Virginia State Senator Mark Obenshain is sponsoring a bill that would protect the integrity of student religious and political organizations in his state’s public universities. A response to CLS v. Martinez, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that upheld Hastings College of Law’s decision to deny access and status to a Christian Legal Society chapter that required creedal adherence of its leadership, this bill would override university anti-discrimination rules so that organizations like CLS could remain true to their missions. The bill has passed the Senate and seems on track to pass the House as well.
“Critics of the legislation say that it undermines campus anti-bias policies and that it’s not solving any problem. That’s because, they say, students aren’t trying to take over groups that they disagree with.” I assume that the anti-bias policies are there for a reason, purporting to guarantee students access to organizations with whose moral, religious, and political commitments they disagree. If no student who disagreed with the traditional morality favored by, say, CLS sought to join it (or more precisely lead it), the anti-discrimination rules would seem to be unnecessary. But, you say, the rules are symbolic, fostering a certain campus culture and telling everyone where the university stands.
It’s a culture and a stand that is antithetical to genuine diversity and pluralism, which ought to permit people to associate in groups with missional coherence and integrity. Virginia seems well on its way to affirming true pluralism, teaching its public colleges and universities a thing or two along the way. If we take the folks inside the ivy-covered walls at their word, then nothing really should change. But of course something will: a club that has been used to beat clubs over the head will no longer be available to campus administrators. They’ll have to add CLS, Intervarsity, and Campus Crusade to the list of exclusive groups (like fraternities and sororities) that they already countenance.
February 19th, 2013 | 10:41 am
Then, of course, there’s the other side of the coin at other levels of schooling.
February 19th, 2013 | 12:08 pm
[Ray] “Then, of course, there’s the other side of the coin at other levels of schooling.”
But since your article deals with minors and this article deals with college-age adults, there’s a big difference in expected oversight and the degree to which school boards, etc should have some say. As you note, this is an ‘other’ level of schooling.
And since this article has to do with whether college student groups can insist that its leadership, well, actually agrees with the club’s mission statements – and your article doesn’t – that’s a fundamental difference as well between this article and yours.
So, far from being the other side of the coin, your post comes across as just being an attempted diversion. The floor is still open for comment on the actual article concerning the Virginia State Bill.
February 19th, 2013 | 12:17 pm
Nice catch, Ray.
Too bad Obenshain is merely a Virginia senator. Shouldn’t we have a national policy to protect the integrity of student religious and political organizations by compelling all universities – private and public – to adopt Obenshain’s policy? After all, religious schools that forbid gay student organizations promote a culture and a stand that is antithetical to genuine diversity and pluralism, which ought to permit people to associate in groups with missional coherence and integrity! Virginia seems well on its way to affirming true pluralism, teaching its public colleges and universities a thing or two along the way. Wouldn’t religious colleges and universities benefit from learning the same lessons?
February 19th, 2013 | 12:25 pm
“Critics of the legislation say that it undermines campus anti-bias policies and that it’s not solving any problem. That’s because, they say, students aren’t trying to take over groups that they disagree with.”
I attended college in the early 1990s, and even then the tactic of attempting to meet attendance obligations, claim membership voting status, nominate non-professing Christians and pack the room on the night of leadership voting was well-known and attempted on at least one Christian student group. The above claim from the Bill’s critics is simply impossible to believe.
February 20th, 2013 | 8:25 am
JDD –
The unifying principle being school administrations taking action against clubs they don’t like – and since policy (and law) requires all clubs be treated equally, the actions affect all clubs.
I understand – and to an extent, agree with – the university administrators’ goals. But I also agree that they are going about things the wrong way.
February 20th, 2013 | 10:34 am
Noting the distinctions I made earlier, that’s about the broadest connection one could make in order to present something as ‘the other side’!
Fair enough. Does this mean that you agree with the Virginia Bill?
I’m not sure the university administrators’ goals have been clearly identified anywhere. How would you describe them, and how does requiring that a club leader not be required to adhere to the club mission statement achieve those goals?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact