California attempts to export tolerance

[finehoe]

Any non-inclusive organization can't be officially recognized by the university.

And what does that have to do with bans?

[Adam White]

Any non-inclusive organization can't be officially recognized by the university.

And what does that have to do with bans?

I don't know what you're talking about. I was referring to NRW's comment. He used 'ban' in the sense that there is a prohibition on non-inclusive groups being recognised by the university.

[finehoe]

I don't know what you're talking about.

Maybe you should read the thread from the beginning then.

[Adam White]

I don't know what you're talking about.

Maybe you should read the thread from the beginning then.

I honestly wonder if you even bother trying to read and understand these comments. You're so busy looking for a fight that you can't recognise when people are FUCKING AGREEING WITH YOU.

[BridgeTroll]

Rofl...

[finehoe]

That's what he said, basically.

not really.

I guess I'm not the only one who didn't get that you were agreeing.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

...but the original statement in the article was about 'religious groups' per se. 

Discussing other non-religious groups inclusivity may parallel the topic, but it's not what this article's focus is about.

No it wasn't.  The original article said that California wouldn't let it's college sports teams travel to states that allow LGBT discrimination (think North Carolina).  It didn't say a word about what individual universities do with their student organizations, religious or not.

You're right.  Apparently I had already moved on from the gist of the original post to the specifics Spuwho provided in response to your claim:

And in any event, the statement "for the last 5 years public universities have been methodically banning religious student organizations" is patently untrue.

And based on what I've read in those articles, I don't see how you can come to that conclusion unless you're just being persnickety with your interpretation of the word 'ban' and the lack of impact that the lead sentence would have if 'religious' was replaced with 'non-inclusive'.  Just because it covers more than religious groups doesn't make the statement any less true.

[Tacachale]

A couple of things here. The restrictions on student organizations, and the California travel ban, are two different but related things.

Most public universities at this point restrict fee money that goes to student organizations, to organizations that are open to everyone. This doesn't just affect religious clubs, but any that have a restricted membership. Here in Florida, Activity and Service Fee money can only go to organizations or events that are open to all, and that submit a signed statement to that effect. This doesn't just affect religious groups, but any that have a restricted membership. For instance, fraternities and sororities that aren't open to everyone are ineligible for Activity and Service fee money. On the other hand, specifically religious clubs (for example) could and do still receive funding so long as they are open to everyone, members of other faiths, LGBT people, etc. Many if not most other states are like this.

California schools have gone a few steps farther than most. First, at several schools at least, organizations must be open to all in order to be officially registered, whether or not they want funding. The argument is that recognized clubs benefit from fees and public money whether or not they get direct funding. They can get preferential booking at campus facilities, recruiting opportunities at club fairs, etc. This all came to a head in the Supreme Court case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, where the Supreme Court upheld a California university's decision to deny recognition to a club that excluded LGBT members. Other California state schools have subsequently done similar things. Additionally, many private schools such as Vanderbilt have as well. In no cases that I'm aware of are the organizations "banned"; they can either update their policies to not discriminate, or operate as a non-university recognized club.

What Spuwho's original link was talking about is a distinct law that passed in 2015. There, California implemented a ban on any university money being spent on travel to states that have discriminatory laws, including states that have "religious freedom" laws that allow their schools to give funding to organizations that discriminate in membership. However, it only affects four states: Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and North Carolina.

Various Christian groups have expressed worry that this trend will affect their ability to operate on campuses as they have in the past. To me, they need to ask themselves the question as to what's more important to their mission, having the ability to spread the faith on college campuses, or rejecting LGBT people?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Of course, Im pretty sure that NRW was also talking about the notion of a religious ban.

Nope. I'm not sure how you extrapolated any of that to mean a ban on religion. 

[spuwho]

A couple of things here. The restrictions on student organizations, and the California travel ban, are two different but related things.

Most public universities at this point restrict fee money that goes to student organizations, to organizations that are open to everyone. This doesn't just affect religious clubs, but any that have a restricted membership. Here in Florida, Activity and Service Fee money can only go to organizations or events that are open to all, and that submit a signed statement to that effect. This doesn't just affect religious groups, but any that have a restricted membership. For instance, fraternities and sororities that aren't open to everyone are ineligible for Activity and Service fee money. On the other hand, specifically religious clubs (for example) could and do still receive funding so long as they are open to everyone, members of other faiths, LGBT people, etc. Many if not most other states are like this.

California schools have gone a few steps farther than most. First, at several schools at least, organizations must be open to all in order to be officially registered, whether or not they want funding. The argument is that recognized clubs benefit from fees and public money whether or not they get direct funding. They can get preferential booking at campus facilities, recruiting opportunities at club fairs, etc. This all came to a head in the Supreme Court case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, where the Supreme Court upheld a California university's decision to deny recognition to a club that excluded LGBT members. Other California state schools have subsequently done similar things. Additionally, many private schools such as Vanderbilt have as well. In no cases that I'm aware of are the organizations "banned"; they can either update their policies to not discriminate, or operate as a non-university recognized club.

