Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyMay 4th, 2009
Vis-Ã -vis the discussion on here about the student at Cornell who was dismissed from a leadership position at Chia Alpha Christian fellowship for being openly gay. The student government, which had temporarily suspended funding for the organization, reinstated it. Now one of our readers, who is also a student at Cornell, has written a short piece about this, which I think brings up an interesting point: Is it right to view this as a religion-sexuality conflict? I’d be interested to hear what our readers think.
I was greatly disappointed to read that the Student Assembly has decided to reinstate funding to Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship following the discriminatory acts committed against one of its own members. The rationale for this decision is alluded to in the text of the Student Assembly Financial Committee\’s decision:
[I]n a case where religious pursuits conflict with sexual orientation, it is not clear which of the two categories should take priority.
The identification of the problem as being one between “religion” and “sexuality” was inappropriate and resulted in the SAFC\’s inability to act on behalf of its constituency. Had the SAFC seen the problem as one between a “student” who had been discriminated against by a “student group,” perhaps they would been better able to evaluate the case for potential recourse against Chi Alpha. Their task in this case should have been to evaluate a discriminatory act by a student group and take appropriate action, not to attempt to reconcile years of umbrage between religion and sexuality.
Had the SAFC not burdened themselves with the weight of attempting to cure major social issues (perhaps swine flu on next week\’s agenda?), they would have seen that revoking Chi Alpha\’s funds was the most appropriate course of action.
The Executive Committee is reported as having recognized that, “it was unclear whether Chi Alpha violated the goals of the Cornell University [Commitment to] Diversity.” Having glanced at the University\’s Commitment to Diversity, I see no ambiguity. Three of the four goals laid out in that document have clearly been violated by the Chi Alpha organization. Namely, “to ensure that the composition of …leadership reflects the composition of the broader society,” “to ensure that our community embraces and supports individuals from all… sexual orientation… groups in their chosen pursuits,” and “to ensure that individuals from all backgrounds achieve to their full potential.”
There is no question these tenets were violated by removing Chris Donohoe \’09 from his leadership position based solely on his sexual orientation. This further suggests that the SAFC has misidentified the issue at hand, and, in turn, their subsequent role in resolving the problem. It is clear from the University\’s diversity statement that acts of discrimination and intolerance are not welcome on campus and offer the SAFC a solid basis for revoking Chi Sigma\’s funding. Instead, we are currently faced with the reprehensible situation in which Chris continues to pay a student activity fee that funds an organization to which he is not allowed to contribute as a full and equal member. In an act of cowardice, the Student Assembly has failed to take action. The SAFC should revoke funding for Chi Alpha and send a clear message that our student activity fees will not be used to fund organizations that discriminate against members of the Cornell community whom they purport to serve.
— Patrick Ayscue
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Priya Lynn
May 4th, 2009
Once again, if this Christian fellowship had discriminated against a black student for having the mark of Ham, I wonder how many would be supporting that right – not many I’m sure and yet somehow when its discrimination against a gay student we’re supposed to respect their “deeply held beliefs”.
Timothy Kincaid
May 4th, 2009
I, for one, do not place diversity as a higher goal than freedom of thought.
When a university requires sacrifice at the alter of Diversity, it insists on a conformity that should be frightening to all who read here. When the principle of diversity effectively vetoes the principle of individuality and self-determination – whether of one person or one club – we tread dangerous waters.
There is no moral authority that the student group can claim for advancing Diversity and insisting that all student groups place their principles and beliefs subsidiary to this god that cannot also be claimed by the legislature of Utah to insist that all residents place equality as subsidiary to their god.
Timothy Kincaid
May 4th, 2009
Priya Lynn
Many of the fraternities at Cornell discriminate based on race. Alpha Phi Alpha, for example, which was founded at Cornell.
Priya Lynn
May 4th, 2009
So tell me Timothy, if this Christian group discriminated against a black student because of their religious beliefs would you support that?
Priya Lynn
May 4th, 2009
Also, I just did some checking and it appears to me you’re wrong – Alpha Phi Alpha does not discriminate on the basis of race. According to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Phi_Alpha
Hubert Humphrey was a member and from this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Humphrey
It appears the norweigan decendant was white.
Steve Krotz
May 4th, 2009
Clearly, Chi Alpha DID violate the inarguably stated tenets of Cornell University’s Commitment to Diversity.
This whole thing is the same tactic opponents of GLBT rights use when they refuse to stop using phrases like “life style choice.” If they had to admit that being gay ISN’T a choice but an intrinsic part of a person’s biological makeup, the supposed logic of all of their arguments would simply evaporate.
