I agree fully with this decision, but on the other hand, I'm suddenly reminded of groups on my (former) college with names like "Society of Women Engineers", "The Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers", etc., where as a non-Hispanic male, I'm fairly sure I'd be unwelcome. I'm fairly certain that they got school funding, you know?
I mean, I don't feel personally hurt about stuff like that, because the whole reason why groups like that exist is because white guys make up a disproportionate number of engineering students. I get the point; this isn't a "whiny white guy completely misses the advantages he has" rant. But could this decision end up getting used against groups like SHPE, and if not, why not?
Except that even "Society of Women Engineers" would allow male English majors into the group. In my undergrad, I was part of the Asian American Association, and I'm 100% whiteman. The names are really there just to gather like-minded individuals, although anyone may tag along for the ride.
This.
Likewise, I have no problem with religious groups getting school funding as long as I'm allowed to join them as an atheist if I want to learn more about how their religion functions and their beliefs, or I'm interested in supporting their right to worship or whatever.
I don't mind school funding for these sorts of groups, but they honestly have to allow membership to anyone.
Christian groups that are closed and discriminatory and somehow convinced that Jesus would have approved of their discrimination always boggles me.
This should really stop boggling me, but it doesn't. I guess maybe because I never hear stories regarding religious groups like this locally (vancouver).
I agree fully with this decision, but on the other hand, I'm suddenly reminded of groups on my (former) college with names like "Society of Women Engineers", "The Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers", etc., where as a non-Hispanic male, I'm fairly sure I'd be unwelcome. I'm fairly certain that they got school funding, you know?
I mean, I don't feel personally hurt about stuff like that, because the whole reason why groups like that exist is because white guys make up a disproportionate number of engineering students. I get the point; this isn't a "whiny white guy completely misses the advantages he has" rant. But could this decision end up getting used against groups like SHPE, and if not, why not?
Except that even "Society of Women Engineers" would allow male English majors into the group. In my undergrad, I was part of the Asian American Association, and I'm 100% whiteman. The names are really there just to gather like-minded individuals, although anyone may tag along for the ride.
This.
Likewise, I have no problem with religious groups getting school funding as long as I'm allowed to join them as an atheist if I want to learn more about how their religion functions and their beliefs, or I'm interested in supporting their right to worship or whatever.
I don't mind school funding for these sorts of groups, but they honestly have to allow membership to anyone.
Man like every last group in McGill was [insert every dang country] Student Group, and they still all asked me to join at the little activity fair. It's basically a way of saying "From/oddly attached to a particular country? Come on in!" rather than a discriminatory "stay away" to non-that-country people.
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
Also, I think the larger issue is that the CLS sought to not just establish discriminatory practices, but judging by the wording of their charter and oath, they seem to have sought to outright define what could and could not be acceptable as "Christian."
There are literally millions of Christians that would disagree with that, in terms of both context and authority. It's kind of like McDonalds seeking legal protection for being the arbiter of what is and is not a hamburger.
In the article it said that the society allows everyone to attend meetings, but only voting members and officers have to sign that statement of faith. I don't know what the difference is between a voting member and a non voting member. Is it something significant besides the ability to vote?
In the article it said that the society allows everyone to attend meetings, but only voting members and officers have to sign that statement of faith. I don't know what the difference is between a voting member and a non voting member. Is it something significant besides the ability to vote?
This is a hilarious thing to say in a thread about potential discrimination.
Hmm. I suppose I don't have any problems with religious groups on campus as long as no faith is barred, mainly because groups on campus are a very, very important way for freshman to get to know each other.
I have a friend that was part of the Latino Pre-law Club at her school. Even though she herself was Latino and Pre-law she told me they were recruiting anyone they could. She actually made signs that said, "Latino Pre-law is recruiting new members. Not Latino? Not Pre-law? Not a problem!"
