Vanderbilt Christian Groups, Citing Religious Freedom, Follow Catholics Off Campus

By Annalisa Musarra
Religion News Service

(RNS) A coalition of 11 Christian student groups at Vanderbilt University are insisting their leaders should be chosen based on shared faith -- the newest front in a growing battle over "religious freedom."

The campus groups, who call themselves Vanderbilt Solidarity, joined together to oppose the university's "all-comers" policy, which says student groups must be open to all students, including in leadership, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion.

The religious groups say they cannot be led by students who do not share or profess their group's faith.

"Until recently, Vanderbilt explicitly protected the freedom of all student organizations to select members and leaders who shared and supported the group's purpose, including -- for religious groups -- its faith," the Solidarity groups said in a statement on Monday (April 9).

Claiming the policy violates "the central tenets of our faith," the faith-based groups applied for registered status on campus, but included their own constitutions containing faith-based requirements for leadership positions. If the school does not recognize the constitutions, the groups would be considered unregistered next year.

Solidarity's decision comes two weeks after another campus group, Vanderbilt Catholic, decided not to register as an official student organization because of the school's policy.

"All registered student groups at Vanderbilt must be open to all students, and members in good standing must have the opportunity to seek leadership positions," said Beth Fortune, vice chancellor for public affairs. "This debate is about nondiscrimination, not religious freedom, and we stand behind our policy."

The group of 11 urged the university to respect their religious freedom as they continue to share their beliefs on campus.

"Even while taking this action, we -- the religious students and ministries represented by Solidarity -- continue to pray that our much beloved University will change course."

Also on HuffPost:

Comments

[Peg McNabb]

03:20 PM on 03/05/2013

I don't understand all the hoopla. The non-discriminatory language states that anyone be allowed to RUN for office. It doesn't state that the group be forced to ELECT them. Just don't vote for them if you don't want them running your organization. Problem solved! Also, there could be many non-believers who are searching, or questioning, or want to know more and feel that joining the group may help them. If it's not their cup of tea, they'd find out quickly enough, particularly if they receive this kind of "welcome" from christians and leave. But when a group on campus chooses to be sponsored by the University, but whose by-laws state that only certain people can join, you're just asking for conflict. I can't imagine many blacks wanting to join a KKK group, nor do I envision many of the Jewish faith wanting to join a Nazi group. To think that many non-believers would actually want to join up with these folks seems moot, so this tempest is just being whipped up into a "religious freedom" froth of pseduo-indignation just like they're doing all over the country. You can't swing a stick without hitting someone or something religious in this country, yet they are the ones being persecuted and have no freedom. Give me a break.

[Larry Singleton]

12:03 PM on 12/15/2012

I wonder if they would impose this policy on the Muslim Student Association (MSA)?

[Larry Singleton]

11:58 AM on 12/15/2012

Read these books and you'll get an idea of what's happening on our campuses:

The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America by David Horowitz
Ivory Towers On Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America by Martin Kramer

[teva]

10:22 AM on 04/28/2012

I think this is ludicrous. The leader of a Christian group should indeed be a Christian, just as the leader of a camping group should like camping, and the leader of a cooking group should like to and know how to cook. This is really stupid.

[peter ricci]

09:51 PM on 05/07/2012

Do you think for one second the leader of a religious faith group would not be of that faith? All it is saying that you cannot discriminate against anyone based on their faith. Pretty simple and to be honest pretty tame!

[rcasha]

11:16 AM on 11/26/2012

Great, so the members of said Christian group should not vote for a non-Christian as their leader.

[scj1091]

09:12 PM on 04/19/2012

The real problem here is that Vanderbilt wants to have its cake and eat it too. Dean Bandas claims that "Religious groups enrich the life of our community and the quality of our education" and "We respect the right of student organizations, including religious student organizations, to define their own distinctive missions". But when a religious group expresses beliefs with which the university administration disagrees, it restricts the group in the name of non-discrimination. Leave aside for the moment the contradiction of discriminating to stop discrimination or tolerating everything except 'intolerance'. Really, then, Vanderbilt supports only those groups expressing views with which it agrees, and sanctions the rest. Which is a perfectly legitimate position for Vanderbilt to take as a private university. But honesty demands it come out and say that its commitment to religious groups and the marketplace of ideas is rather less vigorous than one might hope.

[detroitblkmale30]

10:49 AM on 04/19/2012

Do people really think it makes sense to force a Christian group to allow non believers to lead them?

Leaving what is likely aside, since this move makes it MORE likely, whereas it was IMPOSSIBLE before.

Do you or do you not think it makes sense for an atheist or non-Christian to be able to lead a Christian group?

Do you think it makes sense for a republican to lead a democratic group?

Does it make sense for a pro-lifer to be able to lead a pro-choice group?

Those are all things the university now requires.

YES or NO?”

[peter ricci]

09:56 PM on 05/07/2012

1. It requires you not to discriminate - simple
2. I am sure there are many people who lead religious groups that dont really believe in the scriptures/teachings of their groups. There are after all hundreds of fraud cases per year of people being taken for lots of $ by religious leaders.
3. Plenty of politicians switch sides. Most only care about being elected! Although rare, I doubt anyone who is a moderate would get elected. However look at republican candidates, you could not have had a more varied group and all moderates bar one, never got a look in!
4. It might not makes sense but people who were pro life have c hanged minds and vice versa

Yes or No? Yes and No :)

[StephenVandel]

02:57 PM on 03/02/2013

this is a student religious group , not a bunch of corrupt politicians
pro life to pro murder...dont think so

[StephenVandel]

03:03 PM on 03/02/2013

this is not about politicians and abortion

[stageplay]

06:40 PM on 04/17/2012

If these student organizations were privately funded, I would agree with them. But they are publicly funded; therefore, they do not have the right to discriminate against someone who either wants to join them and/or run for a leadership position, no matter the religious beliefs or non-beliefs of that person. The Constitution is clear on this.