By mudding the waters with the ambiguous and highly suspect premise that this situation was a question between religion and sexuality made it easier, for them, to justify removing the student from his leadership position.
This is a shameful blight on the reputation of the SAFC and the reputation and sincerity of Cornell University itself for not stepping in to rectify this travesty of justice. It makes their diversity commitment seem very, very hollow.
Kudos to Patrick Ayscue. It was a well written and very persuasive piece.
Timothy Kincaid
May 4th, 2009
If a religious group held specific beliefs about race and if they were punished for those beliefs and not for exclusion of individuals based on race, then yes I would defend them.
Donohoe was not removed from leadership because he was a same-sex attracted person. He was removed from leadership because his beliefs did not conform to the teachings of the group.
You seem to want to make this about him being a gay person (like an African American being a “son of Ham”). But this is not about he being gay, it’s about him believing that it is OK to live as a gay man.
This isn’t a novel distinction here at this site. We all know about those same-sex attracted persons who are allowed to be part of conservative religion because their beliefs are consistent with theirs. Randy Thomas leaps to mind.
This is not about discrimination based on orientation. This is about a demand for conformity of thought. This is about deifying Diversity and insisting that we all bow down and worship.
I prefer that my gods not be forced upon me by any authorities, be they the Southern Baptist Convention or the student body of Cornell.
Timothy Kincaid
May 4th, 2009
You didn’t do your homework. Humphrey was an “honorary brother”. Trust me, Alphi Phi Alpha is a black fraternity. The day that they had a member of any race that decided to espouse views that were hostile to the membership’s views, they would not be in positions of leadership.
That’s settled and not relevant to the topic. I refuse to be distracted from an obvious attempt to force Chi Alpha to conform to specific beliefs.
grantdale
May 4th, 2009
Tell me Timothy – what is a “Christian” group? ie which “Christian” type do you mean. Do they get to chose? Or not? Especially if they just call themself “Christian”.
The school isn’t insisting on conformity, that club is; it seems. The right to do so is another issue.
You’re third paragraph doesn’t even make sense. Really, read it. I have read it s.l.o.w.l.y, and it is still gobbledygook. It’s blithering nonsense, frankly. What is it that you actually wanted to say?
“When the principle of diversity effectively vetoes the principle of individuality and self-determination” — I’m not even going to start with that. It’s a self-contained contradiction. A principle of diversity need not permit the KKK, because the KKK are not. That isn’t philosophy, it’s how life works.
Timothy, help us here! State what you wanted to say. You are normally very clear, but not with that post. Help!!! :)
GaySolomon
May 4th, 2009
Frankly the matter strikes me as incredibly straightforward:
Chi Alpha may choose or “unchoose” whomever they wish to serve them in a leadership position.
Cornell may choose to withdraw funding from any subsidiary organization which does not conform to their anti-discrimination policies.
If Cornell does not have the fortitude to enforce their own anti-discriminatin policies, then shame on them.
The rest is simply special pleading for religion.
Timothy Kincaid
May 4th, 2009
Kindly point out where I used the word “Christian”. The particular faith in question is irrelevant. I would feel the same if a Jewish group removed from leadership some student that converted to Messianic Judaism. Or if a student group that supported racial harmony removed from leadership a member that adopted racial supremacy.
I erred in using the word “group” twice with diffent meanings. Let me set the stage:
The argument in this piece is that Diversity is the issue, not religion or orientation. Diversity is the moral authority claimed for punishing Chi Alpha.
Note, this is not small-d diversity in which there are differing peoples and differing views and differing concepts. This is capital-d Diversity which insists that “the composition of leadership reflects the composition of the broader society”.
In other words, this Diversity is not diverse. Rather it is a homogeneous form of “diversity” which relies on cookie-cutter ratios.
Now, of course, this Diversity does not apply to some groups. There is no reflection of broader society in the composition of Alpha Phi Alpha, or the Muslim Education and Cultural Association, or the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgendered Veterinarians, or even the Society for Women and Law. In these cases Diversity is served by the lack of diversity.
But for some reason, we think that Diversity is a moral good when applied to Chi Alpha. It trumps the commonality of the group and insists instead that Chi Alpha subjugate its shared views, positions, beliefs and tenets to those of Diversity and her attending priests.
My point is this:
In the context of this situation, Diversity is deemed to be a moral good in and of itself. Student groups must place those students who have non-conservative beliefs about homosexuality in leadership not because of any underlying principles about diversity, because of Diversity itself.
But this is the same thinking that motivates the Mormon legislature in Utah. They believe in Family and Faith. These all are principles that have been deified and whose authority is used to declare to others what they should do, think, or say.
