and it is you who should've gotten that.
"Discriminatory policy" What you don't seem to be understanding is that there is a such thing as justified discrimination. If the choices you make come in direct conflict with a club's interests, they have every right (both legal and moral) to deny you membership and especially a chance at leadership of their club. You should be able to understand this, and the powers that be at a university should DEFINITELY be able to.
Discrimination occurs all the time in spite of policies that lack explicit discriminatory language. Can you seriously not understand that? That is why this whole thing is nothing more than a christian persecution complex.
And if a club can't police itself so as to keep someone who is antithetical to the club's mission from rising to a position of power by offering effective arguments to its memebership of why, for example, electing a Muslim to be the president of Campus Crusade for Christ, then Campus Crusade for Christ needs to rethink what it is doing anyway.
Last edited by helenejen; 04-22-2012 at 10:09 AM..
The only way to be outraged by this step is to not understand the university funding process. Universities require student organizations to comply with their policies. This organization did not. This organization chose to exist in a structure (Vanderbilt University) which has public policies on file. The university was doing it's duty - the organization did not do due diligence.
If they have a problem with the language used, they can be an unofficial club. They will not receive funding or recognition from the university, but can exist autonomously. That is how sororities and fraternities exist at my alma mater - they do not fit the non-exlusionary code required by the university for all student organizations, so they exist separately from the university.
There are non-Jewish students who have been elected to the Hillel board at my alma mater. Note that word - elected. Jewish students chose to vote in non-Jewish students who actively participate in Hillel activities. It can exist. However, the vast majority of officer positions are held by Jewish students. It's self-selecting. To my knowledge, none of the Christian groups have ever had a Jewish student elected to their board. And that's their prerogative. It also needs no formalized legislation in their club constitution.
"... the university took issue with a requirement that leaders have a “personal commitment to Jesus Christ.”
“Please change the following statement in your constitution,” a university official wrote to the group."
"The original statement read: “Criteria for officer selection will include level and quality of past involvement, personal commitment to Jesus Christ, commitment to the organization, and demonstrated leadership ability.”
"The university directed the group to change the statement to read: “Criteria for officer selection will include level and quality of past involvement, commitment to the organization, and demonstrated leadership ability.”
"Ironically, Vanderbilt University was founded as a Methodist institution established for the purpose of practicing – among other things – theology."
According to the article, two Christian groups have already left the campus and 13 more are choosing to defy this dictate to force Christian Organizations to open the door to being led by non Christians, rather than cave in to what surely amounts to religious discrimination.
Who says there isn't a war on religion?
There isn't.
Besides, how exactly do you require someone to be a devout Christian? How does that work? How do you even begin to surmise whether or not someone is a devout Christian.
Well, i take that back. I can surmise whether someone ISN'T a devout Christian because in my lifetime, i've never met one. I'm starting to believe that they don't exist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What you don't seem to be understanding is that there is a such thing as justified discrimination. If the choices you make come in direct conflict with a club's interests, they have every right (both legal and moral) to deny you membership and especially a chance at leadership of their club. You should be able to understand this, and the powers that be at a university should DEFINITELY be able to.
