So the rule almost certainly would only apply to club constitutions and bylaws that would restrict in fact or effectively based on religion, gender, race etc.”
___

The policy itself does not limit itself to constitutions and bylaw. I would encourage you to watch the Vanderbilt town hall meeting on this issue on Youtube, if you have not. I have, and have my views of its policy based on what I heard from the administration during it.

Their claimed that although the point of the policy is intended to keep eligible leaders from being discriminated against on the listed grounds no matter the method of appointment, they would never care to investigate democratic appointments – and encouraged students to lie to them. Which sounds reasonable, but why that clause is not in the policy if that’s their view makes it half-wit execution of policy, and subversion of their own goals in the policy. Essentially, if the policy is meant to prevent student groups from discriminating in certain ways to make them an “all-comers” campus, then it should be enforced to those ends. Allowing discrimination to continue in the organizations without investigation undermines the policy, and condoning that counters the goals of the policy to begin with, negating any rationale for the policy to begin with. Realizing that it is a bad idea to enforce a policy beyond lip-service is indicative of poor policy, and internal agreement to the claims of the opposition; hypocrisy.

Keeping it merely leaves room for harmful abuse, and denies official security to an organization’s communal integrity – which makes the organization mean something less to students. You might not think so, and the administration would agree with you, but hundreds, if not thousands of Vanderbilt’s students and alumni feel it does. And ultimately, it is their opinions, and their feelings that matter – after all, this policy was adopted for the Vanderbilt student community, and obviously NOT for the sake of making the administration’s lives easier, since they don’t want to really enforce it beyond jeopardizing organizations’ integrity in official documentation that outlines what organizations stand for, how they operate, and exist for.

You don’t have a good, justifying argument for this policy if you’re arguing for an “unwritten” limited execution.
___
“Not very important. Both have a practical need to discriminate based on gender. See my earlier comment about not all discriminations being bad.”
___

Very important. Greek Life in particular has a practical need for gender discrimination to preserve the integrity of the communities they foster, because those communities are gender-based. Likewise, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, as the name so aptly notes, has a community that is Christian-based – or in other words, the organization’s community is religious belief-based. To adopt an organizational policy that denies discrimination in both Gender and Religious Beliefs demands equal treatment to all organizations – and to say organizations that have practical needs to discriminate on gender to preserve community integrity may do so, but organizations that have a practical need to discriminate on religious-beliefs to preserve their community integrity may not, is selective and discriminatory execution of the policy – and hypocrisy. Not only this, but it inherently denies the integrity and validity of a religious community on campus, and the beliefs they represent – because the university must think gender is a more justifiable discrimination than religious beliefs – which not only transcend gender, but may also be the most important thing in a person’s identity – especially if they are seeking a community to express and grow in faith.

__
“I think you should get clarrification on what exactly that means. ”
__

Agreed. The policy is certainly not clear. And while a University should have oversight in what affiliated organizations do while making use of university resources – be it monetary or physical – exercising this policy over a religious organization’s activities, which may inherently need to be discriminatory to be honored and meaningful, punishes, and even prevents, and ultimately prohibits the free exercise of religion – a freedom granted in the constitution.

Vanderbilt’s administration claims that although it is not bound by Federal policies, it is abiding by them (like the non-discrimination act it has adopted). I would assume the Constitution should be the first thing they honor, if that is their intent. Clearly, their policy leaves room for this to not be the case.

___
Again you may have a case if you can show me your University or Vanderbilt’s is trying to enforce a regulation like this on non-official clubs that are not seeking funding from student fees and are not making serious use of university property (such as using an unutilized room to meet).
___

You’re correct that ultimately, Vanderbilt does have a right to recognize whichever organizations it so desires – without reason. The fact is, Vanderbilt has given a reason, has tried to justify it, and their reason falls to their own actions. Vanderbilt could say to the affected organizations “That’s it, we just don’t you here anymore,” but that would not be in line with the current statements and reasonings they are giving, and ultimately limits free expression on the campus. Simply put, forcing these clubs to become private puts an undue burden on these communities, and forces them off campus. Vanderbilt would probably not try to enforce this policy to private clubs, because they would not be affiliated with them. But it would also deny those communities a voice on campus, which does not appear to be their intent, nor should it be the intent of any university. Never the less, this argument is about Vanderbilt’s policy, how they are choosing to apply it unfairly, how it is poorly defined, limiting in religious freedom, how it is being executed half-wittedly, how they are intentionally allowing and encouraging its subversion, and how it is an overall bad policy that will do more harm than good if applied. If I were a student at Vanderbilt, I would want to know I could make or be part of a community with people that shared my beliefs, and Vanderbilt’s policy fundamentally and principally denies this, even if practically it will never happen.

