Last week Michale Stokes Paulsen wrote a striking defense of Vanderbilt’s right to prevent students from forming religious groups (while vigorously contesting their decision to do so). The idea, in short, is that the same principle that suggests Christian students should be allowed to form groups with particular identities also means that Vanderbilt has a right to corporately discriminate against student groups at odds with its values
Groups, as well as individuals, possess the “freedom of speech.” Just as individuals get to control the content of their own expression, groups of individuals, joining their voices together in some common association, have the right to control their collective message. Thus, a vital principle of the First Amendment as it applies to private groups, associations, and institutions—including private universities—is that such groups have nearly absolute freedom to create and maintain their own distinctive group expressive identities: to decide what they stand for and what views they will express.
This is the freedom that supports the right of private religious colleges to maintain their distinctive religious identities. And the same freedom equally supports the right of Vanderbilt University to maintain a distinctive anti-religious identity. In each case, the institution may embrace the principles that define it as a group and exclude or suppress messages at odds with the values for which the institution wishes to stand.
Before liberals begin to applaud, they should realize that this argument also holds when religious colleges are considering whether or not to allow, say, stagings of the Vagina Monologues. That said, I don’t believe that everything cuts both ways here. Over time, institutions grounded in humane and traditional morality will be more capacious and tolerant than those wedded to an ever more extreme and brittle progressivism. Recognizing the laws of nature and the truth of human dignity will always make one more fully and truly tolerant—denying them will lead to some variety of totalitarianism, however soft or smiling.
March 21st, 2012 | 9:32 am
“That said, I don’t believe that everything cuts both ways here. Over time, institutions grounded in humane and traditional morality will be more capacious and tolerant than those wedded to an ever more extreme and brittle progressivism. Recognizing the laws of nature and the truth of human dignity will always make one more fully and truly tolerant—denying them will lead to some variety of totalitarianism, however soft or smiling.”
Yeah, that is why conservative religious institutions have always appeared to be so tolerant and respectful of diversity and “human dignity”. Anyways, I applaud Vanderbilt argument, not because I haven´t realized its full consequences, but because it is rare to see a conservative to have such a precise understanding of freedom of speech.
March 21st, 2012 | 10:31 am
It is interesting to see the legitimate v. illegitimate bases for discrimination at Vanderbilt listed so fully and clearly on the university’s Dean of Students website. It is illegitimate to discriminate on the basis of “belief” and “status” but it is legitimate to discriminate on the basis of talent, academic performance, service, wealth/income and sex (in some instances).
Why this arrangement and not some other?
March 22nd, 2012 | 5:45 am
[...] HT: Matthew Schmitz [...]
March 22nd, 2012 | 8:52 am
Yeah, that is why conservative religious institutions have always appeared to be so tolerant and respectful of diversity and “human dignity”.
Well, conservative religious institutions don’t “appear” to be particularly tolerant or respectful, because they are held to higher standards than other groups. (I am reminded of the lesbian demanding communion – then taking a wafer after being refused anyway – and wondering what other group, Jewish or Muslim or humanist or those who worship Mother Nature or the human body, etc., would be so good-natured about someone flouting their sacred beliefs, then desecrating their sacred rituals. Somehow I don’t think someone who tried to bully a Gay Pride parade into blessing their anti-gay beliefs would be treated half so kindly.)
But the important thing is to note that when the biggest scandals in the history of the Church have always happened when people move away from the Church’s teachings. From the Inquisition to Reformation bloodshed to the priest sex abuse scandal, the nastiest thing Christians have ever done is to stop acting the way Christians are supposed to act.
Communists, socialists, scientism believers, nature worshipers, hedonists, and Jihadists all face the choice of having to deny the implications of their own ideologies or else having to fulfill those implications in ways that necessarily violate the human rights of others. Christianity is not the only religion that is capable of what you might call “coexistence without contradiction”, but it is one of the few.
March 22nd, 2012 | 6:53 pm
I’m not sure what the big deal is here. The university is not mandating that non-believers be automatically put into leadership positions, only that they be allowed into faith-based groups. Do you really think a Christian student group will elect an atheist or homosexual individual as an officer?
Second, consider the circumstances under which a non-believer would want to join such a group. I can only think of two; either because they want to argue with or undermine the group, or because they are curious about the faith. In either case, we shouldn’t look at this as an affront from the left-wing heathens, but an opportunity to turn someone to Christ. It’s easy to be a beacon of Christ when you’re only speaking to other Christians, but what’s the point in that?
Anyway, the values Vanderbilt is promoting are inclusiveness and tolerance, not atheism. The new rule is as anti-religious as it is anti-hate, anti-black, or anti-gay. I say shame on these groups for not already opening their doors to bring the good news to everyone.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact