Aja Frost
[follow id=”ajavuu”]
Aja Frost is an English sophomore and Mustang News opinion columnist. These views do not necessarily reflect the opinion or editorial coverage of Mustang News.
I’m an agnostic.
But it wouldn’t be completely bizarre for me to join Cal Poly’s Campus Crusade for Christ (Cru) chapter. After all, I could meet cool people, get involved in the local community, fill up my social calendar and maybe even have some stimulating debates about religion.
But what if I wanted to join Cru’s officer board? I don’t share the group’s core values about religion or its mission to “Win, build and send Christ-centered multiplying disciples who launch spiritual movements.”
Should Cru be able to stop me from being an officer? What about making major club decisions — would I get a vote?
This is where things get fuzzy.
In September, the California State University (CSU) system “derecognized” the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship chapters on all 23 CSU campuses. Derecognition means no funding, no campus meeting space and no representation at on-campus events. While its actual existence isn’t threatened, the change in status is a huge blow to a club’s campus reputation and influence.
InterVarsity was derecognized because the ministry’s bylaws say leaders of the group must self-identify as Christian. In addition, potential leaders must sign a statement of faith before attempting to take on further responsibilities.
According to CSU officials, this violates CSU policy and state law.
“They want their leaders to have specific values,” said Mike Uhlenkamp, director of public affairs at the Chancellor’s Office. “If you force someone to sign a form, you are discriminating by making them say they are a Christian.”
Instead of making religious beliefs a leadership qualification, Uhlenkamp recommended the club use clearly secular criteria such as skills tests or attendance records.
However, the CSU system’s decision to take away InterVarsity’s club privileges based on discriminatory practices seems unfair because it’s a targeted policy, not a blanket one. There are other significant on-campus presences that practice discrimination in their member policies: greek organizations.
Sororities and fraternities are allowed to gender discriminate because of Title V, which permits gender segregation. It’s been argued that the integral purpose of greek organizations would be harmed if gender segregation wasn’t permitted. After all, “sorority” comes from the medieval Latin word “sororitas,” or sisterhood, and “fraternity” comes from the medieval Latin word “fraternalis,” or “of or pertaining to a brother.”
But doesn’t the same logic hold true for InterVarsity? Its integral purpose — “establishing and advancing communities of students … who follow Jesus as Savior and Lord” — would be contradicted if someone who didn’t share its beliefs tried to assume control.
Though this sounds rather paranoid, Nathan Honeycutt — former president of the Cal Poly College Republicans Club — told me last year about a coup in the late ‘90s by Democrats who had joined the club.
“They formed a voting bloc and tried to sabotage the club,” he said.
When I interviewed him, Honeycutt was working on a campaign to end open membership or make some clubs exempt from the policy.
“We have local community members who donate money to our club so we can pursue these objectives,” he told Mustang News in February. “And if we can’t protect that, then really, what’s the purpose of our club?”
However, Associated Students, Inc. (ASI) denied Honeycutt’s campaign.
While sabotage certainly wouldn’t be the first priority of every person who joined a group with beliefs to which he or she didn’t adhere, it’s fair for student organizations to safeguard their mission and purpose. After all, that’s why they’re on campus in the first place.
And clearly, the CSU system recognizes that some discriminatory membership policies are necessary. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have all-male and all-female greek organizations.
Just because a club has a religious focus doesn’t mean it has less of a right to be judicious about its members. By derecognizing the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and prohibiting political organizations from restricting membership to those who share their beliefs, this policy actually restricts students’ freedoms by muddying their causes and blurring their purposes.
And though the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship still continues to exist, derecognition means it’s effectively been removed from campus — suppressing free speech.
As I said, I’m an agnostic. I’m also a female liberal. Do I believe I should be able to participate in important club decisions for Cru, a Cal Poly sorority or Cal Poly College Republicans? No, I do not.
The freedom to practice one’s beliefs is sacred. The freedom to practice another’s beliefs is not.
What a great piece. I admire the author for her clear thinking, logic, and honesty. Clubs and organizations have a mission and purpose. Only those who are like minded in leadership positions
help fulfill those missions. I hope that those who want to open doors and end “discrimination,” see that this policy only makes all clubs and organizations ineffective.
The big issue is the way the club funding works (in part) is
Federal -> State -> School -> ASI -> Club
this precludes the school or clubs from violating the US constitution.
No, not really.
For starters, ASI gets their money from student fees, and in turn student fees fund the club funding money pool.
Second, even if ASI money did come from the School/State/Federal Govt. it wouldn’t matter. There is nothing in the US Constitution (or laws, legal precedents, etcetera) that says clubs can’t have requirements for who can be leaders and members in their club. This policy is something that the CSU decided to create and enforce not because they have to, but because they want to.
Read more here: http://www.thefire.org/christian-legal-society-v-martinez-frequently-asked-questions/
More than that, the First Amendment grants the right of free association. It’s important that people be allowed to limit membership in organizations to those that are interested in the same set of core principles.
Think about it … should David Duke be able to insist on membership in the NAACP? Of course not. They have a right to exclude him, as his membership is contrary to their values. The same principle applies here.
I tell you, the disrespect for the First Amendment in this country in the name of political correctness is frightening. 🙁
No one is preventing free speech.
Well, that’s pretty conclusory, eh? They are violating the 1ST amendment right to free association.
Doesn’t free association mean I should be free to associate with anyone I wish to associate with, and if I want to associate with a group that doesn’t want me in their group, isn’t THAT a violation of the right?
Uh .. no. You don’t have a right to demand membership in a private group. Have you tried getting into an honor’s society with crappy grades lately?
What it means is that you can start your own club and exclude whoever does not comport with the goals and directives of that club.
Nice try, however.
you are forgetting that the NCAAP is a private run organization vs a government run school. HUGE difference.
And you’re forgetting that the clubs we are talking about are not government run clubs.
The issue here is whether the government can deny a club access to public facilities that it provides to other private clubs because that club is exercising their right to free association. The answer is … no they cannot.
Again … try to get yourself admitted into an honors club sponsored by the campus with crappy grades. Ain’t gonna happen for the same reason.
Actually, you are incorrect. Please see my post above.
Funding for the on campus organization referenced in this article comes from mandatory, student activities fees, imposed without exception, on all students. (see Opinion – CLS v. Martinez) Thus, the benefits from these fees (in this case ASI club membership, involvement, etc.) must be made available to all students, regardless of status.
Before the “open membership” requirement was instituted (back when clubs were able to have membership and leadership restrictions) fees were already available to all students. Any student can/could start any sort of club they could possibly desire. If a person looks at the list of active clubs on campus and does not see one that fits their needs or desires, they can start their own, and can then apply for club funding (it is quite a simple process). Again, read info in the FIRE article, it has a lot of great info: http://www.thefire.org/christian-legal-society-v-martinez-frequently-asked-questions/
Actually, the two clubs in question are not “clubs” at all so they weren’t receiving funding from the campus or ASI in the first place. They were registered as ISOs (Independent Student Organizations) because they have their own outside funding which is still in place. But because they—like Birdman pointed out—are maintaining that one of the key qualifications to be a leader within their faith-based organizations is that you must actually adhere to the beliefs of that faith, they have lost their status as a “club” which limits their access to having students recognize their presence on campus.
Membership has always been open to anyone in religious organizations, that’s how intellectual and theological dialogue can happen. But I don’t think it’s asking much of the CSU system for a Christian organization to say “Hey, we’d like the people in leadership to actually be Christian.” Otherwise, what function does that club or group of people serve if they aren’t able to maintain their core values among its leaders?
Even as an ISO they are still a chartered club, which allows access to reserving on-campus space (for example the UU, Rec Center, multiple classrooms, etc.) and are allows the group ASI affiliation. Even if direct membership is not supported by campus funding, their actions on campus are. This is because ASI does receive funding from student fees. (The article stated that InterVarsity Christian Fellowship would lose funding, which is what led me to believe that they were an ASI club.)
No one is requiring individuals with dissenting religious views to hold leadership positions in these organizations, it is only requiring that these individuals are given the opportunity to be voted into them.
The only thing they both should be losing is free use of State facilities, or any other aid, paid for by people who are excluded from their club and/or their leadership. Frankly I agree. I don’t want to provide them a subsidy, or any other group requiring loyalty oaths.
Isn’t this actually a ‘separation of church and state’ issue? Not just a matter of loyalty oaths, but a formalized religious organization getting funding from the State of California?
incorrect. It is a state funded school, meaning that the government pays partial tuition. A private school is self funded. You are confusing the fact that paying a smaller tuition means you are paying a full tuition.
Uhlenkamp, a CSU Administrator, recommends the use of “secular criteria such as skills tests.” The problem with skills tests is per the policy they aren’t even allowed; skills tests would be a method of precluding certain segments of the student body from membership (as such Honor Societies aren’t permitted to restrict membership to only honor students, etcetera). Not only is this policy disastrous, but it appears CSU Administrators fail to even understand their own policy… Great article and insight. Time now to hold CSU Administrators accountable for their errors and make them admit their mistake and fix it; time to unify and work toward getting this policy eliminated.
But testing as you said weighs the contestant’s merit. If I read the article correctly, the criterias suggested are not set for membership but for leadership positions. I’ll entertain your example for fun still, if honors societies aren’t allowed to hold standards for their members base on the merits, then even a dumb person can trumpet his enrollment in the honors society. What is the point of having the honors system then? Back to the original point, I’d rather have a leader determined by secular merits rather than religious faith. However I do agree disbanding an entire chapter is excessive and should be reconsidered..
Yeah, the article focuses on leadership positions, but the policy referenced also deals with club membership (read here: http://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-1068.html). Membership and leadership must be open to all students. My example that you entertained for fun is precisely one of the key problems with the policy. It seems silly, but given the current policy yes, a “dumb person” can now join an honor society and “trumpet [their] enrollment in the honor society.” If the honor society tries to keep people out, they will likely be kicked off campus. Like you said, this defeats the point of even having an honor society. This is a reason among many for why the policy is terrible and needs it be eliminated. (It’s disappointing to hear, though, that according to this article student government has dropped the ball on something they should clearly be supporting students on).
Regarding having a leader determined by secular merits rather than religious faith. Sure, for some groups that would be fine, but for religious groups since they are religious they would like to tack on that extra element. Religious faith for them is a sort of merit qualification. Just like for an environmental group, for instance, they would want their leaders to believe in their cause and stances on environmental issues. An overarching point is that campuses have a diverse assortment of student groups that represent a variety of interests, and as such each should be able to have individualized requirements for leadership (or membership) if they desire and if it is necessary for their group. This policy is trying to implement a one size fits all model which does not work and is instead hurting many students and student groups.
This decision is hardly up to CSU administrators. It is based on a ruling by the Supreme Court, which is to apply to all public colleges and universities across the nation.
Incorrect. Check out the FIRE link I have in reference to “Goldman60’s” comment. The CSU ‘back when’ targeted the Christian Legal Society because they did not like how the group required their leaders to be Christian (or sign a statement of faith or something). The case went all the way to the Supreme Court where the court decided the CSU could have an all-comers policy, but the policy must be evenly applied (content-neutral). The court did not hold that an “‘all-comers’ policy is required, desirable, effective, or even practical” (quote from the FIRE link). The decision is completely up to the CSU. The court did not rule that the CSU (or any public university) is required to have an “open membership” policy, but that for the time being “open membership” policies would be allowed to exist. If your logic were true, every public university in the US would be required to have and enforce an “open membership” policy, which clearly is not the case. In fact, many states have passed legislation forbidding public universities from instituting “open membership” requirements. (http://www.thefire.org/north-carolina-governor-signs-bill-protecting-religious-and-political-groups-on-campus/)
I see my error here, however the policy that is being implemented has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as upholding the Constitution. The article that you are referring to does bring up an interesting argument, however it carries a strong bias. See the quote from another perspective – the court may not have backed these open membership policies nor called them practical but they also did not discourage their use or call them impractical. Our disagreement is in the interpretation of the First Amendment. No one is requiring individuals with dissenting religious views to hold leadership positions in these organizations, it is only requiring that these individuals are given the equal opportunity to be voted into them.
Is there somewhere we can see the rules other clubs have? I looked at the school’s list of clubs, and I suspect there are some others whose leadership positions would not be open to all comers. Chabad’s website says: “Chabad is a place for all Jews regardless of their affiliations or ties.” “We’re open to every Jewish student, Reform, Orthodox, Conservative, or any Jew that moves.” It doesn’t mention whether or not a Muslim or Christian could be on the leadership team. And I suspect that the Muslim Student Association wouldn’t be any more open to a Christian or Jewish leader, either, but I can’t find that info on their website. I notice that the Society of Black Engineers and Scientists welcomes only minorities. Clubs on campus are generally organized around a specific shared interest, and that sharing that interest – believing in the group’s goals and premise – would be a logical requirement for leadership in that organization. Not sure I understand why InterVarsity was singled out.
From their site:
Q: Do only religious people come to Chabad?
A: Chabad is
a place for all Jews regardless of their affiliations or ties. Many of
the students who come to Chabad are not religious, some with a little
Jewish education, and others with none at all. One of the the exciting
things about Chabad is one can meet people from all walks of life.
Judaism can be a cultural and/or ethnic identification. You can in fact have a Jewish Christian, Jewish Atheist, etc. So the club is easily in the clear on that ground
separation of church and state. christian or any religious groups have no place on state or public colleges. peroid
I fail to see how a club on a University campus has anything to do with separation of church and state. The “state” does not force anyone to join, support, or otherwise participate in it. And there is no shortage of clubs with other viewpoints and/or purposes on campus as well.
