Vanderbilt's Religious Freedom

[South Deac]

I just heard about the dilemma facing Vanderbilt today and wanted to hear the board's opinion of the situation. Basically, the University has stated that four Campus Ministries are under provisional status because they do not comply with the school's policy on no religious discrimination. Of course, the campus ministry would never discriminate who comes to the meetings, but the University will not allow the leadership teams to make decisions during elections based on Religion.

Does anyone else think this is incredibly unnecessary and non-sensible? If the point of the organization is to promote Christianity, then why would they not be able to select their leaders of the organization based off of that same principle?

Same goes for a Jewish group--I would hope they wouldn't want me as a leader for their organization if I do not believe in what their cause.

http://mnnonline.org/article/16767

Links to more sources: http://www.intervarsity.org/about/our/campus-access-concerns

 

[94Deac]

I'm all for challenging the established way of "thinking" and what people assume about others. But this is the point that it just spirals out of control. If a Muslim joins a Christian group, he really shouldn't say a fucking thing about being disenfranchised. If a Christian comes to a meeting of Atheists, he really shouldn't wonder why they're telling him to shut the fuck up. It's one thing when it's a public forum or institution. It's quite something else when it's a private, themed organization.

 

[PhilliesDeacs]

See the point you're trying to make, but if its policy, then its policy. Its a slippery slope if you start making exceptions in certain cases.

 

[DeacHoops]

See the point you're trying to make, but if its policy, then its policy. Its a slippery slope if you start making exceptions in certain cases.

why? churches are already exempt from things like religious discrimination in hiring processes. why would a faith-based organization have to ignore a person's faith when electing people to lead that organization?

 

[PhilliesDeacs]

Because Universities aren't democracies?

You can't really apply the analogy of anything outside a school's walls, especially a private one. Apples and oranges.

I'm not advocating either way - just saying that you immediately undermine your policies if you start making exceptions for any organization, religious or not.

 

[DeacHoops]

Because Universities aren't democracies?

You can't really apply the analogy of anything outside a school's walls, especially a private one. Apples and oranges.

my point is that i don't think it's a slippery slope. churches have exemptions, and it's not like every other organization is raising hell saying "churches discriminate based on religion! we should be able to too!" i just don't think it's a slippery slope to treat faith-based organizations differently.

 

[Beachdeac82]

See the point you're trying to make, but if its policy, then its policy. Its a slippery slope if you start making exceptions in certain cases.

Please tell me you aren't supporting a policy like this. I agree with most posters above-- a Muslim organization should have Muslim leaders. For the university to require something else is beyond ridiculous. No one has to go to this group or any group. Cheesh... this is an example of "tolerance" run to a ridiculous extreme....

 

[94Deac]

And Hooters doesn't (shouldn't) have to hire men to wait tables. I recall that was the outcome of some settlement or legal case but the guy who's waiting tables at Hooters is going to be a broke mofo.

It's self-defeating for any organization to embrace a leader who does not embody the actual essence of the organization. What's going to happen to membership with a leader who's outside the motif of the group?

The huge catch here is whether an organization or institution receives even a penny of public money. If they receive taxmoney, then any taxpayer has legitimate claims for membership or entry. Granted there are standards (such as public universities not having open doors for anyone- except SEC schools, of course). But if my tax money goes in the door, so can I.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

The PC crowd that runs universities is all about forcing diversity upon everything, even things which obviously have no need for it (i.e. religious clubs and groups that tend to be exclusive by their very nature). Yes, private institutions can do what they what. Still, the question here is WHY? There is nothing even remotely sensible about pushing this onto an organization. The reason, of course, is to drive them off campus. And in the end, Vandy (even as a private institution) may be running afoul of Constitutional protections unless they don't take any public money at all.

 

[94Deac]

That's swinging too far in the opposite direction. There's some older people in Mississippi who can tell you what it's like when the "PC" crowd isn't pushing "diversity." Your disdain for "diversity" seems to come through in that post and may say more than you want it to.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

That's swinging too far in the opposite direction. There's some older people in Mississippi who can tell you what it's like when the "PC" crowd isn't pushing "diversity." Your disdain for "diversity" seems to come through in that post and may say more than you want it to.

Oh fuck off you presumptuous ass. One of the reasons I bought a house in the neighborhood that I did was because of its diversity, which I feel is a good thing should I ever decide to pollute the world with my spawn.

The diversity crowd pushes too hard at times, and this is a prime example. Not everything needs to be pushed toward diversity. And in this case, the inherently exclusionary policies of religious organizations are being excluded in the name of inclusiveness. Alanis should write a song about it.

 

[DistrictDeacon]

How is this even an issue? Open elections to everyone, and then elect a Christian.

