The Spectacle Blog
Religious groups at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee are banned from making leadership decisions based on religion, thanks to rules set forward by officials enforcing its “nondiscrimination policy.” According to the administration, “membership in registered student organizations is open to everyone and that everyone, if desired, has the opportunity to seek leadership positions.”
That “plurality” became a top priority over religious freedom when a gay student claimed he had been “kicked out” of a Christian fraternity. In response, the university examined the constitutions of some 300 groups and found that several weren’t in compliance with Vanderbilt’s nondiscrimination policy.
The groups included the Christian Legal Society, which violates the policy by expecting its officers to lead Bible studies, prayer and worship at chapter meetings.
When John Roberts of Fox News reached out to the university for comment, they only issued the pat statement: “Vanderbilt officials refused to be interviewed, and instead released a statement saying in part “We are committed to making our campus a welcoming environment for all of our students.”
Unless you’re Christian, of course.
The rule has been criticized by 23 members of Congress, the national Christian Legal Society, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Nashville, and others.
The nondiscrimination policy is a direct contradiction to the school’s own words when it insists that students “are entitled to exercise the rights of citizens.”
George Will, when writing about the issue last fall, noted that the Court has upheld the ability of groups to discriminate when defining themselves:
In wiser moments, the court has held that “this freedom to gather in association . . . necessarily presupposes the freedom to identify the people who constitute the association and to limit the association to those people only.” In 1984, William Brennan, the court’s leading liberal of the last half-century, said:
“There can be no clearer example of an intrusion into the internal structure or affairs of an association than a regulation that forces the group to accept members it does not desire. Such a regulation may impair the ability of the original members to express only those views that brought them together. Freedom of association therefore plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate.”
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) had a number of pointed questions about how this rule would work in practice, revealing how shortsighted it is:
- If one of the leaders of Vanderbilt’s Muslim Students Association were to convert to Christianity, is the group required to maintain that person in his or her leadership role despite the fact that he or she is no longer Muslim?
- Vanderbilt informed the Christian Legal Society that its requirement that student leaders “lead Bible studies, prayer, and worship” was against the policy because it implied that these leaders must hold certain religious beliefs. How do you suggest religious groups at Vanderbilt fulfill their purposes without leaders who can accomplish such core tasks of religious leadership?
- While this dispute was originally confined to religious organizations, your statement of January 20 states that all student organizations must accept any student as a member or a leader. If a group of straight students-the majority at Vanderbilt-were to join the Vanderbilt Lambda Association, vote themselves into office, and disband the group or alter the group’s mission, what recourse would LGBT members of the Lambda Association have?
- If a member of the College Republicans joins the College Democrats to discover their plans for political activism and report those plans back to the College Republicans in order to thwart them, do the College Democrats have any way to stop him or her?
- Under this policy, must an ideological student journal like Vanderbilt’s Orbis accept editors or publish columnists who disagree with, mock, or denigrate its progressive political views?
- Many groups in the Occupy movement choose to make decisions by consensus. How could a Vanderbilt-based Occupy group operate if a small group of students joined specifically to prevent the group from acting in any way by constantly preventing a consensus from forming?
- If a student were to join an environmentalist group like Vanderbilt SPEAR and then use his membership in that group to increase his or her credibility when publicly criticizing the group’s positions in the Nashville or Vanderbilt newspapers, what could the group do to prevent this?
It is unlikely any response will be forthcoming: FIRE has written to officials at the school before, and have received no response. Even more likely, these are questions the officials have never even considered, and will have a hard time answering.
Updated:
A spokesperson from Vanderbilt returned my call inquiring about the policy with the following email:
Per your phone call, here is a link to Vanderbilt University’s longstanding nondiscrimination policy. It is not a new policy - http://hr.vanderbilt.edu/policies/HR-001.php
Also, here is a link to a message from our chancellor - http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2012/01/chancellor-message-jan-20/.
This is all I can provide at this time.
I replied that this appears to be the first time the school has applied this policy in this way. I don’t think she’ll be responding, but I can’t help but note that a university that touts its openness and free inquiry refuses to answer press inquiries. Not exactly the approach you take when you want to counter the message that you’re unfriendly to the First Amendment.
