If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Vanderbilt robs Christian student groups of their religious freedom to not spread their faith to unbelievers   (foxnews.com) divider line 177
    More: Ironic, student groups, Vanderbilt, Randy Forbes, religious freedom, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Marsha Blackburn, discriminations, Title IX  
•       •       •

2961 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 May 2012 at 11:45 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



177 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-08 12:23:23 PM

skullkrusher: so it's the official "discrimination" that has you worried


not "worried" about anything but your unbelievably stupid hypothetical situations
 
2012-05-08 12:25:04 PM

skullkrusher: A cadre of Catholics talking over the LGBT organization to stop their advocacy for gay marriage, changing the charter. Sorry, can't stop them.


I would assume the organization would have a tough time continuing to get university funding and use of resources if they took over the organization and failed to fulfill their originally stated charter.

Should they go about changing their charter, then people who don't agree with the charter change are probably free to go about creating a new organization. And, I would hope the university would give them special consideration in the change-over.

Should it happen again, then take action against the students for harassment.
 
2012-05-08 12:25:33 PM

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: sure, when that discrimination is necessary for the purpose of the organization. Or do you think Rabbi Saul Berkstein should be eligible for the Bishop's job in the Archdiocese of New York?

If Saul Berkstein has the credentials required (education, ordination, experience, etc. and is willing and capable to perform the duties of the Archbishop (teaching and preaching the catholic faith) then, yes.

Do you have some way to tell what people believe deep in their heart?

Rabbi Saul isn't a Catholic.


So you claim. What if Saul claims otherwise? Should you be allowed to kick him out of your university supported club? What if the Catholic club is dominated by Opus Dei Catholics, should they be allowed to kick out other Catholics for not being the right kind of Catholic?
 
2012-05-08 12:26:09 PM

skullkrusher: or like, excluding people who aren't US citizens from being President. Silly rules like that.


That is indeed a silly rule.

Were you trying to prove something with that statement? Or are you just kind of throwing out whatever random thought crosses your mind?

skullkrusher: I just think the requirement is silly.


We can't let people learn how to work out their differences without needing adult intervention in COLLEGE! That's silly.
 
2012-05-08 12:26:24 PM

Jackson Herring: skullkrusher: so it's the official "discrimination" that has you worried

not "worried" about anything but your unbelievably stupid hypothetical situations


why would you be worried about an unbelievably stupid hypothetical? You should have thought that snark out a little longer.
 
2012-05-08 12:26:40 PM

skullkrusher:
why would that be harassment? Students being involved in changing student groups.



For the same reason that calling your house is legal, but calling your house repeatedly might be harassment.
 
2012-05-08 12:26:47 PM

indylaw: In other words, the hypocrites believe that Congress should stay out of the business of private groups and individuals - until those groups and people make decisions which Congress disagrees with.

Congress lifts nary a finger when a private Christian university requires that its students and even employees attend chapel and exemplify Christianity, but is outraged - OUTRAGED when a secular private university limits the ability of its subsidized clubs to discriminate.

Here's an idea - why doesn't Congress mind its own business? If Christians find Vanderbilt's policy to be intolerable, there are plenty of other universities to choose from.

/why would a non-Christian WANT to join a Christian interest group on campus?


The people that are against this are the people that think they would have infiltrators try to join their group with the sole purpose of destroying it because that is something that they would do to another group. When in actuality most people don't think that way at all because the only people that think like that are a small minority of idiots like themselves.

I bet if they got their way and were allowed to ban whoever they wanted from their group, sometime down the line they would be screaming about how the Muslim or Atheist group weren't allowing them to join. Because you know people like them believe discrimination is great when they are allowed to do it, but will scream a blue streak if they think they are being discriminated against.
 
2012-05-08 12:27:13 PM

Jackson Herring: skullkrusher: so it's the official "discrimination" that has you worried

not "worried" about anything but your unbelievably stupid hypothetical situations


WHAT IF THE WHITE PEOPLE CLUB HAS TO LET IN MEXICANS?