Perhaps I should have worded it differently. I'm not familiar with the structure of most college student groups, never bothering to join myself. Is every member supposed to be a voting member? Is it a smaller group out of the entire group? If every member is supposed to vote that's different from a small council of 5 that states the groups mission or whatever they do.
Making rules so that you can freely discriminate between members of your club isn't any better then making rules where you discriminate against people joining your group.
SanderJK on
Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Making rules so that you can freely discriminate between members of your club isn't any better then making rules where you discriminate against people joining your group.
So, clubs aren't allowed to have officers or other stratification of members?
I agree fully with this decision, but on the other hand, I'm suddenly reminded of groups on my (former) college with names like "Society of Women Engineers", "The Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers", etc., where as a non-Hispanic male, I'm fairly sure I'd be unwelcome. I'm fairly certain that they got school funding, you know?
I mean, I don't feel personally hurt about stuff like that, because the whole reason why groups like that exist is because white guys make up a disproportionate number of engineering students. I get the point; this isn't a "whiny white guy completely misses the advantages he has" rant. But could this decision end up getting used against groups like SHPE, and if not, why not?
Except that even "Society of Women Engineers" would allow male English majors into the group. In my undergrad, I was part of the Asian American Association, and I'm 100% whiteman. The names are really there just to gather like-minded individuals, although anyone may tag along for the ride.
At my wife's job they have an African-American Interest Group which, as you can imagine, is all black in membership...except for this one white guy. Oh, and there was a lot of grumbling from men about the fact that there is a Women's Interest Group. Someone finally told them that they were not excluded from that group, and that they should just start a Men's Interest Group rather than just sitting around and complaining.
I agree fully with this decision, but on the other hand, I'm suddenly reminded of groups on my (former) college with names like "Society of Women Engineers", "The Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers", etc., where as a non-Hispanic male, I'm fairly sure I'd be unwelcome. I'm fairly certain that they got school funding, you know?
I mean, I don't feel personally hurt about stuff like that, because the whole reason why groups like that exist is because white guys make up a disproportionate number of engineering students. I get the point; this isn't a "whiny white guy completely misses the advantages he has" rant. But could this decision end up getting used against groups like SHPE, and if not, why not?
At my school, at least, anyone could join those groups. There were a few groups that were invite only (fraternities/sororities and the like) but they had to adhere to certain standards of non-discrimination. But every other group/organization was open to everyone if they wanted school funding.
Making rules so that you can freely discriminate between members of your club isn't any better then making rules where you discriminate against people joining your group.
So, clubs aren't allowed to have officers or other stratification of members?
This is a better way of putting what I was thinking about.
Making rules so that you can freely discriminate between members of your club isn't any better then making rules where you discriminate against people joining your group.
So, clubs aren't allowed to have officers or other stratification of members?
This is a better way of putting what I was thinking about.
Of course you can. But you can't discriminate on who can become one. What if there was a rule only men could ever get voting rights in certain groups? Can you not see how that would be... bad
I just realized the Netherlands had pretty much the same court case as this. only in parliament.
We have a political party (SGP) who are Christian Fundamentalists (capital letters warranted). They're biblical literalists, and as such, firmly believe that a womans role is to serve and support his man. Thus, they reasoned, women should not be allowed to lead, and so they only place men in electable positions.
And our High Court ruled the same: While you can be allowed to have this notion as an ideal, state statutes do not allow any funding towards discriminating parties, and thus their state funding was cut off.
SanderJK on
Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Making rules so that you can freely discriminate between members of your club isn't any better then making rules where you discriminate against people joining your group.
So, clubs aren't allowed to have officers or other stratification of members?
This is a better way of putting what I was thinking about.
Of course you can. But you can't discriminate on who can become one. What if there was a rule only men could ever get voting rights in certain groups? Can you not see how that would be... bad
I just realized the Netherlands had pretty much the same court case as this. only in parliament.
We have a political party (SGP) who are Christian Fundamentalists (capital letters warranted). They're biblical literalists, and as such, firmly believe that a womans role is to serve and support his man. Thus, they reasoned, women should not be allowed to lead, and so they only place men in electable positions.