View all comments (32) | Leave a comment
Related Blog Posts
More Blog Posts by J.P. Freire
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/27/vanderbilt-drops-the-ball-on-r
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
bobmontgomery| 1.27.12 @ 3:18PM
Vanderbilt is the home of the First Amendment Center, whose scholars have been viciously trying to erect the fictitious "Wall of Separation" for many years. Unfortunately, now that they are trying to make inroads into upsetting America's Judeo-Christian heritage and system by paving the way for Islamic supremacists like the Muslim Brotherhood, they are having to backtrack on their previous insistence that there be now expressions of religion in the public square or in public institutions.. This is getting really, really hard for them, as your example points out
Your Excellency| 1.27.12 @ 3:52PM
Please ,Protestantism is as bogus a religion as Islam. Do you honestly think Christ would say,"Hey wait until the 16th century to implement my teachings"!
Tim the Enchanter| 1.27.12 @ 4:13PM
Excellent comment. However, Margie, AmSpec's house religion bigot, would disagree.
Margie| 1.27.12 @ 6:58PM
Timmy Boy:
You're anti-Christian bigotry is exuding from your face.
Margie| 1.27.12 @ 7:22PM
*That'd be your, not you're, oops.
And furthermore you pompous ass kissing Pope worshipper: why do you hate the Scriptures, hmm??
Oldefarte| 1.28.12 @ 1:04PM
'ass kissing Pope worshipper'? Is that akin to an ass kissing bible worshipper, possibly?????????
Margie| 1.28.12 @ 3:23PM
Since you asked:
If you don't consider the Words of God that are written in the Bible as the ONLY thing that you as a Christian ought to stand on and die for~ then you aren't a Christian, Oldefarte.
If you can mock Christians for adhering to God's Words and rejecting the false teachings of the Vatican, then yes, that makes one an Idolator~ that's what God calls it. Rev. 21:8.
It's a person who puts the teachings of men above the teachings of God.
"The sum of Thy Word is Truth; and every one of Thy righteous ordinances endures for ever." Ps. 119:160.
If you don't consider His Words TRUTH, you're in BIG trouble. Or if you don't care to find out how the teachings of the Vatican don't agree with His Words.. that's your "choice", but a serious one.
Jesus prayed to the Father and said this concerning those of us who were destined to believe in Him:
"Sanctify them in the truth; Thy Word is truth." Jn. 17:17.
The difference between a true believer and an Idolator is that Christians believe the Bible as containing God's Holy Words, Catholics believe the Vatican's teachings and the lying words of the Popes.
Oldefarte| 1.28.12 @ 3:46PM
'.....Sola scriptura ("Bible alone")...The belief in the Bible as the sole source of faith is unhistorical, illogical, fatal to the virtue of faith, and destructive of unity.
It is unhistorical. No one denies the fact that Christ and the Apostles founded the Church by preaching and exacting faith in their doctrines. No book told as yet of the Divinity of Christ, the redeeming value of His Passion, or of His coming to judge the world; these and all similar revelations had to be believed on the word of the Apostles, who were, as their powers showed, messengers from God. And those who received their word did so solely on authority. As immediate, implicit submission of the mind was in the lifetime of the Apostles the only necessary token of faith, there was no room whatever for what is now called private judgment. This is quite clear from the words of Scripture: "Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13). The word of hearing is received through a human teacher and is believed on the authority of God, who is its first author (cf. Romans 10:17). But, if in the time of the Apostles, faith consisted in submitting to authorized teaching, it does so now; for the essence of things never changes and the foundation of the Church and of our salvation is immovable.
Again, it is illogical to base faith upon the private interpretation of a book. For faith consists in submitting; private interpretation consists in judging. In faith by hearing, the last word rests with the teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader, who submits the dead text of Scripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and delivers a verdict without appeal: he believes in himself rather than in any higher authority. But such trust in one's own light is not faith. Private judgment is fatal to the theological virtue of faith. John Henry Newman says "I think I may assume that this virtue, which was exercised by the first Christians, is not known at all amongst Protestants now; or at least if there are instances of it, it is exercised toward those, I mean their teachers and divines, who expressly disclaim that they are objects of it, and exhort their people to judge for themselves" ("Discourses to Mixed Congregations", Faith and Private Judgment). And in proof he advances the instability of Protestant so-called faith: "They are as children tossed to and fro and carried along by every gale of doctrine. If they had faith they would not change. They look upon the simple faith of Catholics as if unworthy the dignity of human nature, as slavish and foolish". Yet upon that simple, unquestioning faith the Church was built up and is held together to this day.