THE PROPERTY VALUES OF THE ENTIRE LECTERN HALL WILL DECLINE
 
2012-05-08 12:27:37 PM

sprawl15: That is indeed a silly rule.

Were you trying to prove something with that statement? Or are you just kind of throwing out whatever random thought crosses your mind?


I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. I was.

sprawl15: We can't let people learn how to work out their differences without needing adult intervention in COLLEGE! That's silly.


sarcasm again?
 
2012-05-08 12:27:45 PM

indylaw: In other words, the hypocrites believe that Congress should stay out of the business of private groups and individuals - until those groups and people make decisions which Congress disagrees with.

Congress lifts nary a finger when a private Christian university requires that its students and even employees attend chapel and exemplify Christianity, but is outraged - OUTRAGED when a secular private university limits the ability of its subsidized clubs to discriminate.

Here's an idea - why doesn't Congress mind its own business? If Christians find Vanderbilt's policy to be intolerable, there are plenty of other universities to choose from.

/why would a non-Christian WANT to join a Christian interest group on campus?


Saying Congress should "mind its own business" just means that new laws should comply with the constitution's existing prohibitions on Congressional action. But that doesn't mean, at all, that members of Congress can't comment on things that concern them. These things concern the majority of people, and the majority of people elect the members. You have to see a disconnect between what members of Congress say and what they do sometimes.
On the other hand, if the member of Congress says that they want something that is within Constitutional bounds for a new law, and they don't make any effort to write or pass such a new law, then that member of Congress is worthy of scorn. In that case there should be no difference between what they say and what they do.
 
2012-05-08 12:29:07 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So you claim. What if Saul claims otherwise?


does Saul have a baptismal certificate? Since I made him up, no he doesn't.

Philip Francis Queeg: What if the Catholic club is dominated by Opus Dei Catholics, should they be allowed to kick out other Catholics for not being the right kind of Catholic?


we've gone from not holding leadership positions to throwing people out for non-belief? A lie in the blink of an eye.
 
2012-05-08 12:30:19 PM

sprawl15: Jackson Herring: skullkrusher: so it's the official "discrimination" that has you worried

not "worried" about anything but your unbelievably stupid hypothetical situations

WHAT IF THE WHITE PEOPLE CLUB HAS TO LET IN MEXICANS?

THE PROPERTY VALUES OF THE ENTIRE LECTERN HALL WILL DECLINE


this is actually a pretty funny thread to read if you frame the debate as an immigration issue.
 
2012-05-08 12:30:54 PM

bulldg4life: skullkrusher: A cadre of Catholics talking over the LGBT organization to stop their advocacy for gay marriage, changing the charter. Sorry, can't stop them.

I would assume the organization would have a tough time continuing to get university funding and use of resources if they took over the organization and failed to fulfill their originally stated charter.

Should they go about changing their charter, then people who don't agree with the charter change are probably free to go about creating a new organization. And, I would hope the university would give them special consideration in the change-over.

Should it happen again, then take action against the students for harassment.


ok, let's ignore the whole unlikely "takeover" scenario. Do you see an issue with a Catholic who is opposed to gay marriage, supportive of caveats to bullying laws, etc running for President of the LGBT organization? I do.
 
2012-05-08 12:31:50 PM

skullkrusher: Do you see an issue with a Catholic who is opposed to gay marriage, supportive of caveats to bullying laws, etc running for President of the LGBT organization? I do.


Sounds stupid. And, I doubt he'd get many votes.
 
2012-05-08 12:33:29 PM

bulldg4life: skullkrusher: Do you see an issue with a Catholic who is opposed to gay marriage, supportive of caveats to bullying laws, etc running for President of the LGBT organization? I do.

Sounds stupid. And, I doubt he'd get many votes.


probably not. So much for the support group though, huh?
 
2012-05-08 12:33:50 PM

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: So you claim. What if Saul claims otherwise?

does Saul have a baptismal certificate? Since I made him up, no he doesn't.

Philip Francis Queeg: What if the Catholic club is dominated by Opus Dei Catholics, should they be allowed to kick out other Catholics for not being the right kind of Catholic?

we've gone from not holding leadership positions to throwing people out for non-belief? A lie in the blink of an eye.