And I don’t think it is any more admirable for the Student Government to insist that Chi Alpha support the belief that sexual behaviors outside of heterosexual marriage are morally acceptable than it is for the Utah Government to insist that the City of Salt Lake support the opposite belief.
It is a demand not for inclusion, but for conformity of belief.
Priya Lynn
May 4th, 2009
Timothy said “If a religious group held specific beliefs about race and if they were punished for those beliefs and not for exclusion of individuals based on race, then yes I would defend them.”.
You’re dancing around my question (and I’m not surprised). The question was “Would you support this Christian group discriminating against a black student because of their religious beliefs?”. If they taught, as some religious groups used to, that blacks didn’t have souls and thus weren’t entitled to be members would you be proudly defending their actions and calling conformity frightening and decrying sacrifices at the “alter” of diversity? I don’t think so and that’s why you won’t state you would support a religious group excluding someone on the basis of race just as this group excluded someone on the basis of being gay.
Timothy said “You didn’t do your homework. Humphrey was an “honorary brotherâ€. Trust me, Alphi Phi Alpha is a black fraternity.”.
Oh I did my homework all right. He was a white man in a black fraternity – they would just as easily make any white person an “honourary brother” if they were willing to advance the cause of working against discrimination. Contrary to your claim I think you’d be hard pressed to demonstrate that “many” of the fraternities discriminate on the basis of race – show me where their rules and bylaws prohibit people not of their race. They may make their membership pitches primarily to people of a certain race but they don’t specifically outlaw people of other races. Its just like when e-harmony discriminated against gays, some bleeding hearts said “well then gay dating sites should have to accept heterosexuals” – they did, but few heterosexuals decided to join because most members were gay, they weren’t specifically excluded.
Priya Lynn
May 4th, 2009
I see I didn’t address part of Timothy’s post – “Donohoe was not removed from leadership because he was a same-sex attracted person. He was removed from leadership because his beliefs did not conform to the teachings of the group.”.
Well then assume the scenario of a Christian group that excludes black people who do not conform to the teachings of their group – that black people are inferior, do not have souls, and do not deserve equality and should be slaves. The group accepts blacks who promotes those ideas but evicts those who believes blacks are equals – would you proudly support that?
Stefano A
May 4th, 2009
I think this is a situation where trying to compare racism with homophobia breaks down.
To put this another way, in your logic, it’s okay for Catholic Charities who receives public funding to deny adoption to anyone who believes you can be gay and a good parent (or deny adoption to anyone who beliefs you can be homosexual and well-adjusted). An action of discrimination based on belief.
Or to put it in even another way, it’s okay for a food pantry to withold food to applicants unless the applicant professes the belief of that food pantry. In other words, the applicant must be agreeable to the proseletyizing.
If the agency receives public funding a Christian food pantry can’t deny food because the person is of a Jewish belief (note I say belief not race as you do not need be of Jewish semitic decent to hold faith in the religion of Judaism). Likewise, a Jewish food pantry reciving public funding can’t deny food to Muslims because of their Muslim faith.
That is to say, religion is specified as a “class” in anti-discrimination laws, which is a classification based on the belief that one should not be able to disriminate in goods, services, accomodation, employment, etc., based on someone’s beliefs. Same goes for political party affiliation.
But yet you somehow desire religious groups be granted special dispensation to do so and still receive public funding, but only with regard to beliefs about homosexuality.
Stefano A
May 4th, 2009
What I’m having a problem with is Timothy’s arguments regarding being ALLOWED to discriminate based on beliefs because anti-discrimination policies shoudn’t be conditioned on what someone believes. Yet, the entire set of protections offered to religions and political party affiliations are all focused on the problems which arose from discrimination based on belief systems, not race.
Timothy Kincaid
May 4th, 2009
Let me make this as easy as can be:
What is the orientation of a same-sex attracted person who believes in a conservative Christian sexaul viewpoint?
If you believe, as I do, that sexual orientation is not “a behavior” or “a lifestyle” or “a choice”, then you must agree that a same-sex attracted person has a homosexual sexual orientation, regardless of what they believe about it or intend to do.
Donohoe was not demoted because of his sexual orientation.
Timothy Kincaid
May 4th, 2009
Priya Lynn,
I think you misunderstand the nature of “honorary” brotherhood in fraternal organizations.
Timothy Kincaid
May 4th, 2009
Stephano
Your ‘comparisons’ are not comparable.
I see no indication whatsoever that the Chi Alpha events funded by the Student Government have denied entry to anyone.