 

[HeltonCreek]

Vanderbilt is a private school. If they want to put some policies in place for groups who receive university funding, use the university name, or are an official university groups, then so be it. They can do whatever the hell they want. They aren't stopping unofficial organizations.

 

[DeacHoops]

Vanderbilt is a private school. If they want to put some policies in place for groups who receive university funding, use the university name, or are an official university groups, then so be it. They can do whatever the hell they want. They aren't stopping unofficial organizations.

i always hate when people use the logic of "they can do whatever the hell they want." yes, the university has the RIGHT to do this. that doesn't mean they SHOULD. and this thread is about whether or not they SHOULD do that. not whether or not they're illegally placing restrictions on groups.

it's like the people who get all up in arms and say "i have a right to my opinions!" yes, yes you do. and i have a right to have the opinion that your opinion is wrong.

 

[HeltonCreek]

i always hate when people use the logic of "they can do whatever the hell they want." yes, the university has the RIGHT to do this. that doesn't mean they SHOULD. and this thread is about whether or not they SHOULD do that. not whether or not they're illegally placing restrictions on groups.

it's like the people who get all up in arms and say "i have a right to my opinions!" yes, yes you do. and i have a right to have the opinion that your opinion is wrong.

My first post should have been this: I didn't go to Vanderbilt so I really don't care. I didn't like it a couple of years ago when Liberty University tried to ban College Democrats. But, they are a private school and can do what they want. And, I didn't go to Liberty (thank God) so I really don't care.

 

[DeacHoops]

My first post should have been this: I didn't go to Vanderbilt so I really don't care. I didn't like it a couple of years ago when Liberty University tried to ban College Democrats. But, they are a private school and can do what they want. And, I didn't go to Liberty (thank God) so I really don't care.

fair enough. i also (clearly) didn't go to vanderbilt, so it doesn't affect me. but the concept really bothers me. i mean, it'd be like having a knitting group, having me run for president of that group, not win (because i don't know the first thing about knitting) and then be like "THEY'RE DISCRIMINATING BECAUSE I DON'T KNIT." well, duh, of course they are. it's a knitting group. you should know how to knit. if it is a faith-based organization, it makes absolutely no sense to say that the students can't elect their leaders based on their perceptions about their faith. no sense whatsoever.

 

[HeltonCreek]

fair enough. i also (clearly) didn't go to vanderbilt, so it doesn't affect me. but the concept really bothers me. i mean, it'd be like having a knitting group, having me run for president of that group, not win (because i don't know the first thing about knitting) and then be like "THEY'RE DISCRIMINATING BECAUSE I DON'T KNIT." well, duh, of course they are. it's a knitting group. you should know how to knit. if it is a faith-based organization, it makes absolutely no sense to say that the students can't elect their leaders based on their perceptions about their faith. no sense whatsoever.

Good point. I think what I meant to say was that people are going to make asses of themselves. It's an inevitable part of life. This is just one little example of it and the topic happens to be religion so some folks get worked up over it. It'll blow over before long and the internet will give us a new problem.

Sorry to be so apathetic, but it's winter time and budget season for me so it's kind of my yearly "I don't give a shit" time. Wading through department budget requests and funding requests from non-profits puts me in a mood where everything seems like total BS.

 

[demondeacfreak]

That's swinging too far in the opposite direction. There's some older people in Mississippi who can tell you what it's like when the "PC" crowd isn't pushing "diversity." Your disdain for "diversity" seems to come through in that post and may say more than you want it to.

In my opinion, there is a difference between promoting diversity and promoting homogeneity. I think that not allowing a group to maintain certain distinctive characteristics is not always a good thing. Sometimes having an identity is important, and some reasonable level of exclusivity is part of that. Guaranteeing that a Christian group's leadership is Christian seems perfectly reasonable.

 

[DistrictDeacon]

In my opinion, there is a difference between promoting diversity and promoting homogeneity. I think that not allowing a group to maintain certain distinctive characteristics is not always a good thing. Sometimes having an identity is important, and some reasonable level of exclusivity is part of that. Guaranteeing that a Christian group's leadership is Christian seems perfectly reasonable.

And the members can easily guarantee that by voting for a Christian.

What are they afraid of? A Jew is going to brainwash them into voting for them?

 

[DeacHoops]

And the members can easily guarantee that by voting for a Christian.

What are they afraid of? A Jew is going to brainwash them into voting for them?

i may be misunderstanding the rule (which is very possible). but it seems from reading the articles that it's the voting process that's an issue. like if it appears as though a person was voted for/against BECAUSE of their religion, then that campus group could be considered non-compliant.