Yes, everyone knows that every college student brings their Baptismal certificate to college with them to be able to join campus organizations and to get leadership positions in them.

Should the Opus Dei Catholics be able to ban other student Catholics from running for leadership positions in an official campus organization?
 
2012-05-08 12:34:29 PM
So what would happen if a group of people infiltrated their 'opposition' group and took it over? It's not as if they actually mean anything. You'd end up with a bunch of Christians calling themselves Atheists, or vice versa.

Second, doesn't the regulation state that they have to let everyone in, but only
"members in good standing" can run for leadership positions?

So redefine "good standing" to be a signed declaration of support for the chartered principles, and the consequences for failing to uphold or attempting to change these foundational principles would be revocation of "good standing" and the leadership position.

Just build it all into your charter. Sort of a legalese firewall.
 
2012-05-08 12:34:46 PM
step 1) join the Muslim student organization with a large group of like-minded friends
step 2) collude with your friends to vote members of your group into all of the leadership positions
step 3) use Muslim student organization branding to promote bacon for the lolz
step 4) get blown up
 
2012-05-08 12:34:49 PM

skullkrusher: So much for the support group though, huh?


If he fails to fulfill his duties running the support group (multiple complaints or whatever), then he could be removed for not fulfilling his duties within the organization, couldn't he?
 
2012-05-08 12:35:57 PM

skullkrusher: bulldg4life: skullkrusher: Do you see an issue with a Catholic who is opposed to gay marriage, supportive of caveats to bullying laws, etc running for President of the LGBT organization? I do.

Sounds stupid. And, I doubt he'd get many votes.

probably not. So much for the support group though, huh?



Not really. Either this person would be removed from a leadership position for not following the charter, or a new group would pop up.
 
2012-05-08 12:36:23 PM

bulldg4life: skullkrusher: So much for the support group though, huh?

If he fails to fulfill his duties running the support group (multiple complaints or whatever), then he could be removed for not fulfilling his duties within the organization, couldn't he?


the fact that they must allow a person who holds positions diametrically opposed to their own run for office puts a damper on the whole "safe space" idea.
Where can a gay kid go knowing he will be accepted by all and not judged? Not there apparently.
 
2012-05-08 12:37:01 PM

fracto73: skullkrusher: bulldg4life: skullkrusher: Do you see an issue with a Catholic who is opposed to gay marriage, supportive of caveats to bullying laws, etc running for President of the LGBT organization? I do.

Sounds stupid. And, I doubt he'd get many votes.

probably not. So much for the support group though, huh?


Not really. Either this person would be removed from a leadership position for not following the charter, or a new group would pop up.


the person doesn't have to win to cause an issue
 
2012-05-08 12:37:37 PM

thomps: bulldg4life: As it stands, I don't see why "it's just not fair that icky non-believers get to join and run for leadership positions" is a valid criticism.

if the purpose of your organization is to promote a cause, why should you be forced to accept people in to your organization who do not promote that cause? doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of an issue-based organization?


If the purpose of your university is to promote the enrichment and education of your students regardless of creed, why should you be forced to accept affiliated organizations (and give them rent-free meeting space) that does not promote that cause?
 
2012-05-08 12:38:22 PM

skullkrusher: the person doesn't have to win to cause an issue


And, if they cause an issue, the organization would have justification to remove them.

skullkrusher: Where can a gay kid go knowing he will be accepted by all and not judged? Not there apparently.


I've got to believe that making fun of the gay kid would go against organizational bylaws somewhere. Kick him out after that.
 
2012-05-08 12:38:24 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, everyone knows that every college student brings their Baptismal certificate to college with them to be able to join campus organizations and to get leadership positions in them.


that's not what just happened here. You changed the debate from leadership to membership. You lie.