Yes. I support the right of individuals and groups to believe what they wish.
I have no idea what you are saying.
But I have a question for you.
Should the gay student group at American River College have been denied equal standing before the student government and be denies student funds that other groups have access to simply because the leaders believe that homosexuality is a pernicious sin that destroys the family?
Stefano A
May 4th, 2009
As I’ve said in other threats, I don’t see the issue as being whether or not Chi Alpha should be able to demote a member based on belief, it is about whether or not they should be able to do so and receive public funding.
Following your line of argument, Timothy, if I run a non-profit receiving public funds (for instance) and I am a Muslim, for instance, then I should be able to demote or not promote a Jew or Christian because of their beliefs and still receive public funding. Yet, this clearly goes against employment anti-discrimination policies regarding not discrimination based on religion or political party affiliation.
I’m having finding it difficult to align support of those anti-discrimnation policies and the argument that when it comes to homosexuality suddenly a different standard must apply.
Timothy Kincaid
May 4th, 2009
Priya Lynn,
You are soooooooo hung up on the religious aspect of this story.
Let’s take this out of the realm of “religion” and use a more likely example rather than some contrived hypothesis.
Suppose a black student joined a conservative political group and was elevated to leadership. Then suppose this student announced that he, in retrospect, found that the teachings of the organization on issues of race were incorrect and that he now endores the reparation movement, racial quotas, and race-based hiring preferences.
Yes, I do believe that the group would be justified in removing him from a position of leadership.
Stefano A
May 4th, 2009
They aren’t denied equal standing. The issue of being recognized and represented as a student group is not the issue.
No. Because professing a belief and taking a discriminatoroy action based on that belief are two separate issues.
If the group acts in a discriminatory way, then yes.
Which is why I pointed out protections regarding religion and political party affiliation. In both of those instances you are not allowed to discriminate based on a belief system and receive public funding. You can believe whatever you want, but you cannot demote or promote someone because of those beliefs.
Timothy Kincaid
May 4th, 2009
I believe you are mistaken.
Those Muslim organizations which receive faith-based funding for, say, a youth anti-violence campaign, are not required to advance Jews or Christians to positions of leadership.
Timothy Kincaid
May 4th, 2009
As I stated above, you are incorrect.
I assure you that political parties, and even political clubs on campuses, absolutely do advance and demote leadership based on political beliefs.
GaySolomon
May 4th, 2009
Timothy writes:
“Donohoe was not demoted because of his sexual orientation.”
I agree. He suffered discrimination at the hands of Alpha Chi becasue of his beliefs about homosexual orientation. Alpha Chi is perfectly free to discriminate against anyone they please for any reason whatsoever.
They are not, however, free from the consequences of their actions. They are not entitled to have their beliefs (which demonize and harm the LGBT community) funded and legitimzed.
The University is entitled to withhold funds from any student organization that practices discrimination. If you take Ceasar’s coin, then you play by Ceasar’s rules.
What I think you rightly worrry about is the power that this gives to educational insitutions to favour one religious viewpoint over another. This is precisely why I would argue for strict separation between secular insitutions and religious groups. IMO Cornell has no legitimate role in promoting religion on or off campus.
Timothy Kincaid
May 4th, 2009
These were student fees collected from all students. You believe they should be used to reward some ideologies and to punish others.
You and I have a fundamental disagreement on the meaning of freedom.
Stefano A
May 4th, 2009
Which is why, I think, Priya Lynn, has also raised the issue of religious protections. Protections you appear to be fine with excepting when it comes to religious beliefs about homosexuality and the actions taken based on those beliefs.
Neither of us are trying to inhibit the profession of a belief or deny the right to hold a belief, but we are focusing on the difference between professing a belief and actions taken based on that belief. Such as holding Christian beliefs, for instance, but not being able to act on those beliefs in a discriminatory way toward someone of another faith. Or a Democratic employer being able to promote or demote based on the employees political party affiliation. Both religion and political party affiliations are not immutable organic traits. They’re group affiliations based on shared belief systems.
GaySolomon
May 4th, 2009
Timothy writes:
“You and I have a fundamental disagreement on the meaning of freedom.”
Interesting – but inaccurate. Using your logic, we must publically fund all homophobic, or racist, or mysoginist religions because some tax dollars are obtained from homophobes, racists, and mysoginists.
Stefano A
May 4th, 2009
In exactly the same way the Boy Scouts of American were ruled to be allowed to determine who could or could not be a Boy Scout leader as a private organization but were also determined to not be entitled to public funds if they did so.
Timothy Kincaid
May 4th, 2009
No. And mistating my views does not advance your argument.
