« How Do We Make Apologetics Accessible to Everyday Christians? | Main | Links Mentioned on the 9/09/14 Show »

September 09, 2014

Comments

I wonder.

Would the same rules apply to other groups?

Would Muslim groups be told that adhering to Islamic beliefs unacceptable?
Would a democrat group be told that it must allow itself to be open to republican leaders?
Would Holocaust deniers be able to appeal not bring selected a leadership position in a Jewish group?
Would feminist groups be required to accept male leadership who may have anti feminist ideas?
Would atheist groups be required to accept Young Earth Creationists as leaders?

Sadly, the answer is likely no.

Expecting consistency will likely be met with derision. These things are not part of the political correctness agenda. Nothing can be allowed to stop politically correctness bandwagon. Why? It allows left leaning thinkers a venue to feel that they are crusading for good without tackling serious problems thistle are hard.

It takes hard work to tackle poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, child abuse and such. It is easy to do rallies, marketing campaigns, and make administrative changes. These things also have resume uses, as while helping the poor may show you as compassionate, running a pro sans sex marriage marketing campaign or finding a way to change administrative policy are resume items that are useful for seeking management positions or roles is some political lobbying organization. And it makes them feel superior to those who don't care enough to "help".

In this case, although it is hypocritical to villianize people for sticking to their beliefs when they hold their own sacrosanct, they are in a position where sticking to the I views is easy and seen as courageous by peers. Who doesn't want to be seen as the brave crusader fighting the the evil foe when one is never in any danger, the political tide is on your side, and if you lose you can play the victim card by claiming something like being overwhelmed by the money spend by masses of people that are too uneducated to realize that how stupid they actually are.

The ideals of political correctness can sound nice, when presented as individual sound bites, but in practice it is often a story full of sound and fury, fold by an idiot, signifying nothing, with a destroy them all and let their non-existent Gilod sort them out attitude.

Sorry, mobile keyboard.

I graduated from a Cal State myself.
I am not proud of my Alma Mater for doing this.

"If religious groups required set truths or limited sexual autonomy, they were bad—not just wrong but evil, narrow-minded, and too dangerous to be tolerated on campus."
They aren't tolerated on campus? They've been banned? InterVarsity meetings will be required to disperse?

Good grief. They haven't even been restricted from using campus rooms, they just have to pay for them.

Is the decision inconsistent and in opposition to common sense and free expression, yes. Is it what is described in what I quoted? Not even close.
(Note, that doesn't mean it can't or won't eventually get there. It does mean the quoted statement is overly sensationalized for the current situation and is likely to be detrimental to attempts to remedy the situation because it is, as I pointed out, demonstrably false.)

Quit yer whingin' an get a lawyer. There is no way this stands the test of fairness.

They "just" have to pay for them? $20,000 is not a "just."

Regarding the quote, it's from what Tish Harrison Warren experienced in the Vanderbilt situation. It doesn't sound like that club was able to survive there. The interesting thing about her is that she was sure that she could convince them to be reasonable, but over the year of probation, she realized what she was facing. That's what's behind that quote. It's based on the actual interactions she had with the administration, not merely the official pronouncements, which, as I said above, try to dress up this decision to sound reasonable but don't necessarily represent all that's behind the decision. So I don't fault her for calling it as she saw it.

But as I met with other administrators, the tone began to change. The word discrimination began to be used—a lot—specifically in regard to creedal requirements. It was lobbed like a grenade to end all argument. Administrators compared Christian students to 1960s segregationists. I once mustered courage to ask them if they truly thought it was fair to equate racial prejudice with asking Bible study leaders to affirm the Resurrection. The vice chancellor replied, "Creedal discrimination is still discrimination"....

That probationary year unearthed a hidden assumption that I could be nuanced or articulate or culturally engaged or compassionate enough to make the gospel more acceptable to my neighbors. But that belief is prideful. From its earliest days, the gospel has been both a comfort and an offense.

"They "just" have to pay for them? $20,000 is not a "just.""

$20k for what? Are you talking about student tuition or the cost of renting facilities? If we're talking about Vanderbilt (referenced in the article) then it seems unlikely you're referring to room rentals (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/studentcenters/wp-content/uploads/University-Rates-14-15.pdf).

