Tweet
Via Jonathan Turley, an issue that is a big to-do at this Christian university.
I have previously discussed the collision between anti-discrimination laws and free exercise of religion. Now, Vanderbilt University has stripped a Christian student organization of official recognition (and presumably funding) because it requires its members to have a personal commitment to Jesus Christ.
On one hand, the move reflects the university’s view that school-supported groups must be open to all students. The Supreme Court in March turned down a similar case.
The group’s constitution stated “Criteria for officer selection will include level and quality of past involvement, personal commitment to Jesus Christ, commitment to the organization, and demonstrated leadership ability.” The group was reportedly not approved because the university took issue with a requirement that leaders have a “personal commitment to Jesus Christ.” They were told to remove the requirement, which would seem a reasonable expectation for members.
University Provost Richard McCarty insisted that it was merely “rejecting discrimination and not . . . restricting religious freedom.”
Turley goes on to ask a logical question – if all students are allowed into a student group, is it unreasonable to limit the officers in that group to those who subscribe to those faith-based beliefs of the group? If so, what if another group decided to use race or gender requirements for those officer positions? Discuss.
8 Comments
The group’s constitutional requirement seems like a solution in search of a problem. I think it so unlikely that the membership would vote in an officer who did not stand for the group’s goals that it should be unnecessary to stipulate anything about the officer.
In my opinion, “personal commitment to Jesus Christ” has little to do with being Christian, so I agree that it’s a religious requirement – it favors specific types of Christians above others. Also, if someone believed in a branch of Christianity that the majority of members opposed, it’s pretty unlikely that they’d be elected anyway – or that they thought that their other assets more than made up for that issue.
I’m a student at Vandy, and this has been a hot topic for months!
All I wanted to say is that Vanderbilt is not a Christian university – or affiliated with any church or denomination – as is indicated by the first line of the post.
It would be very difficult to be a CHRISTian WITHOUT a personal commitment to Jesus CHRIST, as he is the reason for the name. One simply can NOT be a Christian without Christ so I’m confused with how that favors a specific type of Christian, because if you are one, it really does require a personal commitment to Christ.
To answer Turley’s question, in my view I think actually having some direct connection is warranted in some cases. I don’t think having a requirement to actually BE a committed Christian is not out of place in a Christian Club. Does an Atheist REALLY have a right to be their President? It’s sorta like the Walker recall elections, shouldn’t someone running in a Democratic Party Primary actually have to BE a Democrat? (I know that Their courts said No to that, but it shouldn’t have).
There’s a missing piece here. Somewhere in the facts is a set of money or support from the state, and when an organization gets money from the state, then the non-discrimination rules trigger. You can have whatever religious org you want and make it all about religious conformity, etc, but you can’t then ask the state to support/fund you.
I think that the point is that although an atheist can try, chances are that he or she will simply not be elected. Requiring that of someone to just run for the office is one thing, actual elections are another.
If I’m not mistaken, Vanderbilt is a private university, i.e., not state-supported, so the issue of state support for a religious organization is moot. The only connection that I can see, since Vanderbilt is heavy on research, is funding coming from government grants, but that would be focused on particular programs and not count toward support of student organizations.
That said, Vanderbilt’s own nondiscrimination policies would seem to be the determining factor here, and the university does seem to be heavily committed to diversity in the student body, so it would seem fairly obvious that the “personal commitment to Christ” requirement would be seen as discriminatory. (And in answer to Rob @ #4, “personal commitment” is a phrase used in evangelical Christianity; it may be assumed in mainstream denominations, but it’s not something you’re going to hear from a Cathoic or Lutheran, so yes, it does indicated a requirement to subscribe to a certain brand of Christianity. As several commenters have pointed out, it’s also a relatively brainless requirement on the part of the club — one would assume that the officers are elected, and do the organizers really think that someone who doesn’t subscribe to their ideals is going to be elected as an officer?