I do believe, in a school setting that all homophobic, or racist, or mysoginist organizations have the same claim on student fees as any other.
Timothy Kincaid
May 4th, 2009
Stephano,
“Such as holding Christian beliefs, for instance, but not being able to act on those beliefs in a discriminatory way toward someone of another faith.”
Seriously!?!
You are seriously trying to argue that the Jewish Student Group must put into a position of leadership someone who believes that all the Jews in Israel should be driven into the sea?
Really?
Stefano A
May 4th, 2009
Why is a public school setting something given a special exemption than organizations operating in the large society?
The Aryan Brotherhood organizations could attempt to make claim on public dollars, but that doesn’t mean they are entitled to them.
He wasn’t mistating your views. He was following through with your expressed opinion to its logcal conclusion.
Timothy Kincaid
May 4th, 2009
Another factual inaccuracy. They can be denied funds – as they could have before – but the case made no determination on that matter.
A better example might be the Order of Hibernians who operate the annual St. Patrick’s Day Parade in NYC.
They discriminate based on orientation. But the city cannot deny them the same access to the streets to march as they give any other group.
And I believe that is right. Just as the Gay Pride parades deny the right of anti-gay activists to participate in the parade and the city can’t refuse them the streets either.
Stefano A
May 4th, 2009
That is, you were attempting to make an argument that limitations on the granting of student fees should not be based on belief systems. Yet it’s been pointed out that there are already precedents set for doing so with regard to anti-discrimination policies for faith and political party.
So if your argument is that there shouldn’t be limitations then all organizations should be entitled to public funds without conditions being applied.
Timothy Kincaid
May 4th, 2009
They are entitled to the same crack at public dollars as are the American Family Association, Human Rights Campaign, the Nation of Islam, the Fellowship of Christian Atheletes, the Boys and Girls Club, the Rotarians, or anyone else.
Timothy Kincaid
May 4th, 2009
Stephano,
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are NOT entitled to your own facts.
Stop claiming that political organizations and religions cannot discriminate. I’ll delete any future comments that make that claim without direct support.
Stefano A
May 4th, 2009
Which is not the same as providing them public funding.
As it’s been pointed out time and time againChi Alpha is not being denied a presence on the campus or recognition as a student group.
Stefano A
May 4th, 2009
So? I never said they were not entitled to take a “crack” at applying for funds. I said that that didn’t mean they were entitled to them. There are conditions applied to the receipt of public funding.
Stefano A
May 4th, 2009
Priya Lynn
May 4th, 2009
Timothy said “You are soooooooo hung up on the religious aspect of this story.
Let’s take this out of the realm of “religion†and use a more likely example rather than some contrived hypothesis.”.
Your suggestion that we ignore the religious aspect is bizarre. The example I gave included that aspect because it is part and parcel of the original complaint. Your analogy excluding that aspect is by definition less apt than the one I gave. I’ve asked you this several times, and again I’m not surprised you’ve avoided answering it because your double standard is obvious:
Assume the scenario of a Christian group that excludes black people who do not conform to the teachings of their group – that black people are inferior, do not have souls, and do not deserve equality and should be slaves. The group accepts blacks who promote those ideas but evicts those who believes blacks are equals – would you proudly support that? Would you be vehmently defending that groups right to funding on the basis that you don’t want your gods forced on you?
If you’re just going to change the subject again and not answer that question directly please don’t answer at all.
Stefano A
May 4th, 2009
Are you seriously trying to argue that promotion of gays being well-adjusted and should be entitled the same rights and protections as everyone else is the equivalent of the belief of Jewish genocide and refusal to promote such a person?
Stefano A
May 4th, 2009
Aren’t you asking such a question for the sole purpose of creating a moral equivalency comparable to, “xxx is the moral equivalent to rape”.?
Timothy Kincaid
May 4th, 2009
Priya Lynn,
I tried removing the religous aspect because, with all due respect, you have never ever failed to advocate against religion. While you are entitled to that perspective, it is hard to argue principles with you when your underlying position always comes from the perspective that religions are at fault always, in all circumstances, at all places, and ever.
I support the rights of groups to their beliefs, whether I find those beliefs to be personably objectionable or not. I support the rights of groups to appoint leadership that agrees with their beliefs. I don’t have to “proudly” or “ashamedly” support this as my support for their rights says nothing about whether I approve of them or not.
It’s a belief in freedom. Either you have it or you don’t. And freedom is not the right to be in the majority, it is the right to fly in the face of conformity, to defy convention, to be horribly and miserably wrong but to do so on ones own terms.