Uh … Freedom of Speech and association. The government cannot ban groups from state or public colleges based on their political or religious beliefs.
P-e-r-i-o-d.
Too bad you don’t understand what “separation of church and state” actually means. This ‘separation’ simply means that a governing body should not be influenced or have religious affiliation. That has nothing to do with campus clubs where students sharing similar beliefs hang out together. Please learn what things mean before just spouting them and pretending you know what it means.
If you were to have an “anti-religion on campus” club, you would obviously want it to be lead by members such as yourself correct? People who share your views? Well according to this ‘policy’, someone who is pro-religion on campus can come in and run for president and you cannot say no because he/she doesn’t share your views nor can you ask this person.
Glad to see the good discussion and interest generated around this important issue.
A CSU-wide organization was launched to unite advocacy efforts on removing or revising this “open membership” policy.
Check out http://www.CSUSOFA.org to learn more about this issue or to join the coalition.
Would we see a Jewish leader in a Muslim Student Organization in California? Somehow, I doubt it.
First off, the article completely disregards that this ruling is based off of a 2012 Supreme Court decision (Christian Legal Society v. Martinez) aimed at public colleges and universities and was NOT arbitrarily decided by the CSU Board.*
Funding for the on campus organization referenced in this article comes from mandatory, student activities fees, imposed without exception, on all students. (see Opinion – CLS v. Martinez) Thus, the benefits from these fees (in this case ASI club membership, involvement, etc.) must be made available to all students, regardless of status. It would be a violation of First Amendment Rights to say otherwise. Why should religious based organizations see an exception to the “all-comers” policy when groups like Democrats and Republicans would not? Unless you are suggesting that Democrats and Republicans should also not have to abide by this policy, which would open a whole other can of worms.
In addition, the columnist makes a false analogy by comparing this situation to Greek organizations. Fraternities and sororities are permitted to stay single-sex organizations because of an amendment to Title IX in 1974** (Not by Title V? I’m not sure what this is referring to) For length purposes, I will not get into this here. This article is missing many key facts to maintain credibility and make a strong argument.
As Justice Kennedy addressed in his argument, “doesn’t it work out that the Democrats…don’t want to go in the Republican club and run for officership anyway”? No one is REQUIRING individuals with dissenting religious views to hold leadership positions in these organizations, it is only requiring that these individuals are given the opportunity to be voted into them.
*http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_1371
**http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.afa1976.org/resource/collection/4A4303E6-62B2-48EB-91CF-F2096ED715ED/Smithhisler_and_Johnson_ADMINISTRATOR.pdf
To re-iterate my above comment:
Actually, the two clubs in question are not “clubs” at all so they weren’t receiving funding from the campus or ASI in the first place. They were registered as ISOs (Independent Student Organizations) because they have their own outside funding which is still in place. But because they—like Birdman pointed out—are maintaining that one of the key qualifications to be a leader within their faith-based organizations is that you must actually adhere to the beliefs of that faith, they have lost their status as a “club” which limits their access to having students recognize their presence on campus.
Membership has always been open to anyone in religious organizations, that’s how intellectual and theological dialogue can happen. But I don’t think it’s asking much of the CSU system for a Christian organization to say “Hey, we’d like the people in leadership to actually be Christian.” Otherwise, what function does that club or group of people serve if they aren’t able to maintain their core values among its leaders?
To re-iterate my response…
Even as an ISO they are still a chartered club, which allows access to reserving on-campus space (for example the UU, Rec Center, multiple classrooms, etc.) and are allows the group ASI affiliation. Even if direct membership is not supported by campus funding, their actions on campus are. This is because ASI does receive funding from student fees. (The article stated that InterVarsity Christian Fellowship would lose funding, which is what led me to believe that they were an ASI club.)
it is good that you took some time to actually research this before commenting–most people wouldn’t! To address a couple of your points (some of this may be repeating what I posted elsewhere in the comments section)
– Sure, the legality of “open membership” policies was not decided by the CSU, but the CSU did arbitrarily decided to create and enforce this policy–nobody is making the CSU have this policy (no state law, federal law, court ruling, etcetera). Again, the Court did not hold that an “‘all-comers’ policy is required, desirable, effective, or even practical.”
– Funding is discussed above in one of my other comments. Regarding religious groups being exempted from this policy: no, religious groups alone shouldn’t be exempted, many other groups should be as well (or better yet, just get rid of the policy and go back to how things were–things worked fine before!) Groups like the Democrats and Republicans should not have to abide by this policy. They too are a belief-based groups who should be able to restrict their membership and leadership.