This would be true if hate speech rules were enforced equally.

And if they were enforced equally, then the gays who came and trolled the Christian club would have been treated with the same contempt as if Fred Phelps and his church would be treated if they showed up to troll the gay club.

Hypocrisy has ruined your argument. The humanists have won victories, but by doing so dishonestly, they have drawn more heavily than they realize on their credibility – one of these days, you guys will all be astonished, when you find your account has run low.

Actually I never claimed such a right. I’m skeptical of hate speech laws because they veer dangerously close to such a stupid concept. Please, feel free to hate me as much as you can possibly muster. In fact, if you didn’t hate me I’d start worrying that I was deeply misguided.

‘Hate speech’ codes do have a valid point when they address acts. Your example of showing up at the Jewish club adorned with swastikas would be such an example. But saying the Jewish club can kick out someone wearing swastikas isn’t quite the same thing as saying the Jewish Club can demand the university punish anyone who ‘hates Jews’

It’s always amusing when you respond to points you can’t rebut with a stock personal attack.

I did rebut your point. The proposed rule says nothing of the sort of what you allege. The personal attack is extra points since it does expose your real agenda. You don’t simply want ‘equal rights’ for Christians, you don’t even want special entitlements for religious folk, instead you would seek to eliminate rights for those you despise.

It’s always amusing when you respond to points you can’t rebut with a stock personal attack.

It does not however change the important point: “your side” claims a right to be “free from hate”, without granting “my side” the same, for reasons that can’t bear scrutiny.

And “your side” gets away with this double standard (to the extent they do) through the manipulation of what does and does not qualify as “hateful”.

It’s the argument of a child.

Nothing in the proposed rules says that clubs cannot enforce rules of conduct

No, but of course the court ruling that spawned it did, didn’t it?

I agree, your long ago contributions to atheism were probably not much better than your current attempts to contribute to Christianity. Nonetheless, it’s always nice to unmask you. You began talking about the need for religious liberty but in discussing a hypothetical club for atheists you reveal you don’t give a fig about anyone ‘s liberty. You care only for what you think is ‘your team’ and nothing more.

Actually you are incorrect: anything that makes the trolls feel unwelcome can and will be overridden and banned, and asking the trolls to abide by the club’s rules is not permitted, if the gay trolls feel it interferes with their right to be whatever they want.

Nothing in the proposed rules says that clubs cannot enforce rules of conduct, esp. during their own meetings and activities on members. As you often do, you’ve now departed the real world issue and have drifted into your own personal imaginary world where you’re free to make up the facts as you need to fit your argument. One of these days try ‘playing the game’ without using the cheat codes. Might actually make you a bit better.

Actually you are incorrect: anything that makes the trolls feel unwelcome can and will be overridden and banned, and asking the trolls to abide by the club’s rules is not permitted, if the gay trolls feel it interferes with their right to be whatever they want.

Because the whole thing hinges on a double standard: “Protected” identity groups have the right to be “affirmed” no matter what. And they have the right to view any criticism or limitation as “hate”.

But of course that generous sense of entitlement can’t exist for everyone. In fact, it can only exist if their ideological opposites lose rights in exactly the same proportion and measure as they gain.

What’s to advance?

You forgot I used to be an atheist myself. I have seen for myself: once hatred of the Other is removed, there’s nothing left to talk about.

This is why I always resist people who want to call atheism “a religion”. It isn’t. It is a resistance to religion. It is humanism that is the religion – humanism has positive beliefs, things you can have faith in, assumptions that can be accepted or rejected. Atheism is just negation, nothing positive to it.

Plus, in practice, it’s readily observable what atheists (both the ones we see around us and the ‘big name’ ones we hear in the media) spend all their time talking about.