What Spuwho's original link was talking about is a distinct law that passed in 2015. There, California implemented a ban on any university money being spent on travel to states that have discriminatory laws, including states that have "religious freedom" laws that allow their schools to give funding to organizations that discriminate in membership. However, it only affects four states: Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and North Carolina.

Various Christian groups have expressed worry that this trend will affect their ability to operate on campuses as they have in the past. To me, they need to ask themselves the question as to what's more important to their mission, having the ability to spread the faith on college campuses, or rejecting LGBT people?

Excellent recap Tach.

These groups don't reject LGBT's outright. Their statement of faith says that if you want a leadership role in the organization, you must agree with said faith statement.  If you claim to be an LGBT, you can still participate, you just can't have a leadership role.

These orgs tried to amend their charters to meet the schools requirements, but the "no tolerance" dictum mandated no exceptions in their charter, it must be open to everyone, including in leadership.

Back to basketball, some state religious freedom laws over ruled the public universities desire to have no exceptions to the campus organization rules.  So these organizations continue to exist outside of California. (like Kansas)

That is where the relationship is.

[finehoe]

And in any event, the statement "for the last 5 years public universities have been methodically banning religious student organizations" is patently untrue.

And based on what I've read in those articles, I don't see how you can come to that conclusion unless you're just being persnickety with your interpretation of the word 'ban' and the lack of impact that the lead sentence would have if 'religious' was replaced with 'non-inclusive'.  Just because it covers more than religious groups doesn't make the statement any less true.

I come to that conclusion because of the word "methodically".  Spuwho began his post by saying that public universities have been acting in a systematic way to ban student religious groups.  Neither anything he has posted since, nor anything you have said, presents any evidence that this is actually the case.

[Tacachale]

A couple of things here. The restrictions on student organizations, and the California travel ban, are two different but related things.

Most public universities at this point restrict fee money that goes to student organizations, to organizations that are open to everyone. This doesn't just affect religious clubs, but any that have a restricted membership. Here in Florida, Activity and Service Fee money can only go to organizations or events that are open to all, and that submit a signed statement to that effect. This doesn't just affect religious groups, but any that have a restricted membership. For instance, fraternities and sororities that aren't open to everyone are ineligible for Activity and Service fee money. On the other hand, specifically religious clubs (for example) could and do still receive funding so long as they are open to everyone, members of other faiths, LGBT people, etc. Many if not most other states are like this.

California schools have gone a few steps farther than most. First, at several schools at least, organizations must be open to all in order to be officially registered, whether or not they want funding. The argument is that recognized clubs benefit from fees and public money whether or not they get direct funding. They can get preferential booking at campus facilities, recruiting opportunities at club fairs, etc. This all came to a head in the Supreme Court case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, where the Supreme Court upheld a California university's decision to deny recognition to a club that excluded LGBT members. Other California state schools have subsequently done similar things. Additionally, many private schools such as Vanderbilt have as well. In no cases that I'm aware of are the organizations "banned"; they can either update their policies to not discriminate, or operate as a non-university recognized club.

What Spuwho's original link was talking about is a distinct law that passed in 2015. There, California implemented a ban on any university money being spent on travel to states that have discriminatory laws, including states that have "religious freedom" laws that allow their schools to give funding to organizations that discriminate in membership. However, it only affects four states: Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and North Carolina.

Various Christian groups have expressed worry that this trend will affect their ability to operate on campuses as they have in the past. To me, they need to ask themselves the question as to what's more important to their mission, having the ability to spread the faith on college campuses, or rejecting LGBT people?

Excellent recap Tach.

These groups don't reject LGBT's outright. Their statement of faith says that if you want a leadership role in the organization, you must agree with said faith statement.  If you claim to be an LGBT, you can still participate, you just can't have a leadership role.

These orgs tried to amend their charters to meet the schools requirements, but the "no tolerance" dictum mandated no exceptions in their charter, it must be open to everyone, including in leadership.

Back to basketball, some state religious freedom laws over ruled the public universities desire to have no exceptions to the campus organization rules.  So these organizations continue to exist outside of California. (like Kansas)

That is where the relationship is.

I believe the organizations exist in most states except California. I think most states are like Florida, where the groups can register but aren't eligible for fee funding. California is the one that's been in the news the most for the restrictions on the clubs, but there may be others. There are only a few that have "religious liberty" exemptions like Kansas (I believe you're correct, Kansas' law was against the wishes of the universities themselves), and then North Carolina which has HB2, which is where UC Berkeley's beef with them lies.

I can't conceive of how InterVarsity and company would allow LGBT people to join but insist on not allow them into leadership positions, especially as it hurts their standing on campus. I expect this is some kind of nationwide directive that doesn't take account of the local conditions in California. Seems very short sighted.