And our High Court ruled the same: While you can be allowed to have this notion as an ideal, state statutes do not allow any funding towards discriminating parties, and thus their state funding was cut off.
Right, but the referenced issue was signing a pledge to become a voting member. That's not discrimination in the same way that saying "only men can become voting members".
Livng a homosexual lifestyle and being ok with it seems counter to what the organization in question believes. Kind of like forcing a democratic organization to let a republican become a voting member.
Probably not a very good analogy, but I'm just typing out loud.
shorttimin on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Livng a homosexual lifestyle and being ok with it seems counter to what the organization in question believes. Kind of like forcing a democratic organization to let a republican become a voting member.
Probably not a very good analogy, but I'm just typing out loud.
Well, a group that believes black people are inferior shouldn't get public funding either.
Just because you believe something doesn't mean you're not being astoundingly ignorant and discriminatory.
Right, but the referenced issue was signing a pledge to become a voting member. That's not discrimination in the same way that saying "only men can become voting members".
That's completely ridiculous.
"We don't say only men can be voting members, we just require you to swear an oath that you have a penis before you can become a voting member."
Right, but the referenced issue was signing a pledge to become a voting member. That's not discrimination in the same way that saying "only men can become voting members".
That's completely ridiculous.
"We don't say only men can be voting members, we just require you to swear an oath that you have a penis before you can become a voting member."
Livng a homosexual lifestyle and being ok with it seems counter to what the organization in question believes. Kind of like forcing a democratic organization to let a republican become a voting member.
Probably not a very good analogy, but I'm just typing out loud.
Well, a group that believes black people are inferior shouldn't get public funding either.
Just because you believe something doesn't mean you're not being astoundingly ignorant and discriminatory.
Did they say that gay people were inferior?
shorttimin on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Livng a homosexual lifestyle and being ok with it seems counter to what the organization in question believes. Kind of like forcing a democratic organization to let a republican become a voting member.
Probably not a very good analogy, but I'm just typing out loud.
Well, a group that believes black people are inferior shouldn't get public funding either.
Just because you believe something doesn't mean you're not being astoundingly ignorant and discriminatory.
Did they say that gay people were inferior?
Well, by claiming that it's a sinful lifestyle, I would say yes they did.
Chanus on
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Livng a homosexual lifestyle and being ok with it seems counter to what the organization in question believes. Kind of like forcing a democratic organization to let a republican become a voting member.
Probably not a very good analogy, but I'm just typing out loud.
Well, a group that believes black people are inferior shouldn't get public funding either.
Just because you believe something doesn't mean you're not being astoundingly ignorant and discriminatory.
Did they say that gay people were inferior?
In the sense that living in sin is inferior to living a godly life, sure. But that's beside the point, the point being that by excluding gay people from membership the club violated the school's nondiscrimination policy.
Livng a homosexual lifestyle and being ok with it seems counter to what the organization in question believes. Kind of like forcing a democratic organization to let a republican become a voting member.
Probably not a very good analogy, but I'm just typing out loud.
Right, well, being a member of the GOP doesn't make you a member of a suspect class. Since gay people are a suspect class in California, the government has to prove a compelling state interest for the discriminatory practice. A Christian club on campus is not exactly a matter of national security. There is no compelling state interest for funding this particular discriminatory practice and so the state university should not fund the student organization.
But political party isn't a protected suspect class.
edit: whoop, lazegamer deleted.
Yeah, sorry about that, I wanted to rephrase.
I haven't found dialogue in the ruling that says that they aren't allowed to discriminate because orientation is a suspect class. The ruling suggests to me that a university can ban any discriminatory practice, including political. I don't think that you can receive funding for a political group if you aren't open to all members.
Hastings imposes an open membership rule on all student groups -- all groups must accept all comers as voting members even if those individuals disagree with the mission of the group," the court ruled in an unsigned decision. "The conditions on recognition are therefore viewpoint neutral and reasonable.