Philip Francis Queeg: Should the Opus Dei Catholics be able to ban other student Catholics from running for leadership positions in an official campus organization?


ooh look, you did it again. LOL BAPTISMAL CERTIFICATES TO JOIN
 
2012-05-08 12:40:58 PM

skullkrusher: fracto73: skullkrusher: bulldg4life: skullkrusher: Do you see an issue with a Catholic who is opposed to gay marriage, supportive of caveats to bullying laws, etc running for President of the LGBT organization? I do.

Sounds stupid. And, I doubt he'd get many votes.

probably not. So much for the support group though, huh?


Not really. Either this person would be removed from a leadership position for not following the charter, or a new group would pop up.

the person doesn't have to win to cause an issue



I am more comfortable with an open, self correcting system like that then with a ban on people who pay for a group from taking an active role.
 
2012-05-08 12:40:59 PM

bulldg4life: And, if they cause an issue, the organization would have justification to remove them.


step 1) join the Gay student organization with a large group of like-minded friends
step 2) collude with your friends to vote members of your group into all of the leadership positions
step 3) change the By Laws
step 4) use Gay student organization branding to promote bacon for the lolz
 
2012-05-08 12:42:01 PM

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, everyone knows that every college student brings their Baptismal certificate to college with them to be able to join campus organizations and to get leadership positions in them.

that's not what just happened here. You changed the debate from leadership to membership. You lie.

Philip Francis Queeg: Should the Opus Dei Catholics be able to ban other student Catholics from running for leadership positions in an official campus organization?

ooh look, you did it again. LOL BAPTISMAL CERTIFICATES TO JOIN


Oh for farks sake, this is sad even by your standards.
 
2012-05-08 12:42:56 PM

bulldg4life: And, if they cause an issue, the organization would have justification to remove them.


"cause an issue" by speaking their mind?

bulldg4life: I've got to believe that making fun of the gay kid would go against organizational bylaws somewhere. Kick him out after that.


don't have to make fun of him to say he doesn't deserve the right to be married. Would make me uncomfortable.

Look, Vandy is within their rights to do this. I even see where they are coming from - all student groups and all leadership positions must be open to all. I just think it is stupid. People like to be around people like them to discuss things which pertain to them because of that commonality. As I said earlier, I think this group already moved off campus and is fighting about use of the name in their organization. That's probably the only solution.
 
2012-05-08 12:44:00 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, everyone knows that every college student brings their Baptismal certificate to college with them to be able to join campus organizations and to get leadership positions in them.

that's not what just happened here. You changed the debate from leadership to membership. You lie.

Philip Francis Queeg: Should the Opus Dei Catholics be able to ban other student Catholics from running for leadership positions in an official campus organization?

ooh look, you did it again. LOL BAPTISMAL CERTIFICATES TO JOIN

Oh for farks sake, this is sad even by your standards.


it's not hard. No one has said that people should be banned from joining. TFA doesn't even say that. You made that strawman up because you are dishonest and stupid. Now it is "sad" that you've been caught doing what you do ALL THE FARKING TIME. Yes, it is sad. You should be ashamed of yourself.
 
2012-05-08 12:47:39 PM
...jesus club

Hey, I thought the first rule of Jesus Club was that you weren't supposed to talk about it.

Oh, hold on, never mind, that's "Fight Club".

Jesus Club is the "never shut up" one, right?
 
2012-05-08 12:49:16 PM

skullkrusher:
Look, Vandy is within their rights to do this. I even see where they are coming from - all student groups and all leadership positions must be open to all. I just think it is stupid. People like to be around people like them to discuss things which pertain to them because of that commonality. As I said earlier, I think this group already moved off campus and is fighting about use of the name in their organization. That's probably the only solution.



I think you are overestimating the number of bored assholes. My very liberal campus had several christian organisations with no issue. There were also groups for LGBT, wiccans, and most political philosophies. They co-existed because there were strong social pressures against what you describe. If someone were to try to run a hostile take over on any of them I think they would have gotten support from the community as a whole and the people trying the take over would faced a push back.
 
2012-05-08 12:49:48 PM

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, everyone knows that every college student brings their Baptismal certificate to college with them to be able to join campus organizations and to get leadership positions in them.

that's not what just happened here. You changed the debate from leadership to membership. You lie.