And further, when it came to funding, if I were on the committee allocating funds, I hope that my decision would be based on whether they were conducting programs with high caliber speakers and articulate presentations rather than basing my funding on whether I agreed with their conclusions.
Stefano A
May 4th, 2009
I’ll no longer be responding here because I’ve lost all respect for you in trying to draw such a moral equivalency.
Timothy Kincaid
May 4th, 2009
Stefano,
Strawman much?
Stefano A
May 4th, 2009
I don’t think anyone arguing with you here is arguing against First Amendment rights of freedom of speech or association.
With regard to funding, I don’t think anyone here is basing their decision about whether or not the group should be funded BECAUSE of what they believe. The arguments about funding have been based on actions as a result of a belief, and without attempts to draw reprehensible moral equivalencies in order to make a point such as you have done.
Stefano A
May 4th, 2009
Actually, I can’t speak for anyone else. So amend my last post to read that I wasn’t arguing against freedom of speech or association.
And with that I’m done.
Gabriel Arana
May 4th, 2009
Tim,
One of the currents running through your arguments seems to be this strange understanding of what freedom of speech and association mean. You don’t distinguish between the right of a non-governmental institution to set standards that contravene freedom of speech and association and the right of government itself to do so. It is a very crucial distinction; government cannot establish religion, etc. while a private institution or club may.
What seems especially strange to me is that while you defend one private’s group to discriminate based on, you doggedly insist, “ideas,” you do not defend the university’s right to do the same, even though the analogy between Chi Alpha and Donahoe/the university and Chi Alpha is clear.
From reading the comments in this post and the last, many of the points of contention seem to hinge on the fact that you and others conflate freedom of speech/association as a legal principle and as a general one that should apply to private institutions.
Doing so, in fact, would have the exact opposite consequence that I think you intend: namely, no organization could set standards that limit speech. Chi Alpha couldn’t, Cornell couldn’t, etc. It’s a two-edged sword. If you want religious groups to have the sort of freedom to preach their intolerant views, you have to allow their parent organizations to do the same and, in so doing, place restrictions on their subsidiaries.
So in your doctrinaire defense of religious organization with which you disagree, one that purportedly stems from “a belief in freedom” that either one has or one does not (rhetoric that sounds strangely like Bush’s “with us, against us” formulation) you are undercutting the very freedom you seek to defend. While you would deny student organization and private institutions the right to impose regulations on how their money is spend and how they set standards for their communities, you reserve the right to do so for a religious organization.
If we were talking about public funding for Chi Alpha, that would be a different story, but we’re not. Thus many of the issues being addressed above are irrelevant, evincing fundamental misunderstandings about the legal system and what the freedoms granted in the Constitution cover.
Now if we are talking about our personal preference for how a particular organization — in this case, Cornell — should be run, I’d say I don’t want these people, who don’t make any intellectual contribution to debate but merely Bible-thump, on campus. You do want to give them a platform. And here is where I think the real freedom comes in: you can go to a place where these people get a microphone, and I can choose not to.
Timothy Kincaid
May 4th, 2009
Gabe,
We appear to have disagreement both over my position and, in some instances, the facts of the situation.
First, we are not talking about “the university†in this story. As best I can find, the university does not play a role. Had the university been a player, per se, to the extent that they were not publicly funded this might have an impact on my thinking; I tend to be supportive of the right of private institutions to set their own standards.
But the university was not a player. Instead we have the following three parties:
Student Assembly – the undergraduate student government at Cornell University. This is an elected body that establishes the undergraduate Student Activity Fee and guidelines for its distribution. Student Activity Fees are not optional and, unlike student groups, membership is involuntary.
Chi Alpha – a religion based student group affiliated with the Assemblies of God that mainly connects through group meetings and Bible studies. The gatherings are informal and they invite everyone to be a part, regardless of background, but they do encourage students to be accountable in their walk with God.
Chris Donohoe – a same-sex attracted student. Although Donohoe came into the organization and was placed in a position of power while in agreement with Chi Alpha’s beliefs on homosexual behavior, gradually his views changed and he began to develop a relationship with another male on campus.
A further confusion is that you appear to be reading what I am standing for on principle and translating that into a legal opinion. It is not. It is my opinion on what is fair, equitable and in the vein of freedom; I don’t speak to what rights that the student government may have to administer funds based on ideology.
And you seem to think that my opposition to ideology-based funding decisions over student fees can be extrapolated to reflect an anarchistic approach to student government. This is certainly not the case.