[spuwho]

A couple of things here. The restrictions on student organizations, and the California travel ban, are two different but related things.

Most public universities at this point restrict fee money that goes to student organizations, to organizations that are open to everyone. This doesn't just affect religious clubs, but any that have a restricted membership. Here in Florida, Activity and Service Fee money can only go to organizations or events that are open to all, and that submit a signed statement to that effect. This doesn't just affect religious groups, but any that have a restricted membership. For instance, fraternities and sororities that aren't open to everyone are ineligible for Activity and Service fee money. On the other hand, specifically religious clubs (for example) could and do still receive funding so long as they are open to everyone, members of other faiths, LGBT people, etc. Many if not most other states are like this.

California schools have gone a few steps farther than most. First, at several schools at least, organizations must be open to all in order to be officially registered, whether or not they want funding. The argument is that recognized clubs benefit from fees and public money whether or not they get direct funding. They can get preferential booking at campus facilities, recruiting opportunities at club fairs, etc. This all came to a head in the Supreme Court case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, where the Supreme Court upheld a California university's decision to deny recognition to a club that excluded LGBT members. Other California state schools have subsequently done similar things. Additionally, many private schools such as Vanderbilt have as well. In no cases that I'm aware of are the organizations "banned"; they can either update their policies to not discriminate, or operate as a non-university recognized club.

What Spuwho's original link was talking about is a distinct law that passed in 2015. There, California implemented a ban on any university money being spent on travel to states that have discriminatory laws, including states that have "religious freedom" laws that allow their schools to give funding to organizations that discriminate in membership. However, it only affects four states: Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and North Carolina.

Various Christian groups have expressed worry that this trend will affect their ability to operate on campuses as they have in the past. To me, they need to ask themselves the question as to what's more important to their mission, having the ability to spread the faith on college campuses, or rejecting LGBT people?

Excellent recap Tach.

These groups don't reject LGBT's outright. Their statement of faith says that if you want a leadership role in the organization, you must agree with said faith statement.  If you claim to be an LGBT, you can still participate, you just can't have a leadership role.

These orgs tried to amend their charters to meet the schools requirements, but the "no tolerance" dictum mandated no exceptions in their charter, it must be open to everyone, including in leadership.

Back to basketball, some state religious freedom laws over ruled the public universities desire to have no exceptions to the campus organization rules.  So these organizations continue to exist outside of California. (like Kansas)

That is where the relationship is.

I believe the organizations exist in most states except California. I think most states are like Florida, where the groups can register but aren't eligible for fee funding. California is the one that's been in the news the most for the restrictions on the clubs, but there may be others. There are only a few that have "religious liberty" exemptions like Kansas (I believe you're correct, Kansas' law was against the wishes of the universities themselves), and then North Carolina which has HB2, which is where UC Berkeley's beef with them lies.

I can't conceive of how InterVarsity and company would allow LGBT people to join but insist on not allow them into leadership positions, especially as it hurts their standing on campus. I expect this is some kind of nationwide directive that doesn't take account of the local conditions in California. Seems very short sighted.

InterVarsity (as an example) have articles of faith by which the organization stands by.  Those articles of faith are based what most evangelicals hold as the basis of their beliefs.  I am not here to argue for or against the foundations of sin. The God of Abraham is the only one who can judge.  But many evangelicals base their articles of faith with something that has to represent a lifestyle commitment as well. That lifestyle commitment is merely a reflection of what is happening in ones heart.  If you don't like it or disagree, its pretty simple, don't join! 

In the case with the public universities, they wanted InterVarsity and their ilk to remove any and all articles of faith and the lifestyles that are an extension of them.  Which over course would have turned the organization into nothing more than the Theosophical Society, where everyone talks about religion, but gains no further understanding of it means to them.

InterVarsity's argument is that public universities are and should be pluralistic in the organizations they allow to function on campus facilities and be able to list themselves as a formal student run organization.  If an LGBT student is studying religion, evangelicalism or is just curious , they are free to join InterVarsity and participate and learn all they want. If they lose interest, they can drop out at any time.

I mean, why would an organization whose charter is to promote the exploration of space be run by someone who believes the earth is flat?  Clearly the Space group would have something in their charter that says, "hey, if you want to run this student group, you gotta believe in outer space"

[bencrix]

Except, the earth isn't flat.

[finehoe]

But many evangelicals base their articles of faith with something that has to represent a lifestyle commitment as well. That lifestyle commitment is merely a reflection of what is happening in ones heart.

Yet 4 out of 5 of them voted for a twice-divorced, thrice-married casino operator know for blatantly lying and ripping people off. Why is it so important to them not to have a gay person in their club, yet they have no problem selecting a person like that to lead them?

And we're supposed to take them seriously about their "lifestyle commitment"?  Please.