Where absolute reliance on God's word, proclaimed by his accredited ambassadors, is wanting, i.e. where there is not the virtue of faith, there can be no unity of Church. It stands to reason, and Protestant history confirms it. The "unhappy divisions", not only between sect and sect but within the same sect, have become a byword. They are due to the pride of private intellect, and they can only be healed by humble submission to a Divine authority......'
Oldefarte| 1.28.12 @ 4:03PM
PS: Neither YOU, me nor any other human being is the JUDGE. Only Almighty God is. It is stupid and foolish for any human being to place themsleves in the position of being GOD and to judge accordingly, and to attempt to do so is possibly a one way ticket to HELL [LET HE WHO HAS NOT SINNED CAST THE FIRST STONE]!!!!!
Margie| 1.29.12 @ 12:22AM
More Catholic drivel, which is precisely UN Christian.
It tries to explain away why the Apostate Religion
uses themselves as the AUTHORITY instead of the Scriptures.
And it is PRECISELY why Catholicism isn't Christianity.
Christians abide by and obey the Scriptures.
Catholics abide by and obey the teachings of the Vatican.
This is AGAINST the Word of God. It is exactly how and what the despicable Murderous Popes used to put to death Bible believing Christians for six centuries.
Do some research and find out if you care to, but it seems that you don't care to, which is sad because yes indeed, God IS the Judge, His WORD is the Judge, and His Word says that unless we abide in the doctrine of CHRIST, we have Him NOT, and in fact God considers it SIN.
And sorry, but God gives authority to ALL Christians to JUDGE whether someone IS or IS not doing so.
"Everyone transgressing and not abiding
in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.
The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ,
this one has the Father and the Son.
If anyone comes to you and does not
bear this doctrine, do not receive him into
the house, and do not speak a greeting to
him.
For the one speaking a greeting shares
in his evil works." 2 Jn. 1:9-11.
OF THE TRUE CHURCH OF GOD, ITS ORIGIN, PROGRESS, AND IMMOVABLE STABILITY, THROUGH ALL. TIMES
http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs003.htm
OF THE UNGODLY AND FALSE CHURCH, WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE CHURCH OF GOD, AND THE ORIGIN, PROGRESS AND SUCCESSION OF THE SAME THROUGH ALL TIMES
http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs007.htm
Quartermaster| 1.27.12 @ 8:17PM
Of course Maggie would agree that Christ's teachings were not implemented as late as the 16th century. In fact, the only society that has come close to doing so was immediate post-colonial United States, but even they did not.
Excellency's statement is beyond silly. It's just simple minded buffoonery. But that's typical for skeptics.
Occam's Tool| 1.28.12 @ 9:07PM
You know, these types of arguments and modern academe always give me a headache. As a Jew, and a holder of the highest academic scholarship at Texas Christian when I was there, I have personal experience in how to do these things correctly and incorrectly.
When you are a minority religion member at a religious affiliated school (as Vanderbilt once was), the predominant thing to do is not to be an asshole on minor issues, only on major ones, and true to apply the Golden Rule, Hillel Style, whenever possible. For example, as a Jew: Protesting when the TCU Daily Skiff runs an ad from a Holocaust Denial Society---definitely fine. Insisting on joining the Evangelical Pre-med Society? Asshole.
Common sense, which is definitely missing from many administrators (and almost all lawyers and judges) should prevail.
Occam's Tool| 1.28.12 @ 9:08PM
Sorry, that's "try to apply the Golden Rule"---the Hillel version goes: That which you would not like to have done unto you, do not do unto others.
bobmontgomery| 1.27.12 @ 4:41PM
We were talking about Protestantism? We weren't even talking about religion. But since you bring it up, no, Christ never said "hey" at all. Christ said "Render unto Caesar", which means Vanderbilt University, one of the homes of the "Wall of Separation" crapola, can't seem to separate itself from the freedom of people to associate, unless those people are dedicated to the downfall of the United States of America; then they can be as free as birds, be they Muslims or Communists.