My views tend to be based on libertarian principles. Because issues of gay equality generally do not conflict with the underlying ideals of libertarian thought (contrary to what some prominent libertarians may believe) I seldom find myself in sharp conflict on gay issues. When, as in this case, the “gay position†becomes (what I believe to be) oppressive, I do.
And finally, you seem to think that we are not “talking about public funding for Chi Alphaâ€. In this you are factually mistaken. The funds under question are not from Cornell’s General (or any other) Fund. They are not under the control of the university. Rather they are funds assessed, collected and administered by an elected government, every bit as much “public funding†as the tax base for a small city.
I think, perhaps, your thinking on this matter may be influenced less than it should be by the facts of the matter and more than it should be by the nature of Chi Alpha. It is not without bias that you write, “I don’t want these people, who don’t make any intellectual contribution to debate but merely Bible-thump, on campus. You do want to give them a platform.â€
I believe that the teachings on sexuality of Chi Alpha are outdated and will eventually die under the weight of their own argument. As gay persons step more into the light, the presumptions and assumptions about homosexuality are stripped away until conservative Christianity is ultimately left with the option of either advocating the stoning of gay people or rethinking their theology. But it is both arrogant and foolish to dismiss them as intellectually inferior and incapable of making a reasoned contribution to the debate.
We will win on the basis of our arguments. We do not need to silence those who “Bible-thumpâ€.
So I am saddened that you think that the content of their message in any way should determine the legitimacy of their funding from student fees.
GaySolomon
May 4th, 2009
Timothy writes:
“The funds under question are not from Cornell’s General (or any other) Fund. They are not under the control of the university. Rather they are funds assessed, collected and administered by an elected government, every bit as much “public funding†as the tax base for a small city.”
I fail to see how this distinction advances your argument. If your assertions are correct, the funds are a “tax” imposed upon the student body by The Student Association.
In any event, the Student Association is bound by Cornell’s anti-discrimination policies. No entity applying for the funds is automatically entitled to receive them.
To argue otherwise, is to somehow claim that the Student Association has no say in who may be a recipient of its funds.
If this is your position then fine. Having said that, I find it strange, and I am baffled that you would consider the opposing view to be incompatible with freedom.
Priya Lynn
May 5th, 2009
Well, once again, as I predicted Timothy won’t unequivocally agree that a Christian group should have the same right to discriminate against a black student in the same way they discriminated against this gay student. I asked him several times to simply say that that would be okay and each time he’s entered into a long pretzel logic change of subject. The double standard is clear. No further spin on your part will change that.
Timothy said “your underlying position always comes from the perspective that religions are at fault always, in all circumstances, at all places, and ever.”.
And you accuse others of strawmen. I’ve never taken that position and I don’t agree with it.
Timothy Kincaid
May 5th, 2009
Priya Lynn,
Yes or no question:
Was Donohoe discriminated against based solely on his sexual orientation?
Ephilei
May 5th, 2009
At the risk of ignoring previous comments, here’s my opinion:
The SAFC specifically prohibits discrimination in leadership in their written goals and Chi Alpha clearly violated those protections. To act according to their own values, SAFC should not have re-instated funding unless Chi Alpha made changes.
However, I think SAFC should change their documentation to give autonomy to organizations to determine leadership in any way they wish.
The issue should be: Are SAFC’s goals just? I believe they are unjust and therefore violating them is justified. Chi Alpha should lobby to change those goals. If they succeed, all will be square. If they fail, the SAFC should revoke funding again. It’s important that their goals be consistent with their action.
However, I can see there’s lots of room for other opinions. To me, this is a quite a gray area.
Ephilei
May 5th, 2009
Btw, Tim: I can’t say for certain, but my guess is that Donohue was discriminated based soley on his orientation. I’m willing to be money there’s a straight pro-gay person in Chi Alpha who is not being kicked out.
Timothy Kincaid
May 5th, 2009
Ephilei,
Kindly provide a link to your source for where the SAFC specifically prohibits discrimination in leadership on the basis of sexual orientation.
Timothy Kincaid
May 5th, 2009
Ephilei,
Thank you for actually addressing the question. And it is almost certain that there is a straight pro-gay person in Chi Alpha. Donohoe is still welcome in Chi Alpha.
But I would be willing to bet that there are no heterosexual leaders in Chi Alpha that are endorsing sexual behavior – either same-sex or opposite-sex – contrary to the teachings of the organization.
Timothy (TRiG)
May 5th, 2009
Aren’t we missing something here? Donohoe was kicked out undemocratically, by Chi Alpha’s pastors, not by its members. And any group which is undemocratic is not entitled to university funding. End.