"CLS, it bears emphasis, seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings’ policy. The First Amendment shields CLS against state prohibition of the organization's expressive activity, however exclusionary that activity may be.But CLS enjoys no constitutional right to state subvention of its selectivity.
But political party isn't a protected suspect class.
edit: whoop, lazegamer deleted.
Yeah, sorry about that, I wanted to rephrase.
I haven't found dialogue in the ruling that says that they aren't allowed to discriminate because orientation is a suspect class. The ruling suggests to me that a university can ban any discriminatory practice, including political. I don't think that you can receive funding for a political group if you aren't open to all members.
Hastings imposes an open membership rule on all student groups -- all groups must accept all comers as voting members even if those individuals disagree with the mission of the group," the court ruled in an unsigned decision. "The conditions on recognition are therefore viewpoint neutral and reasonable.
"CLS, it bears emphasis, seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings’ policy. The First Amendment shields CLS against state prohibition of the organization's expressive activity, however exclusionary that activity may be.But CLS enjoys no constitutional right to state subvention of its selectivity.
Well, if that is Hasting's policy then yeah, the club was wrong. I'm a Christian and that's a good ruling.
shorttimin on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
But political party isn't a protected suspect class.
edit: whoop, lazegamer deleted.
Yeah, sorry about that, I wanted to rephrase.
I haven't found dialogue in the ruling that says that they aren't allowed to discriminate because orientation is a suspect class. The ruling suggests to me that a university can ban any discriminatory practice, including political. I don't think that you can receive funding for a political group if you aren't open to all members.
Hastings imposes an open membership rule on all student groups -- all groups must accept all comers as voting members even if those individuals disagree with the mission of the group," the court ruled in an unsigned decision. "The conditions on recognition are therefore viewpoint neutral and reasonable.
"CLS, it bears emphasis, seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings’ policy. The First Amendment shields CLS against state prohibition of the organization's expressive activity, however exclusionary that activity may be.But CLS enjoys no constitutional right to state subvention of its selectivity.
It's probably true that a Democratic student group would have to accept membership from anyone, even Republicans, and vice versa. That seems fine to me - it all comes down to funding and recognition. These students are paying tuition, and the school is supported by public taxes. The school gives some of that money to officially recognized groups, and any student should be able to join any of the groups without exception.
Obviously not many Republicans would want to join a Democratic group - the self-selecting nature of a student group is part of the whole reason to have one in the first place. But the option to join has to be open to everyone; otherwise you get discrimination, and who's going to decide if any one member is "Democratic" enough to remain a member? "He said he appreciated Bush's efforts in Africa! BURN HIM!" No. If a Democrat joins a Republican group just to be a dickhole and shit all over people's beliefs, kick him out for being a disruptive dickhole. But when there are discriminatory guidelines to membership, like "You must be a card-carrying member of X party!" or "You must be straight!", all you're doing is supporting discrimination and witch-hunts. And you're using public funds to do it.
Livng a homosexual lifestyle and being ok with it seems counter to what the organization in question believes. Kind of like forcing a democratic organization to let a republican become a voting member.
Probably not a very good analogy, but I'm just typing out loud.
/facepalm
Okay, no, it's not a very good analogy. But please realize that "homosexual lifestyle" is one of those buzzphrases used by people who disapprove of the gay. It's the polite-company version of "sodomites".
The law school has an anti-discrimination policy which follows state law. If a group is going to try and make itself Official, so as to get money from that law school, it has to follow the school's policies. Refusing to do so, and asking for money, is like a teenager insisting he won't do his chores because he doesn't believe in domestic labor but hey, Dad, can I have forty bucks to go hang out with the guys?
If the White Heritage Law Students' Group refused to let members vote unless they signed a pledge disavowing the "race-mixing lifestyle", I don't think anybody would be arguing the law school ought to hand them money.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Livng a homosexual lifestyle and being ok with it seems counter to what the organization in question believes. Kind of like forcing a democratic organization to let a republican become a voting member.