-Lastly, sure, nobody is “requiring individuals with dissenting religious views to hold leadership positions in these organizations” but these organizations should have the right to institute requirements for leadership or requirements for membership in order to protect the mission, values, and purposes of their group, if they so desire. If these things cannot be protected–if clubs cannot have these sorts of requirements (as is the present case)–then their effectiveness in pursuing their mission and purpose can easily be compromised. We can hope individuals would try to sabotage other groups, but out of the slight chance of it being a possibility (and the significant damage that could occur) student groups should be able to protect themselves. By simply coming on campus they should not have to forfeit their rights.
This policy represents a very fine line and I think it will be up to personal opinion, no matter who you ask. Personally, I don’t see a problem with giving everyone the equal opportunity to participate and letting each organization decide on their own if they would vote an individual with different beliefs into a leadership position (who knows, maybe there is a religious organization who would do that).
My biggest issue here is actually with the article itself. The Supreme Court case, which plays a huge part in this argument, is not addressed once and there are huge flaws in the comparison to Greek life. The comments provide more stimulating and relevant information than the piece they accompany, which is what drew me to comment.
First the group is not disbanded, it is simply not recognized like the ski club, it is welcome to meet on campus, speak on campus etc., they just need to pay for space they want to use on campus. Although Ms. Frost does give that information earlier, she ends talking about suppression of free speech etc. No one says they can’t speak, they can’t make those that are not allowed to participate in leadership roles, PAY for them to use public facilities. The same would be true for a hate group, they would be allowed to speak on campus, but would not be allowed to use campus facilities for free, and any petitions asking for funding would be denied. I also am totally confused why Ms. Frost uses CRU as an example and then goes on to talk about IVCF. Why is CRU still recognized? now THAT seems to be an unfair decision showing favoritism and descrimintation to one group, and not another. Cal Poly and any other State University might be found in violation of the law for still recognizing some groups that also discriminate.
I’m just surprised that no one has brought up issue of their name. I mean they are commonly referred to as “CRU” or Cal Poly Crusades, right? The Crusades were a string of holy wars in which many were slaughtered for differing ideology. I like to think my point here is self evident, but let me know if I need to elaborate.
Please elaborate because I believe you are saying that because the word ‘crusaders’ is in their name, that they themselves are somehow related to the crusades that happened hundreds of years ago.
Edward has a good point here. We should also support the Washington Redskins because although their name may offend every Native American, to me it is a beloved football team and that’s all that matters.
Is this a joke?
First of all, CRU and Intervarsity are not the same organizations…the writer was just using CRU as an example of a club she as an agnostic might join but should obviously not be allowed to make any decisions. Intervarsity is the group that was derecognized.
Secondly, the Crusades were in the 11th-13th centuries. That is at least over 700 years ago. It’s possible the meaning may have changed for those that called themselves Campus Crusade for Christ. Campus Crusade was founded in the middle of the 20th century, when political correctness was not as it is now. At the time, crusade (of Billy Graham fame) took on a new meaning in the evangelical community- preaching to large crowds about the Christian message. As far as I know, no one has been killed at a Billy Graham Crusade or forced to make any decision. Now that meaning of revival has lost relevance and reverted to the original, especially for those not familiar with evangelical lingo, so Crusade becomes CRU, to be more PC and less offensive.
Forget about religion. Would ANY club on campus want someone who does not share the same views as they do to be the leader of their group? NO! Being a member and being a leader in these clubs are two completely separate things. I’m pretty sure the campus PETA group would never allow a meat eater to be their president/leader.
If Atheists organized a club on campus, would they be required to have “open membership” and accept all theists such as Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Catholics, etc., as members and officers?
This argument is a bit of a stretch. “Sharing beliefs” is not the same as being born a man or woman – something that is out of your control. A fraternity isn’t necessarily discriminatory unless sororities were banned from the same campus. Also, the University funds this with tuition and some tax payer money. The Government establishing a religion and excluding members based on religious views goes against the Constitution. I can see how this group is upset, but all they need to do is rewrite the bylaws and they’ll be back in business.
Who were the original leaders of the Christian revolution? None other than Jesus himself and a band of twelve, very diverse, men. Hand picked by Jesus, these men began to follow Him on a journey they had no clue how much it would change them. Did they sign a form proclaiming their loyalty to the cause? One in particular, the appointed treasurer, had his own agenda for the cause.
I think it is way to easy to get caught up in the “legal” issues of the cause and miss the purpose of the cause. Changing men’s lives!