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.

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 Alpha”. 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.

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.

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.

Kindly provide a link to your source for where the SAFC specifically prohibits discrimination in leadership on the basis of sexual orientation.

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.

Yes or no question:

Was Donohoe discriminated against based solely on his sexual orientation?

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.