Dai Alanye | 1.28.12 @ 1:37PM
These arguments about validity are as old as the hills. Let's remember that immediately after Jesus' death his followers split into two groups -- those who felt his teachings were only for fellow Jews, and those led by Paul, who wanted to spread them to the pagan world. The varieties of Catholicism -- Roman, Greek, Russky, etc -- and the more distant varieties developed among the Copts, Ethiopians and others have little more claim to being the one true Christianity than do the multitude of Protestant sects. Once the Bible was available in local tongues we each got to make up our own minds.
When it comes to "made -up” religions, however, where the founder consciously set out to create a religion from either Judaism -- as in the case of Mohammed and Islam -- or Christianity -- as in the case of Joseph Smith and Mormonism, the authenticity becomes more cloudy.
And then there is Scientology, but don't get me started on that.
Margie| 1.28.12 @ 3:30PM
The Bible is the standard with which to base whether or not anyone is following the Truth.
Religion as defined in the Old Testament is what Jesus came to fulfill in His Own Person, and the New Covenant now is to believe in Him and follow and obey His Words.
The old has passed, the New has come, in Christ Jesus.
The New Testament's definition of religion, small 'r' is Christ Himself. No more Religion of the old way.
"Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in Glory." 1 Tim. 3:16.
Jesus Christ is LORD.
Occam's Tool| 1.28.12 @ 9:09PM
Well, Scientology was founded to make L Ron Hubbard a lot of money---he said so himself.
The Intermediary| 1.27.12 @ 5:58PM
1st Amendment only applies to government. Vanderbilt is a private school.
bobmontgomery| 1.27.12 @ 8:13PM
Private school....private club.....private property.....it's all good ....isn't it? Oh, and of course the AAUP would say that Professors have a right to their opinions and students don't, except if they go back to their hometowns and spout the crap the Professors are putting out.
Quartermaster| 1.27.12 @ 8:18PM
Ah, but it takes public money. All to the worst for Vandy. When they quit taking the money, as Grove City College did, then they can complain, but not until.
ayrnieu| 1.28.12 @ 3:04AM
From which it would only follow that a 1st Amendment lawsuit may fail. We're still free to attack them as a gang of savages, or as big fat jerks, or as mock-intellectuals who betrayed the mission of a university the day they erected - in the place of Truth - these idols to 'non-discrimination', 'diversity', 'equality', 'sensitivity', etc.
An atheist might whine that earlier universities wouldn't've permitted him much diversity of opinion in theological matters, but that would just leave him liberty in the intellectual pursuit of _everything that he thinks actually exists_. In a modern university you still haven't that liberty, but now you also aren't to be suspected of many other heresies, concerning subjects far more concrete than theology. This isn't a civilizational advance.
JimH| 1.28.12 @ 8:10AM
I suggest a large group of Christians join the campus Wiccan club and take over. I'd like to see how that plays out.
J.C.Eaton| 1.28.12 @ 12:01PM
Yet another dubious university that my grandchildren will not attend.
Oldefarte| 1.28.12 @ 1:38PM
It occurred before at Vanderbilt:'......During the first 40 years, the Board of Trust, and therefore the university, was under the control of the General Conference (the governing body) of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Tension grew between the university administration and the Conference over the future of the school, particularly over the methods by which members of the Vanderbilt Board of Trust would be chosen, and the extent that non-Methodists could teach at the school.[8]
Conflicts escalated after James H. Kirkland was appointed chancellor in 1893. Then the Southern Methodist Church congregations raised just $50,000 in a campaign to raise $300,000.[8]
In 1905, the Board of Trust voted to limit Methodist representation on the board to just five bishops. Former faculty member and bishop Elijah Hoss led a group attempting to assert Methodist control. In 1910, the Board refused to seat three Methodist bishops. The Methodist Church took the issue to court and won at the local level. On March 21, 1914, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that the Commodore, and not the Methodist Church, was the university's founder and that the board could therefore seat whomever it wished. The General Conference in 1914 voted 151 to 140 to sever its ties with Vanderbilt; it also voted to establish a new university, Southern Methodist University, and to greatly expand Emory University.[8][12]....'
