Let them discriminate all they want, just as long as they’re being compared to a group that doesn’t.

Reading Stefano and Tim, I have to question whether any organization that seeks to promote aggressively negative policies that impact fellow students outside their group should be suprised when they are restricted on campuses. I would argue that this organization, by taking a stance that was actively hostile to a constitutive characteristic of students outside their group was implicitly harrassing other students and impacting their student experience. I know if I were paying what it costs to attend Cornell and had to deal with these jerks on campus telling me how worthless I was, and worse, had to pay to support them, I might have to reconsider whether my school really had my interests at heart.

I don’t see any organizations on campuses that take the stance that being Christian is something that needs to be remedied. One might lobby conservative Christians to reconsider their stance and behavior as it pertains to homosexuality, but that’s not at all the same thing – you don’t see organizations that attempt to encourage anyone to walk away from their faith, just to temper some of their comments.

If we swapped “gay” for “black”, that group would be barred from campus altogether. I think that a university does have the right to restrict speech that impacts individuals outside the group – that is, “hate” speech (I use the term loosely) – to the point that the university should not be cowed into lending their good name, their floor space, or their funding to the promotion of intolerance.

Now, that’s a very fine line between academic freedom and censorship. But what gives anyone the right to attack other students – not for their beliefs, but for their identity? Regardless of the treatment of the student in question, the organization should have been politely asked to refrain from creating a hostile environment – there is plenty else to discuss about their own faith, it baffles me that they feel the need to attack others. On the matter of homosexuality, perhaps, they could just remain silent. This business of every controversial issue requiring equal representation of voices on both sides – even if one side is lunatic fringe, and the other side is main stream – lends credence to groups bent on driving marginalized others out of the public square, and that has a real impact in terms of student health and performance.

No group has the right to intolerance, and the “intolerance of intolerance” is not itself aggressive nor intolerant. It’s a refusal to be bullied.

Donohoe may well have been elected by the Chi Alpha student body, but according to the editorial linked to he wasn’t deposed by the student body. He was deposed by Chi Alpha’s pastors, Matt and Tracy Herman, who unilaterally took it upon themselves to remove Donohoe from his post without the approval of any of the group’s student members.

Well, as far as I’m concerned, that settles it. Non-democratic groups shouldn’t get University funding. It’s as simple and straightforward as that.

TRiG.

Even among Conservative Christians (which I would include Catholics) being gay is not a sin. Coming out as gay doesn’t admit to any sin, it may only be an admission that one recognizes one’s attractions and accepts that fact. Now yes, some Christians bristle at that. But there is no sin by any reading of the Bible which is then committed…. so why should he be denied by the group? Frankly, I think Chi Alpha likely broke their own rules.

My high school had a Muslim Club where I, for a year, attended weekly as a devout (and rather loud) Christian. There were happy to have me as well as a Hindu that came sparingly. The Jewish group was equally welcoming. The larger your audience, the larger your pulpit.

My Christian college necessitated that chartered organizations not exclude any group of people. Thus the women’s group could not kick out men. While I have an interest in all things gender, their patriarchal values disgusted me. I attended once and left early because I chose to, not because they kicked me out. When a group spews out adverse values, why would you want to stay? Unlike the Internet, college groups have an extra incentive against making trouble – your reputation and friendships with those in the group. After kicking up a little feminist dust in the women’s group, I decided I’d rather not be perceived as the loudmouth jerk.

My opinion on Chi Alpha is that a student group (if they receive schools funds or favors) should not exclude attendance but may exclude leadership for any reason. If Chris wants to go hear anti-gay lectures, no one should stop him. And Chi Alpha should have the freedom to choose any leadership. And the next time Chi Alpha’s charter comes up for renewal, Cornell has the freedom to fund or not fund that leadership and those lectures.

I don’t when it happened; but, several years after that, the group ceased to exist. But, in the 1990s, there was a new Chi Alpha group. They had no record of the original group existing when I corresponded with them. They now have a place to meet off campus.

I belonged to a Chi Alpha group when I was a student at Northeastern State College in Tahlequah, Oklahoma in the 1960s. In fact I was the founding President in the fall of 1963 and was the president for 3 semesters. The office was taken over by the VP since my last semester was off campus doing intern teaching.

The Assemblies of God has an official Position Paper on Homosexuality that was adopted in 1979 and revised in recent years but it is full of sterero typical language.

That’s right Stefano, so many seem to think its honourable to allow people a religious exemption to discriminate against gays or married same sex couples, but no one would think its honourable to allow a reigious exemption to discriminate against blacks or jews – quite a double standard.

Indeed!

And Chi Alpha is not being told they cannot be a formally recognized organization on campus because of their beliefs. The only caveat is the conditions placed on funding. The same caveat that the courts have applied in cases such as the “wedding pavillion”, adoption charities, or other faith-based social service organizations.

With regard to addressing the issue of being deposed from office vs. being expelled from Chi Alpha, however, faith-based social service organizations, I think, in some situations are allowed to discriminate in terms of hiring, and still receive funding. I’m not clear on when they are and are not allowed to do that and still receive funding. So with regard to Donohoe specifically that type of situation might be more applicable to this situation.