Philip Francis Queeg: Should the Opus Dei Catholics be able to ban other student Catholics from running for leadership positions in an official campus organization?

ooh look, you did it again. LOL BAPTISMAL CERTIFICATES TO JOIN

Oh for farks sake, this is sad even by your standards.

it's not hard. No one has said that people should be banned from joining. TFA doesn't even say that. You made that strawman up because you are dishonest and stupid. Now it is "sad" that you've been caught doing what you do ALL THE FARKING TIME. Yes, it is sad. You should be ashamed of yourself.


And then I limited it to running for leadership positions. I guess that was either too much for you to comprehend, or it undermined your support for policies of discrimination too much.
 
2012-05-08 12:54:47 PM

GentDirkly: Saying Congress should "mind its own business" just means that new laws should comply with the constitution's existing prohibitions on Congressional action.


Well, no, I'm not making a legal argument. I'm making a policy or moral argument. This Republican Party has thrown in its lot with a cadre of professed libertarians who believe that the best government is that which governs least and allows citizens to follow the dictates of their own consciences. Even within this dispute, the Republicans are crying about the ability of one private group to follow its own ideological beliefs, but ignoring the fact that the organization burdening the first group is ITSELF a private organization which, if the Republicans are pushing a genuine political philosophy and not merely opportunistic bullshiat, is ALSO entitled to freedom of belief, speech, and association. Why can't I call out hypocrisy where I see it? That is not to say that congressmen and women have no right to be hypocritical - they do - but that doesn't mean they are immune from criticism.

But that doesn't mean, at all, that members of Congress can't comment on things that concern them.

Well, of course not. Members of Congress are entitled, as are all Americans, to believe and talk about anything they want. As am I.

These things concern the majority of people, and the majority of people elect the members.

You really think a majority of people care that Vanderbilt University theoretically applies its nondiscrimination policy even to religious groups? Even after Fox News and the other right-wing idiot farms whip this up into an "issue," 1 in 5 people will even know that this is a thing.

You have to see a disconnect between what members of Congress say and what they do sometimes.

I'm not arguing that Congress is not hypocritical. I'm arguing that hypocrisy sucks and should be regarded critically.


On the other hand, if the member of Congress says that they want something that is within Constitutional bounds for a new law, and they don't make any effort to write or pass such a new law, then that member of Congress is worthy of scorn. In that case there should be no difference between what they say and what they do.

You know, and I know, that under the interpretation they wish to impose upon the Constitution and the federal government, the commerce clause and the welfare clause do not give Congress the power to broadly regulate the policies of private institutions. How is it any better that a member of Congress proposes a law which he believes is not within the constitutional bounds of its authority, simply to appease a sliver of the electorate?
 
2012-05-08 12:55:14 PM

thomps: sprawl15: Jackson Herring: skullkrusher: so it's the official "discrimination" that has you worried

not "worried" about anything but your unbelievably stupid hypothetical situations

WHAT IF THE WHITE PEOPLE CLUB HAS TO LET IN MEXICANS?

THE PROPERTY VALUES OF THE ENTIRE LECTERN HALL WILL DECLINE

this is actually a pretty funny thread to read if you frame the debate as an immigration issue.


OK we'll let the atheists, pinkos, socialists, free thinkers, agnostics, and women into our club. BUT NO IRISH!
 
2012-05-08 12:57:27 PM

Karac: indylaw: /why would a non-Christian WANT to join a Christian interest group on campus?

When I was going to the University of South Carolina the Fellowship of Christian Atheletes had the only ultimate frisbee league on campus, and you had to be a member to get on a team. Plenty of people joined up to be able to play, would go to meeting that dealt with the league, and would rarely (if ever) go to services. Strangely enough, the athiests never tried to take over the FCA.


It didn't occur to the secular and non-Christian ultimate frisbee enthusiasts to start a league open to all regardless of religious belief?
 
