Posted by Scott Tibbs at 6:00 PM (#)
Would it make sense for a university to force the college Democratic club to accept a Republican activist as an officer, even as he is actively going door to door and making phone calls for Republican candidates? Should the campus abortion-rights group be forced to accept a pro-life activist as an officer, while he is actively picketing the local abortion clinic each week? Should a black student union be forced to have a white racist as an officer? Of course, all of that would be silly, but for some colleges, forcing Christian groups to have officers opposed to the group's theological commitments is a reasonable and "compassionate" thing to do.
Freedom of association necessarily includes the freedom not to associate, and freedom of religion means that campus Christian groups should be able to restrict leadership to those people who agree with the group's theological commitments. It is illegal for state universities to violate either liberty protected under our Constitution, but many college administrators are lawless rebels. It is never surprising when those who refuse to submit to the proper authority over them are then tyrants over people under their authority - and this is true in all aspects of life.
What these colleges and universities are doing is forcing Christian groups to accept the administration's values and subvert their own. This is because of an alleged commitment to "diversity," but this "diversity" is a fraud and a lie. If you step outside of what these lawless rebels narrowly define as "diversity" then you are punished, censured and censored. When no dissent is permissible in pursuit of "diversity," that "diversity" is a lie. Administrators have abandoned the very foundation of modern American education in order to force their narrow agenda on everyone.
The solution to this is simple. Any state university found to be violating the freedom of conscience or freedom of association rights of any student group should see state funding cut or eliminated. Congress should move to end federal funding for any university violating freedom of conscience or freedom of association, and the fifty state legislatures should do the same. The power of the purse strings is the most effective way to terrorize state schools into respecting the Constitution and submitting to the authority of the nation's founding document.
Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.
, Mike Newton said...
As usual, there are problems with your thesis. The linked article says absolutely nothing about Xian groups being "forced to accept officers" who dispute their superstition. It simply says they can't keep campus privileges if the violate clearly stated rules banning discrimination against new members. And, BTW, religious faith *should* "mean nothing" in tax-supported public education, at any level. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, a church group that can't support itself clearly doesn't have "god's" backing.
, Scott Tibbs said...
If student groups are told they may not use university facilities etc. as all other student groups have the right to do, unless they accept people opposed to their faith as officers, then they are being forced to accept officers who are opposed to their faith.
Allowing student groups to use university facilities for meetings etc. does not put any real burden on the university.
Plus, state universities may not discriminate in this way under the First Amendment. It's clearly illegal.
BTW, religious faith *should* "mean nothing" in tax-supported public education
Not teaching religion in the classroom does not mean students need to be denied their First Amendment rights.
Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.
- A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.
- This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.
- Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.
- Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.
- All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.
Thank you for your cooperation.