Could someone who thinks all Jews should be thrown into the sea be elected to a leadership position within a Jewish group? I’d say it’s unlikely. Highly unlikely. But still, technically, possible. That’s what democracy means.
TRiG.
Gabriel Arana
May 9th, 2009
It’s taken a while for me to respond to you Tim, but here goes:
First, the Student Assembly’s actions are in fact bound by the university’s code of conduct (I worked for the Judicial Administrator and have spoken with them since about it). The SA also gets its funding through the university, which collects the student activities fee.
Also, in reference to the following:
And finally, you seem to think that we are not “talking about public funding for Chi Alphaâ€. In this you are factually mistaken. The funds under question are not from Cornell’s General (or any other) Fund. They are not under the control of the university. Rather they are funds assessed, collected and administered by an elected government, every bit as much “public funding†as the tax base for a small city.
Beside my point that the SA neither collects (nor assesses independently) funds…
I think the fact that you are comparing a city government and a student government shows that you don’t know where freedom of speech/assembly applies — or what the difference between a public and private organization is. While the structure of the SA might be similar to that of a city council, it is not a government body. Even if the SA did assess and collect its own fees (which it does not), this is still not supported by “public” funding; it’s private funding. The difference is you go to jail for failing to pay taxes; you don’t go to jail for failing to pay your student activity fee.
You seem to want to argue first-amendment principles as non-legal (maybe social?) regulations on what the rest of society should do. The entire significance of the first amendment is that it is a legal principle that applies to government, government with a capital “G.” Applying libertarian principles unscrupulously (or too broadly) leads you to actually undermine freedom of speech and assembly.
In your comments, you are proposing restrictions on what a private group (the SA) can do. Of course you have a right to opine on what any group should do, but to argue that stripping Chi Alpha of funding in some way infringes on freedom of speech or assembly is silly; this is actually a case of the SA exercising these very rights.
Your ideal society is one in which groups operate according to the restrictions on government action in the Constitution. It is difficult in the extreme for me to understand how you fail to see that this actually undermines freedom of speech: if no organization can regulate its identity or the views its members espouse, then really no one is able to say anything in the end. If organizations cannot freely associate (or in the case of Chi Alpha, disassociate), you cripple the ability of people to assemble freely. Over-applying the first amendment is tyranny in its own right.
I think on certain libertarian principles — and especially the ones you are talking about here — I agree wholeheartedly with you. Of course groups should duke it out in the marketplace of ideas, but this marketplace is society itself: not every forum has to be (in fact, should not be) a microcosm of this broader marketplace.
In regard to another point you made: You wrote that I was biased in my characterization of Christian groups and seem to be convinced that I am unprincipled in opposing Chi Alpha. Again, the principle in question (freedom of speech, etc.) is one that I don’t think applies here — whether Chi Alpha were religious or not. Had it been a piñata making club that kicked Chris out, I’d still feel the same.
But of course I’ll admit I don’t like religion. But I don’t know what “biased” really means, here or in general. Is it not true that the country is periodically subjected to some idiot evangelical on t.v. talking about how Hurricane Katrina was God’s response to abortion (and, as proof, that the satellite image of the hurricane was actually in the shape of a fetus)? It’s always some nonsense like that.
I guess I’m not interested in engaging religious discussion because I find it hard to respect the intelligence of people who think Christianity is something that can be rationally argued for (as opposed to something personal and private). There are tons of groups and ideas I disagree with, but find interesting–even many conservative ideas about self-sufficiency, etc. But Christian theology — at least as it’s articulated by most Christians in public fora — lacks intellectual rigor and is, I find, quite boring to listen to.
But I did not oppose Chi Alpha’s right to talk about ridiculous ideas; I opposed them putting these ideas into practice in a discriminatory way that violates the university’s rules and my own sense of morality.
Cheri
November 23rd, 2009
For the record, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc does not discriminate based on race. It is a historically African American fraternity that was founded out of necessity and the needs during the times when African Americans were being discriminated against. It’s goals are to foster community and brotherhood. If you are not African American and wish to join, you must understand the organization’s history and want to be a part of the institution that is Alpha Phi Alpha. You should do more research before accusing such a large, respected, and very accomplished organization of racial discrimination.
Timothy Kincaid
November 23rd, 2009
Cheri,
You need to work on your reading comprehension. Alpha Phi Alpha was not “accused” of anything, especially of racial discrimination.
Please re-read the commentary above.
I’m sure you will agree with me that Alpha Phi Alpha’s membership does not reflect that of the school at large. And further, I’m sure you will agree that it should not be forced to make it’s membership homogeneous.
Nor should Chi Alpha.
Leave A Comment