2012-05-08 12:59:31 PM

fracto73: skullkrusher:
Look, Vandy is within their rights to do this. I even see where they are coming from - all student groups and all leadership positions must be open to all. I just think it is stupid. People like to be around people like them to discuss things which pertain to them because of that commonality. As I said earlier, I think this group already moved off campus and is fighting about use of the name in their organization. That's probably the only solution.


I think you are overestimating the number of bored assholes. My very liberal campus had several christian organisations with no issue. There were also groups for LGBT, wiccans, and most political philosophies. They co-existed because there were strong social pressures against what you describe. If someone were to try to run a hostile take over on any of them I think they would have gotten support from the community as a whole and the people trying the take over would faced a push back.


I had to fight to found an Irish Student Union at my largely Irish-American college because of fears that it would be "divisive". Never mind that a school founded primarily for Irish Catholics had no Irish cultural organization. No, it was taken as a dig against the minority groups. When we did get our charter, we got $700 for the year in funding and had to rely on dues to a large extent. My experience with student government has not been a pleasant one.
 
2012-05-08 01:03:01 PM
If the group is to receive any assistance from the university, it must abide by university rules. There is nothing stopping this group of people from meeting off-campus, in whatever facility they can find or rent, and exclude whomever they want. But if they are going to get help to be an organized group from the university, like a dedicated meeting space that can accommodate all their members, then they have to follow university rules. This isn't a big deal, unless you are forming a group of people whose shared ideology is one of exclusivity or discrimination.

So, the choice for these groups is either (a) ideological integrity and living up to their espoused principles, but moving off-campus or (b) deal with the possibility that some trolling atheist or Jew or Muslim might want to join their organization for sh*ts and giggles until he or she gets bored of wasting everyone's times and stops attending meetings. Getting the US Congress involved to try and persuade the university to change its policies - which are in effect for every University-affiliated group, mind you - to no longer be applicable to certain groups is a childish and petulant tactic. So, I'm not surprised the Christian and Catholic groups that wish to stick around on campus are going that route. At least the Vanderbilt Catholic group did a slightly more grown-up thing and moved off-campus.
 
2012-05-08 01:03:15 PM

skullkrusher: fracto73: skullkrusher:
Look, Vandy is within their rights to do this. I even see where they are coming from - all student groups and all leadership positions must be open to all. I just think it is stupid. People like to be around people like them to discuss things which pertain to them because of that commonality. As I said earlier, I think this group already moved off campus and is fighting about use of the name in their organization. That's probably the only solution.


I think you are overestimating the number of bored assholes. My very liberal campus had several christian organisations with no issue. There were also groups for LGBT, wiccans, and most political philosophies. They co-existed because there were strong social pressures against what you describe. If someone were to try to run a hostile take over on any of them I think they would have gotten support from the community as a whole and the people trying the take over would faced a push back.

I had to fight to found an Irish Student Union at my largely Irish-American college because of fears that it would be "divisive". Never mind that a school founded primarily for Irish Catholics had no Irish cultural organization. No, it was taken as a dig against the minority groups. When we did get our charter, we got $700 for the year in funding and had to rely on dues to a large extent. My experience with student government has not been a pleasant one.


Were only Irish Catholics allowed to run for leadership positions in your group?
 
2012-05-08 01:06:27 PM

skullkrusher: fracto73: skullkrusher:
Look, Vandy is within their rights to do this. I even see where they are coming from - all student groups and all leadership positions must be open to all. I just think it is stupid. People like to be around people like them to discuss things which pertain to them because of that commonality. As I said earlier, I think this group already moved off campus and is fighting about use of the name in their organization. That's probably the only solution.


I think you are overestimating the number of bored assholes. My very liberal campus had several christian organisations with no issue. There were also groups for LGBT, wiccans, and most political philosophies. They co-existed because there were strong social pressures against what you describe. If someone were to try to run a hostile take over on any of them I think they would have gotten support from the community as a whole and the people trying the take over would faced a push back.

I had to fight to found an Irish Student Union at my largely Irish-American college because of fears that it would be "divisive". Never mind that a school founded primarily for Irish Catholics had no Irish cultural organization. No, it was taken as a dig against the minority groups. When we did get our charter, we got $700 for the year in funding and had to rely on dues to a large extent. My experience with student government has not been a pleasant one.