If you're talking about tuition, then equating $20K to the cost for using their facilities for group meetings is invalid. I've already concurred that the decision is wrong. However, the tuition is primarily for education. What additional privileges it provides, be that in terms of access to facilities or what have you, are just that, privileges; subject to the policies of the institution that provides the resources and privileges to access them.

Or are you saying that included with these policies is an exception where if a group pays a $20k fee (one time? per semester? per year?) they can be exempted and still use the school name, be at the student fairs, and have access to the resources at no additional cost?

Pray tell, Robert, why should they have to pay for the use of the rooms for meetings, even if the price is $1, if other student groups do not have to pay the same price?

None of this surprises me of course. I've lived in Academia. This was virtually inevitable.

Thank God I'm out and making software to help make Big Oil companies more profitable.

Please correct me where I go wrong.

Every student is required to pay an activity fee.

From now on, every student will get equal access to everything funded by the activity fee.

That means no funding (anymore) for anything that doesn't allow equal access to everyone paying the activity fee.

This is upsetting.

Is that right?

"Pray tell, Robert, why should they have to pay for the use of the rooms for meetings, even if the price is $1, if other student groups do not have to pay the same price?"

Can you point me to where I said they should have to pay the activity fee?

RE: my last comment, I got "activity fee" and "pay for use of the rooms" confused because of the nearness of the two previous comments. More correctly my statement should read:
"Can you point me to where I said they should have to pay for the use of the rooms?"

When you talk about other student groups, be they Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Seventh Day Adventist, Gay, Tea Party, etc., they have all signed the non-discriminatory leadership policy letter required by the California State University.

Great! Then Christians should seek to be leaders in all of them and see how it goes.

RonH, everyone had equal access to InterVarsity. Nobody had to even be a Christian to be a member, let alone sign a statement of faith (see above).

Robert, the $20,000 (per chapter) is what I saw cited as the estimated cost for renting their meeting space for a year.

RonH, everyone had equal access to InterVarsity. .
I read somewhere that leaders had to be Christian (see above). What is equal about that?
Great! Then Christians should seek to be leaders in all of them and see how it goes.

Great point.

How will it go I join InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and seek to be a leader? (Let's say I'm not a Christian.)

Amy,

Before going into much detail, let me state that if the cost of rooms is not artificially inflated because of the religious perspectives of the group involved (i.e. if they are charged at the same rate as any other non-recognized group) then yes, even $20,000 a year is "just" having to pay for rooms. And yes there is a distinction (and a large one) between having to pay to rent a room and not being allowed to meet on campus.

The Huffington Post article, as well as the original video it cites list the costs as covering more than just room rentals. In the video the statement is it will cover "rent rooms, generate awareness, and meet new students." The breakout of that is not clear. Further the phrasing used in the video varies from the Huffington Post article, as the statement is that the cost could be "up to twenty-thousand dollars a year." There is not a range give "from five to twenty-thousand a year," only the high end. This could be because the high and low ends are very close together, however, it could also be because they're far apart and the low end would not present as compelling a case.

If we use Vanderbilt as a baseline (because I haven't found the same information posted for a Cal State campus) and assume an 18 week semester,and a group that meets once a week: the range of costs for half-day room reservation are from $2,700 a year to $20,160 a year (excluding Ballrooms). The high end is a room that will hold from 60 to 470 people, depending on configuration. The low end, 28 to 40. (To provide some balance, there is a lower cost room that can hold 60 to 114 people that would only run $3,240 a year.)

In the same article you cited the Cal State representative stated that "they will not receive as steep a discount." That could mean that they will receive no discount at all, or it could mean they won't receive the room for free but they won't be charged the base price.

In short, if the costs for room rentals are both 1) consistent across non-recognized groups (or discounted for groups primarily composed of students) and 2) consistent with the market of the area (i.e. the place a mile down the road would charge roughly the same, or higher, for the same square footage and amenities) then it is still "just" having to pay for the room. It is not equivalent to being banned from meeting on campus grounds.