Probably not a very good analogy, but I'm just typing out loud.
The one very obvious problem with this is that the group is trying to represent all Christians and then you have reality interfering where people "living a homosexual lifestyle" can also be Christians.
Livng a homosexual lifestyle and being ok with it seems counter to what the organization in question believes. Kind of like forcing a democratic organization to let a republican become a voting member.
Probably not a very good analogy, but I'm just typing out loud.
I was a member of College Republicans. And outside of one single candidate during the 2000 California Primary, I've never voted for a Republican in my life.
Livng a homosexual lifestyle and being ok with it seems counter to what the organization in question believes. Kind of like forcing a democratic organization to let a republican become a voting member.
Probably not a very good analogy, but I'm just typing out loud.
I was a member of College Republicans. And outside of one single candidate during the 2000 California Primary, I've never voted for a Republican in my life.
I was also a member of College Democrats.
I was a member of the Federalist Society in law school and they were perfectly aware that I was not a conservative or libertarian. In fact, they thought it was awesome, because (my chapter - not the national organization) believed that civil debate was paramount and that if your opinions couldn't stand up to rational discussion with somebody from a different political philosophy, they weren't worth having. They also brought in speakers to debate issues of political interest and made damn sure that the 'liberal' speaker was equally as formidable as the guy whose viewpoints they favored.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I was a member of the Federalist Society in law school and they were perfectly aware that I was not a conservative or libertarian. In fact, they thought it was awesome, because (my chapter - not the national organization) believed that civil debate was paramount and that if your opinions couldn't stand up to rational discussion with somebody from a different political philosophy, they weren't worth having. They also brought in speakers to debate issues of political interest and made damn sure that the 'liberal' speaker was equally as formidable as the guy whose viewpoints they favored.
Our Federalist Society chapter worked with the liberal law student groups to bring speakers from both sides for some really interesting discussions. But, I think you can do that with law student groups since law students tend to be older and more mature. College groups are hit or miss- the College Republicans and College Democrats at my undergrad wouldn't piss on each other if their hair was on fire.
We actually had protestors outside one of our events dealing with affirmative action. Which was weird, because the event involved a couple of academics talking about recent court rulings on affirmative action and their predictions on how the courts would rule in a few cases that were on their dockets. We really couldn't figure out why anyone would find the event controversial. But, I guess some undergrads saw "Affirmative Action" on the flyers and decided to get their protest on.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
But, I think you can do that with law student groups since law students tend to be older and more mature. College groups are hit or miss- the College Republicans and College Democrats at my undergrad wouldn't piss on each other if their hair was on fire.
True. I have made it a rule never to judge any philosophy, religion or political movement based on what its self-described adherents were like in college. Otherwise I wouldn't be talking to anybody.
Well, except maybe for Objectivists. In college I belonged to a small pro-First Amendment Rights group (which you would think is pretty non-controversial), and for some reason the Objectivists decided we were anti-Objectivists or communists or something - we never figured out quite what it was - and they would very deliberately and ostentatiously rip down or cover up every poster we put up announcing a meeting.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Livng a homosexual lifestyle and being ok with it seems counter to what the organization in question believes. Kind of like forcing a democratic organization to let a republican become a voting member.
Probably not a very good analogy, but I'm just typing out loud.
/facepalm
Okay, no, it's not a very good analogy. But please realize that "homosexual lifestyle" is one of those buzzphrases used by people who disapprove of the gay. It's the polite-company version of "sodomites".
The law school has an anti-discrimination policy which follows state law. If a group is going to try and make itself Official, so as to get money from that law school, it has to follow the school's policies. Refusing to do so, and asking for money, is like a teenager insisting he won't do his chores because he doesn't believe in domestic labor but hey, Dad, can I have forty bucks to go hang out with the guys?