[Loggietoad]

02:03 PM on 05/02/2012

These organizations are not publicly funded.

[heartfelt2]

02:02 PM on 05/07/2012

Excuse me , no , the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. "Congress
shall make no law . prohibiting the free exercise of religion ' It also guarantees freedom of speech
and freedom of association . A case similar to this was settled a few years ago
by the Supreme Court , which ruled in favor or freedom of association .

The School is in violation of the Constitution, Federal Law ( which rules
that you cannot discriminate against religious groups ) and State law

The University also receives more than $500,000,000 in funds from U.S.
tax- payers .

[peter ricci]

09:57 PM on 05/07/2012

Then if it is against constitution - which I doubt, then it will eventually be overturned.

[BernieDC]

03:44 PM on 11/14/2012

What complete nonsense. If the school DIDN'T allow anyone to join and lead any group THEN is would be in violation of the constitution.

[elarciel]

11:22 PM on 04/16/2012

Does this university receive federal funds?

[dimplasm]

03:25 PM on 04/17/2012

Yes.

[Nathaneal Green]

07:43 PM on 04/16/2012

Policies that curb discrimination are generally good. For example, policies that would prevent a campus chapter of the KKK should be pursued and lauded. However, Vanderbilt has shown a lack of judgment. If I understand their policy, it would require a campus sanctioned gay group to allow Muslims to join - even though those Muslims firmly believe homosexuality is a crime and should be punished by death - as is the prescribed punishment in some Muslim countries. Must Jews allow anti-Semites to join their group? Must an Agnostics allow Christians? A policy that encourages openness may have a good motive, but that motive must be subservient to the Constitutional right to assemble, which right of assembly for private organizations includes the right to exclude those whose beliefs are viewed as detrimental to the assembled group. Thus, the Boy Scouts of America are allowed to exclude gays and pedophiles from their organization. Vanderbilt has adbicated its opportunity to craft a policy that will protect Constitutional freedoms, including the right of assembly and right to be free from unwarranted discrimination.

[detroitblkmale30]

09:51 PM on 04/16/2012

Amen. Well said.

[Nathaneal Green]

11:23 AM on 04/17/2012

Thanks. I also appreciate your posts.

[BernieDC]

03:55 PM on 11/14/2012

Churches allow atheists to attend services, in fact they welcome them and welcome the opportunity to preach to them.

[4EverImmortessa]

04:55 PM on 04/16/2012

Typical Christian Creed-Religious freedom for all...As long as your religious and not a dirty atheist.SO AWESOME :/

[bi-poplar]

03:37 PM on 04/16/2012

Not a fan of religion, but wanting your religious group to be lead by someone of the same faith and views (however bakwards) seems pretty reasonable

[detroitblkmale30]

09:52 PM on 04/16/2012

Thank you for your balanced opinion and honesty.

[Hillbilly49]

09:11 AM on 04/16/2012

The Boys of Rome, do not seem to have a problem with insurance that covers Viagra and Cialis; just don't allow a woman to make medical decisions about her own body.  The Right Wing War on Women has Swiss Miss twenty-points down, in the most recent polls among women.  How is that War on Women work'n out for ya boys?

[acts4him]

10:27 AM on 02/16/2013

War on women is as much a farce as separation of church and state.

[Sunwyn Ravenwood]

08:32 AM on 04/16/2012

In 1963 on the Carleton College campus in the USA a group called The Reformed Druids of North America was created as a humorous protest against mandatory Sunday morning chapel attendance. Everyone was required to attend services unless they belonged to another religion. So the students created their own religion, based on the ancient Druids and then they could sleep late on Sunday morning. The requirement was soon withdrawn but the students enjoyed their religion so much that they continued to practice it and now there are a multitude of Druid Groves throughout the US. (The UK has its own Druid Orders.)

You have to watch out for these college student groups: who knows what they'll come up with next!

[NC Democrat 12]

10:32 PM on 04/15/2012

Why would any sane and informed college student want to lead a group of students that believe in ghostly spirits and learns their lessons from a book that no-one follows?

[xenubarb]

03:12 PM on 04/15/2012

Oh, this AGAIN?

This is the third time I've read this exact same story on different college campuses.

Why do these Christians think they should get preferential treatment for their bigotry?

In all these cases the school policy was clear; in order to enjoy the privilege and right of using school facilities, a club must abide by the rules, including rules of inclusion.

Abide, or walk. They chose to walk. Good for them. Now they won't have to deal with the hordes of gay people who would clearly want to join such a group of bigots and haters.

Stripped of all the religious cloaking it's this simple.

"This debate is about nondiscrimination, not religious freedom, and we stand behind our policy."

[detroitblkmale30]

04:00 PM on 04/15/2012

This is about religious freedom

Do you really think it makes sense to force a Christian group to allow non believers to lead them?

Don't talk to me about what's "likely"

Do you or do you not think it makes sense for an atheist or non-Christian to be able to lead a Christian group?

Do you think it makes sense for a republican to lead a democratic group?

Does it make sense for a pro-lifer to be able to lead a pro-choice group?

YES or NO?

[xenubarb]

04:41 PM on 04/15/2012

does it make sense for a publicly funded campus to give special privilege to a group that wishes to impose exclusion in violation of school bylaws?

YES OR NO?

[Hillbilly49]

06:04 PM on 04/15/2012

The Church of Rome has religious freedom; what they want to do is take away religious freedom from others.

[Hillbilly49]

06:03 PM on 04/15/2012

That is an outstanding post !  Keep on posting in the religious section.  F&F