[Ray] The unifying principle being school administrations taking action against clubs they don’t like.

Noting the distinctions I made earlier, that’s about the broadest connection one could make in order to present something as ‘the other side’!

[[Ray] 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.

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?

So, far from being the other side of the coin, your post comes across as just being an attempted diversion.

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.

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.

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?

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.