If the White Heritage Law Students' Group refused to let members vote unless they signed a pledge disavowing the "race-mixing lifestyle", I don't think anybody would be arguing the law school ought to hand them money.
well, I think this goes to my ignorance about the structure of college groups and who is a voting member and how you become one. Is everyone who signs up to join the club automatically a voting member? Or are voting members a small group out of the whole club?
Aside from all that, lazegamer posted a quote that said Hasting's policy was that you couldn't prevent people that disagreed with your ideology from becoming voting members. So my question is moot anyway. CLS is wrong.
Posts
This.
Likewise, I have no problem with religious groups getting school funding as long as I'm allowed to join them as an atheist if I want to learn more about how their religion functions and their beliefs, or I'm interested in supporting their right to worship or whatever.
I don't mind school funding for these sorts of groups, but they honestly have to allow membership to anyone.
This should really stop boggling me, but it doesn't. I guess maybe because I never hear stories regarding religious groups like this locally (vancouver).
Man like every last group in McGill was [insert every dang country] Student Group, and they still all asked me to join at the little activity fair. It's basically a way of saying "From/oddly attached to a particular country? Come on in!" rather than a discriminatory "stay away" to non-that-country people.
There are literally millions of Christians that would disagree with that, in terms of both context and authority. It's kind of like McDonalds seeking legal protection for being the arbiter of what is and is not a hamburger.
This is a hilarious thing to say in a thread about potential discrimination.
...That is like asking if it is something significant besides their ability to live.
Pretty sure no one was denied recognition. Just denied public funding at the public school.
Perhaps I should have worded it differently. I'm not familiar with the structure of most college student groups, never bothering to join myself. Is every member supposed to be a voting member? Is it a smaller group out of the entire group? If every member is supposed to vote that's different from a small council of 5 that states the groups mission or whatever they do.
If you wish:
Making rules so that you can freely discriminate between members of your club isn't any better then making rules where you discriminate against people joining your group.
So, clubs aren't allowed to have officers or other stratification of members?
At my wife's job they have an African-American Interest Group which, as you can imagine, is all black in membership...except for this one white guy. Oh, and there was a lot of grumbling from men about the fact that there is a Women's Interest Group. Someone finally told them that they were not excluded from that group, and that they should just start a Men's Interest Group rather than just sitting around and complaining.
My school doesn't even allow those.
This is a better way of putting what I was thinking about.
Of course you can. But you can't discriminate on who can become one. What if there was a rule only men could ever get voting rights in certain groups? Can you not see how that would be... bad
I just realized the Netherlands had pretty much the same court case as this. only in parliament.
We have a political party (SGP) who are Christian Fundamentalists (capital letters warranted). They're biblical literalists, and as such, firmly believe that a womans role is to serve and support his man. Thus, they reasoned, women should not be allowed to lead, and so they only place men in electable positions.
And our High Court ruled the same: While you can be allowed to have this notion as an ideal, state statutes do not allow any funding towards discriminating parties, and thus their state funding was cut off.
Right, but the referenced issue was signing a pledge to become a voting member. That's not discrimination in the same way that saying "only men can become voting members".
Probably not a very good analogy, but I'm just typing out loud.
Well, a group that believes black people are inferior shouldn't get public funding either.
Just because you believe something doesn't mean you're not being astoundingly ignorant and discriminatory.
"We don't say only men can be voting members, we just require you to swear an oath that you have a penis before you can become a voting member."
I suppose you could infer that's what I meant.
Did they say that gay people were inferior?
Well, by claiming that it's a sinful lifestyle, I would say yes they did.
In the sense that living in sin is inferior to living a godly life, sure. But that's beside the point, the point being that by excluding gay people from membership the club violated the school's nondiscrimination policy.
Right, well, being a member of the GOP doesn't make you a member of a suspect class. Since gay people are a suspect class in California, the government has to prove a compelling state interest for the discriminatory practice. A Christian club on campus is not exactly a matter of national security. There is no compelling state interest for funding this particular discriminatory practice and so the state university should not fund the student organization.
edit: whoop, lazegamer deleted.