All these groups have to go through that. It is why their mission and purpose are important. If the christan group's mission wasn't inclusive it wouldn't have been allowed to form as a student organisation anyway. Since it is inclusive the restrictions on who can lead it don't make sense.
 
2012-05-08 01:08:36 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: fracto73: skullkrusher:
Look, Vandy is within their rights to do this. I even see where they are coming from - all student groups and all leadership positions must be open to all. I just think it is stupid. People like to be around people like them to discuss things which pertain to them because of that commonality. As I said earlier, I think this group already moved off campus and is fighting about use of the name in their organization. That's probably the only solution.


I think you are overestimating the number of bored assholes. My very liberal campus had several christian organisations with no issue. There were also groups for LGBT, wiccans, and most political philosophies. They co-existed because there were strong social pressures against what you describe. If someone were to try to run a hostile take over on any of them I think they would have gotten support from the community as a whole and the people trying the take over would faced a push back.

I had to fight to found an Irish Student Union at my largely Irish-American college because of fears that it would be "divisive". Never mind that a school founded primarily for Irish Catholics had no Irish cultural organization. No, it was taken as a dig against the minority groups. When we did get our charter, we got $700 for the year in funding and had to rely on dues to a large extent. My experience with student government has not been a pleasant one.

Were only Irish Catholics allowed to run for leadership positions in your group?


they didn't even want to let us set up shop, we never tried. Never saw a need either.
 
2012-05-08 01:09:52 PM

Lumpmoose: Vanderbilt is private and the Boy Scouts are private. It works both ways, GOPers.

In March, Vanderbilt Catholic said it would pick up and move off campus, rather than sign a pledge that non-Catholics were welcome to apply for positions of leadership. To do that, the group's leaders said, would be to compromise the entire purpose of the organization.

Why does it matter if "anyone can apply" to a position a leadership? Aren't the student groups in charge of picking their own leaders? From TFA, it just sounds like biatchy groups don't want icky non-Christians sullying their leadership ballots regardless of how anyone votes.


THIS ^^

Vanderbilt alum here... this whole thing is an asinine waste of money, time, and brain cells for a whole list of reasons. Bottom line: Vandy is private, Christian groups are free to vote for the real believer instead of the nonbeliever, but they can't act like grownups about it because they're too busy finding reasons to pretend to be oppressed, because it makes them feel better about themselves or something.
 
2012-05-08 01:12:15 PM

fracto73: skullkrusher: fracto73: skullkrusher:
Look, Vandy is within their rights to do this. I even see where they are coming from - all student groups and all leadership positions must be open to all. I just think it is stupid. People like to be around people like them to discuss things which pertain to them because of that commonality. As I said earlier, I think this group already moved off campus and is fighting about use of the name in their organization. That's probably the only solution.


I think you are overestimating the number of bored assholes. My very liberal campus had several christian organisations with no issue. There were also groups for LGBT, wiccans, and most political philosophies. They co-existed because there were strong social pressures against what you describe. If someone were to try to run a hostile take over on any of them I think they would have gotten support from the community as a whole and the people trying the take over would faced a push back.

I had to fight to found an Irish Student Union at my largely Irish-American college because of fears that it would be "divisive". Never mind that a school founded primarily for Irish Catholics had no Irish cultural organization. No, it was taken as a dig against the minority groups. When we did get our charter, we got $700 for the year in funding and had to rely on dues to a large extent. My experience with student government has not been a pleasant one.


All these groups have to go through that. It is why their mission and purpose are important. If the christan group's mission wasn't inclusive it wouldn't have been allowed to form as a student organisation anyway. Since it is inclusive the restrictions on who can lead it don't make sense.


I don't think that was the case for us. Very clearly talked about the study and appreciation of Irish history, culture and language in our charter. It was still dubbed a white supremacist organization and we had to appeal 3 times. $700 vs the Black Student Union's $20k so they could afford to pay for lectures on the historically black Jesus.
 
rpm
2012-05-08 01:12:43 PM

Weaver95: atheists have to put religious nuts into leadership positions....all kinds of crazy there.