Fearless Bear| 1.28.12 @ 5:30PM
The chancellor of Vanderbilt, Zeppos, spoke to freshman parents a year and a half ago. He bragged about how much monwy (hundreds of millions of $$) Vanderbilt gets in federal grants. Talking to these folks about the education of their kids was secondary. I know; I was there. He and his cohorts have now limited the exercise of religion on campus. A conservative Christian law society has withdrawn from University identification, because the University wants to force them to accept as members people who are not Christian, and allow them to run for office too. This narrow mindedness is actually based on a belief that GLBT rights trump everything else. Vanderbilt, a great school founded to be a national university to heal north/south divisions in the country by the first great mega-entrepeneur, is demeaning its mission before the world. SHAME on these administrators. They literally deleted their support of free exercise from their policy. Literally.
crypticguise| 1.28.12 @ 10:01PM
Vanderbilt is clearly violating Federal Law and I do believe FIRE will have to file a lawsuit against the University with the students who are being discriminated against, that is the Christian Students.
The result will be an apology by Vanderbilt and a change in University Policy. The Administration of Vanderbilt is clearly "confused" on the issue/s here and can't ignore the legal problems they are now going to have.
crypticguise| 1.28.12 @ 10:01PM
Vanderbilt is clearly violating Federal Law and I do believe FIRE will have to file a lawsuit against the University with the students who are being discriminated against, that is the Christian Students.
The result will be an apology by Vanderbilt and a change in University Policy. The Administration of Vanderbilt is clearly "confused" on the issue/s here and can't ignore the legal problems they are now going to have.
crypticguise| 1.28.12 @ 10:01PM
Vanderbilt is clearly violating Federal Law and I do believe FIRE will have to file a lawsuit against the University with the students who are being discriminated against, that is the Christian Students.
The result will be an apology by Vanderbilt and a change in University Policy. The Administration of Vanderbilt is clearly "confused" on the issue/s here and can't ignore the legal problems they are now going to have.
crypticguise| 1.28.12 @ 10:01PM
Vanderbilt is clearly violating Federal Law and I do believe FIRE will have to file a lawsuit against the University with the students who are being discriminated against, that is the Christian Students.
The result will be an apology by Vanderbilt and a change in University Policy. The Administration of Vanderbilt is clearly "confused" on the issue/s here and can't ignore the legal problems they are now going to have.
crypticguise| 1.28.12 @ 10:01PM
Vanderbilt is clearly violating Federal Law and I do believe FIRE will have to file a lawsuit against the University with the students who are being discriminated against, that is the Christian Students.
The result will be an apology by Vanderbilt and a change in University Policy. The Administration of Vanderbilt is clearly "confused" on the issue/s here and can't ignore the legal problems they are now going to have.
Anotherazn| 2.1.12 @ 8:08AM
Religious implications aside, I'd like to point out that the chancellors patiently responded to every single inane question posed to them yesterday, even those that were quoted from the FIRE ad. If people had taken the time to actually read instead of joining in a group circlejerk against Vanderbilt, this would never have happened. There is no religious persecution occurring here. Vanderbilt simply wants an open university where any person who wishes to run is allowed to. They trust the democratic system to do the rest. Will this mean hostile takeover of the Wiccan group? Hopefully not. I wish to trust in my fellow classmates more than that.
Vanderbilt Alumnus/Grad stud.| 5.15.12 @ 2:29PM
This article fails to mention that no Vanderbilt rule keeps "unofficial" groups from meeting on campus, inhibits the ability for groups to impeach their leaders, inhibits the ability for students to form new groups after a previous group folds, etc.
The only way a hostile takeover could successfully occur would be if a large majority--say, two-thirds, depending on the group's charter--of any given organization were in on it, and then continually badgered the loyal members until they gave up on restarting the group. This is, frankly, impossible at Vanderbilt's campus. As an example, the Vanderbilt Lambda (LGBT group) continues to function well despite the campus being one of the most conservative academic environments in the country... 51% conservative, which is unheard of in educational organizations. The bottom line is this: the people who care enough to want to disband a group can't stand being around the group in the first place.
The only exceptions would be groups so hateful that they deserve to be shut down... neo-Nazi groups, White supremacy groups, gay/Muslim bashing groups (hmm...), and the like.
As a final note, the biggest Christian organizations on campus have quietly accepted the rule's clarification, such as the Baptist Collegiate Ministries and most of the organizations stemming from our diverse (i.e., cross-denomination) Divinity College. There has also been no complaint from the large Malaysian (devout Muslim) population in the School of Engineering.