An atheist group would love it if a Christian wandered in, because there is no point in atheists getting together as a club if there is no aggression toward Christianity.

The real question is whether the sexual identity groups would enjoy being held to the same rules they want enforced upon Christians:

- that it is “bigoted” to assume that your viewpoint is better than others;

- that you will “grow” if you learn to actually listen to and be respectful of people whose viewpoints and behavior violate your moral beliefs.

Sexual identity politics is all about crying and playing the victim at the very notion of being expected to treat people with different beliefs the way they themselves wish to be treated.

I would think the question would be with clubs that elect that officers are members banned from running on the grounds of religion (or race, gender, age, etc.)? There’s really no way to know why Candidate A got more or less votes than Candidate B. Even if you asked voters why they voted a particular way there’s no way to trust you’re getting accurate answers.

So the rule almost certainly would only apply to club constitutions and bylaws that would restrict in fact or effectively based on religion, gender, race etc. In other words, a club whose consitution said “Only good looking girls can run for president” would violate the rule. But if only good looking girls won all the elections because the members simply won’t tolerate voting for anyone else, well guys and bad looking girls are on their own.

Fraternities and Athletic groups are granted immunity

Not very important. Both have a practical need to discriminate based on gender. See my earlier comment about not all discriminations being bad.

Who said anything that activities funds being used for these purposes? For instance, at my university, which is public, CCO and CCC do not even bother to request funding for retreats – they raise funds, or the students pay themselves to attend. Vanderbilt’s policy does not limit itself to the actions clubs do with the funds they receive from the university, but grants the university general oversight in “practices of organizational activities.”

I think you should get clarrification on what exactly that means. Certainly a university is going to want to retain some right to control what anyone organization happens to do on the grounds of the University and with university property. The fact that the “Let’s Drink until we vomit and set the room on fire Club” isn’t requesting funding from the student activity budget shouldn’t make it immune from all oversight. But one would suspect that ‘unofficial clubs’ have far fewer rules they would have to comply with than one’s seeking official status (and funding that goes with it).

I do not know Vanderbilt’s policy on this. In my University, only officially recognized student organizations may use university rooms, advertise on campus, or take advantage of other services, such as editorials or campus-administration liaisons.

Your university has to clear all editorials? Sounds pretty heavy handed. As for advertising, certainly there’s plenty of private and commercial advertising on your campus. Again you may have a case if you can show me your University or Vanderbilt’s is trying to enforce a regulation like this on non-official clubs that are not seeking funding from student fees and are not making serious use of university property (such as using an unutilized room to meet).

Blake

Gays are not required to put up with people of different beliefs, so why should Christians be?

From what the policy says, a club centered on a Christian denomination that accepts gay marriage could not reject members who come from other denominations that do not. Likewise, I’ll yet again point out the Atheist Club cannot put a atheist test on its membership or leadership.

Atheists clubs have no purpose for existing other than to get together to hate on Christianity together.

Well there is another purpose, to discuss and advance arguments for ATheism. While this is probably beyond the comprehension of people like you, it is conceivable a Christian might want to join such a group as in ages long ago Christian theologians and philosophers worked hard to construct arguments in favor of atheism in order to stress test their arguments. A serious Christian may be willing to seriously join such a club for purposes of improving their knowledge of Christianity through Devil’s advocacy.

On wearing swastika’s to a Jewish Club

Then why are gays allowed to do the same to Christians?

They aren’t. Nothing in the proposed rule would prohibit a club from saying wearing anti-Christian symbols, mottos or whatnot aren’t permitted at their gatherings.

Why do humanists and gays feel they are exempt from living up to their own code?

I’m not sure what else you want them to do? Per the rules non-atheists, Christians, and heterosexuals can join the Atheist Club, clubs of non-Christian religions, and gay clubs that seek official status.

Why do humanists and gays feel they are exempt from living up to their own code?

Why do they have the right to expect ME to live up to their code, when they themselves feel it doesn’t apply to them?

If tolerance and coexisting is such a big deal, how come Christians are the only ones who are expected to actually sacrifice anything for that ideal? How come the self-righteous scolds don’t have to practice what they preach?