You mean like this?
 
2012-05-08 01:16:20 PM

skullkrusher: Were only Irish Catholics allowed to run for leadership positions in your group?

they didn't even want to let us set up shop, we never tried. Never saw a need either.



But what if a bunch of Radical Greek Orthodox wanted to take over your organization and use it to promote eating pita and drinking ouzo? How could you live with that threat?
 
2012-05-08 01:16:32 PM

skullkrusher: fracto73: skullkrusher: fracto73: skullkrusher:
Look, Vandy is within their rights to do this. I even see where they are coming from - all student groups and all leadership positions must be open to all. I just think it is stupid. People like to be around people like them to discuss things which pertain to them because of that commonality. As I said earlier, I think this group already moved off campus and is fighting about use of the name in their organization. That's probably the only solution.


I think you are overestimating the number of bored assholes. My very liberal campus had several christian organisations with no issue. There were also groups for LGBT, wiccans, and most political philosophies. They co-existed because there were strong social pressures against what you describe. If someone were to try to run a hostile take over on any of them I think they would have gotten support from the community as a whole and the people trying the take over would faced a push back.

I had to fight to found an Irish Student Union at my largely Irish-American college because of fears that it would be "divisive". Never mind that a school founded primarily for Irish Catholics had no Irish cultural organization. No, it was taken as a dig against the minority groups. When we did get our charter, we got $700 for the year in funding and had to rely on dues to a large extent. My experience with student government has not been a pleasant one.


All these groups have to go through that. It is why their mission and purpose are important. If the christan group's mission wasn't inclusive it wouldn't have been allowed to form as a student organisation anyway. Since it is inclusive the restrictions on who can lead it don't make sense.

I don't think that was the case for us. Very clearly talked about the study and appreciation of Irish history, culture and language in our charter. It was still dubbed a white supremacist organization and we had to appeal 3 times. $700 vs th ...



Wow, I've never seen a campus group get that much money. We had a couple groups that got grants and such from out side sources, and most groups did a significant amount of fundraising, but $20k is a lot for any student org.
 
2012-05-08 01:19:56 PM

fracto73: Wow, I've never seen a campus group get that much money. We had a couple groups that got grants and such from out side sources, and most groups did a significant amount of fundraising, but $20k is a lot for any student org.


there were about 50 black kids in my college and it was 1994. Perfect storm. :) That included consortium costs for the black student organizations at neighboring colleges as well so it wasn't entirely spent exclusively on my college's Black Student Union events
 
2012-05-08 01:20:06 PM

skullkrusher: I don't think that was the case for us. Very clearly talked about the study and appreciation of Irish history, culture and language in our charter. It was still dubbed a white supremacist organization and we had to appeal 3 times.


I also feel I should mention that we had 3 christian 'bible study'ish groups. IVCF, the Newman club, and the campus crusade for christ. These all represented different flavors of christianity but because of the open nature of the groups someone starting a new christian group would likely be denied because a group with a similar mission already existed.
 
2012-05-08 01:20:50 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Were only Irish Catholics allowed to run for leadership positions in your group?

they didn't even want to let us set up shop, we never tried. Never saw a need either.


But what if a bunch of Radical Greek Orthodox wanted to take over your organization and use it to promote eating pita and drinking ouzo? How could you live with that threat?


probably would have thrown them out. As much as combating stereotypes was part of our purpose, let's be honest. Irish people are drunk and violent.
 
2012-05-08 01:21:00 PM
Speaking as the president of a Vanderbilt student organization, I can confidently say that the focus in this thread on the "hostile takeover" scenario is somewhere between "lulzy hypothetical" and pure concern trolling.

No student group serving a discriminated-against group or minority has come out against this policy. The only objectors are the Christian frats and student orgs that want to keep gays, dissenters and the Dutch out. And yes, at least one Christian frat (BYX) has decided to sever its university affiliation (or in the vernacular, "go off campus") rather than take all comers.
 
Displayed 50 of 177 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report