Yeah, sorry about that, I wanted to rephrase.
I haven't found dialogue in the ruling that says that they aren't allowed to discriminate because orientation is a suspect class. The ruling suggests to me that a university can ban any discriminatory practice, including political. I don't think that you can receive funding for a political group if you aren't open to all members.
Well, if that is Hasting's policy then yeah, the club was wrong. I'm a Christian and that's a good ruling.
It's probably true that a Democratic student group would have to accept membership from anyone, even Republicans, and vice versa. That seems fine to me - it all comes down to funding and recognition. These students are paying tuition, and the school is supported by public taxes. The school gives some of that money to officially recognized groups, and any student should be able to join any of the groups without exception.
Obviously not many Republicans would want to join a Democratic group - the self-selecting nature of a student group is part of the whole reason to have one in the first place. But the option to join has to be open to everyone; otherwise you get discrimination, and who's going to decide if any one member is "Democratic" enough to remain a member? "He said he appreciated Bush's efforts in Africa! BURN HIM!" No. If a Democrat joins a Republican group just to be a dickhole and shit all over people's beliefs, kick him out for being a disruptive dickhole. But when there are discriminatory guidelines to membership, like "You must be a card-carrying member of X party!" or "You must be straight!", all you're doing is supporting discrimination and witch-hunts. And you're using public funds to do it.
/facepalm
Okay, no, it's not a very good analogy. But please realize that "homosexual lifestyle" is one of those buzzphrases used by people who disapprove of the gay. It's the polite-company version of "sodomites".
The law school has an anti-discrimination policy which follows state law. If a group is going to try and make itself Official, so as to get money from that law school, it has to follow the school's policies. Refusing to do so, and asking for money, is like a teenager insisting he won't do his chores because he doesn't believe in domestic labor but hey, Dad, can I have forty bucks to go hang out with the guys?
If the White Heritage Law Students' Group refused to let members vote unless they signed a pledge disavowing the "race-mixing lifestyle", I don't think anybody would be arguing the law school ought to hand them money.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
The one very obvious problem with this is that the group is trying to represent all Christians and then you have reality interfering where people "living a homosexual lifestyle" can also be Christians.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I was also a member of College Democrats.
I was a member of the Federalist Society in law school and they were perfectly aware that I was not a conservative or libertarian. In fact, they thought it was awesome, because (my chapter - not the national organization) believed that civil debate was paramount and that if your opinions couldn't stand up to rational discussion with somebody from a different political philosophy, they weren't worth having. They also brought in speakers to debate issues of political interest and made damn sure that the 'liberal' speaker was equally as formidable as the guy whose viewpoints they favored.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
We don't have any Christian martyrs in this thread, we need to create some.
We actually had protestors outside one of our events dealing with affirmative action. Which was weird, because the event involved a couple of academics talking about recent court rulings on affirmative action and their predictions on how the courts would rule in a few cases that were on their dockets. We really couldn't figure out why anyone would find the event controversial. But, I guess some undergrads saw "Affirmative Action" on the flyers and decided to get their protest on.
Rigorous Scholarship
True. I have made it a rule never to judge any philosophy, religion or political movement based on what its self-described adherents were like in college. Otherwise I wouldn't be talking to anybody.
Well, except maybe for Objectivists. In college I belonged to a small pro-First Amendment Rights group (which you would think is pretty non-controversial), and for some reason the Objectivists decided we were anti-Objectivists or communists or something - we never figured out quite what it was - and they would very deliberately and ostentatiously rip down or cover up every poster we put up announcing a meeting.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
well, I think this goes to my ignorance about the structure of college groups and who is a voting member and how you become one. Is everyone who signs up to join the club automatically a voting member? Or are voting members a small group out of the whole club?
Aside from all that, lazegamer posted a quote that said Hasting's policy was that you couldn't prevent people that disagreed with your ideology from becoming voting members. So my question is moot anyway. CLS is wrong.