Let's just call this what it is: liberal fascism. Everyone with a brain knows that these "universities" have been over-run by such small-minded, intolerant, and godless (sorry for the triple redundancy) creatures. This is demonstrable: http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/new-study-university-professors-admit-they-would-discriminate-against-conservatives/

Amy said: "Great! Then Christians should seek to be leaders in all of them and see how it goes."

Actually, some Hillel (Jewish Student) groups report that non Jews have applied and have been voted into leadership roles.

I just don't see what the hubbub is all about. The point about IV is to reach out to the college student community with a hand and a smile, not maintain an ideological purity because no one wants to sign a watered-down generic anti-discriminatory letter. I mean, if the Shiite Muslim Student Association can sign it, what does that say about Christians?

Seems to me that anyone could have voluntarily chosen to abide by InterVarsity's requirements and been eligible for a leadership position in the group. A Muslim could have converted to Christianity, an unmarried person could withhold from sexual relations, etc.

So who was being discriminated against?

Unless I am missing something, obviously no one.

Robert, it may not be explicitly equivalent (and she didn't use the word "banned"), but if the ruling at Vanderbilt ended in the club disbanding (which it appears it did, though maybe I'm misunderstanding), then the result is the same.

RagTime, that's exactly what the quote is talking about. The only kind of acceptable religion is the kind that doesn't care about doctrine. Your religion is welcome as long as it's the right kind of religion we approve of!

I mean, if the Shiite Muslim Student Association can sign it, what does that say about Christians?

I don't know what that says about Christians, but what signing a statement that they won't require their leaders to be Muslim says about the Shiite Muslim Student Association (if there is one and they signed it) is that they don't care about their group actually being Muslim.

Ron, I understand you like to stir things up here no matter what's being said, but I need you to set that aside and be real for a minute. Are you seriously going to argue that it makes sense to tell a Christian group that they can't require their leaders—who do the teaching and the planning—to be Christians who adhere to their statement of faith? Knowing that Christianity is a religion that is not mainly about getting together to do good works, but about a relationship with a particular God who asks us to trust in a particular sacrifice and tell others about it as a first priority? Bearing in mind that anyone, regardless of beliefs, is welcome to join them and participate in the club if they want to? Think about this carefully because your answer will affect how seriously I take you for a good long time.

I doubt the people behind this decision to de-recognize InterVarsity did so with no regard to being reasonable. They are no doubt convinced that there decision is simply in-line with their policy and that they are preventing discrimination. They have not come to their conclusion motivated by obvious ill will. Perhaps that is too charitable, but I would rather be too charitable than too quick to judge.

Anyway, it has struck me that perhaps at the root of their reasoning that they not only find Christianity to be false, but blatantly and obviously false. So much so that they may not believe that anyone takes Christianity itself seriously, and that the Christian basis of InterVarsity is really just pretense and ultimately inconsequential to the group's mission. They may not even understand why it matters that InterVarsity (and other Christian groups) have Christian leaders.

Can you point me to where I said they should have to pay the activity fee?
Well, the following suggests that
Good grief. They haven't even been restricted from using campus rooms, they just have to pay for them.
As does your subsequent disputation with Amy about how much students have to pay.

However, you did say this after your "Good grief" remark

Is the decision inconsistent and in opposition to common sense and free expression, yes.
So, fair enough, you didn't say that Christians should have to pay anything over and above the charges everyone else pays. And indeed seem instead to be saying that they shouldn't have to pay.

At the same time, I guess you are saying that, although Christians should not have to pay the additional charges, they also shouldn't complain about having to do so? Or it's silly for them to do so? Or something along the lines of "Good grief, they're just making you pay more, but you can still get the rooms to meet in, so stop being so dramatic!"

Amy,

I don't see why I should need to say this - it should already have been clear.


InterVarsity can require its leaders to sign whatever they want.

I'm not taking a position on InterVarsity's leadership requirements.

And neither is Cal State.

RonH

"Robert, it may not be explicitly equivalent (and she didn't use the word "banned"), but if the ruling at Vanderbilt ended in the club disbanding (which it appears it did, though maybe I'm misunderstanding), then the result is the same."
She did not use the word banned, I concur. She did use the words "too dangerous to be tolerated on campus." It would seem to me, though, that allowing the group to rent rooms at the standard rate would be equivalent to "tolerating [it] on campus."

Does similarity of results, as a general principle, justify claims of similarity of action?
If not, what do you present as justification for the exception in this case?

Wisdomlover,

The explicit statement of my primary point was in the parenthesis. I admit that is a bad place to put an explicit statement of my primary point. Thank you (in seriousness) for pointing out my lack of clarity.

I am all for Christians (and others who disagree with the decision) expressing their disagreement. I would encourage them to express their disagreement in a manner that attempts to change the decision.

My issue is with the phrase (and more generally the attitude that pervades the quote and the rest of the source article I have access to as I do not have a CT subscription) "they were bad—not just wrong but evil,... too dangerous to be tolerated on campus." This does not help change the decision. This is an accusation that, when presented, is easily refuted; as done by Mike Uhlencamp, director of public affairs for the California State University system, quoted in the Huffington Post article Amy linked. He states "We are not disbanding them, they have not been removed from any of our campuses...They will still have access to meeting rooms, they just will not receive as steep a discount." "We'll let them use our meeting rooms, which are on campus" contrasted with "not tolerated on campus." That is why I asked "InterVarsity meetings will be required to disperse?" The exaggeration of the claim, even if it is the true intention behind the decision (unless it can be demonstrated to be the intention), is dismissed as demonstrably inaccurate, and the case against the decision is thus weakened (because one of its supporting claims is refuted, easily). If instead the logical inconsistency and irrationality of the decision, as outlined by Amy in her article, is presented without the sensationalized exaggeration the case is stronger.

My issue, then, is not with complaints or disagreement with the decision as a whole. My issue is with the general manner in which a specific person portrayed the decision in an (apparent) attempt to vilify the decision makers to drum up like minded support rather than addressing the actual decision made to present its failings. Addressing the actual decision made is more honest. It is also more likely to garner support from those who are not like minded, which would mean more numerical support over all.

RonH,

As quoted in the blog "The clubs were told they must cease enforcing their requirement that leaders hold Christian beliefs."

So it seems to me that Cal State is taking a position on Inter Varsity's leadership policy.

Moreover, it seems to me that this is inconsistent with the academy as a whole. To be a professor one typically has to have earned a PhD in a particular field. It's a requirement that is reasonable given the context, but none-the-less excludes most individuals from being a professor.

In other words we all discriminate in some ways, that are completely appropriate. I believe the leadership requirement for Inter Varsity are a form of appropriate discrimination, and I think you do as well.

Ron, of course you're taking a position on IVCF's leadership requirements, you're saying there can't be any if they're to be recognized by the university. And you appear to be saying that's the proper position, or am I misunderstanding?

Once more.

Your club can require what it wants of it's leaders.

Neither I nor Cal State has put any limits on you there.

If you want your Cal State university club to...

* have free access to campus meeting rooms
* receive student activity money
* participate in student fairs or
* use the university name

then the university says you have to give all students equal access to your club.

Ron, sororities do not give all students "equal access." Fraternities do not give all students "equal access." They're allowed to discriminate against students in a protected class (gender) because their club is based on that protected class. In the exact same way, religious clubs are based on a protected class (religion), and ought to be able to choose leaders based on that religion. That goes for atheist clubs, as well. An atheist club absolutely ought to require that their leaders aren't teaching that Christianity is true. Otherwise, they're not an atheist club, are they. To require otherwise is, I'm sorry, ridiculous. As ridiculous as telling sororities they can't discriminate against male members and leaders. That would make their club meaningless because it's about gender, just as this makes religious clubs meaningless because they're about religion.

And what IVCF, in particular, was asking for was less than what's been given to fraternities and sororities. That is, they only want to choose leaders who believe in their statement of faith, not limit all members of their club to that one religion. Fraternities, on the other hand, discriminate against women not only for leaders, but for all members.

You keep telling me what the situation is, but that's not my question. My question is, are you saying that this decision to treat religious clubs this way is reasonable, or even consistent? You think it's reasonable that a university ought to prevent an atheist club from asking a professing Christian to step down from leading and teaching the group? I need to hear you say yes or no. Is this reasonable? This is a watershed moment for my interactions with you Ron, so if you say yes, you had better really mean it.

Second: If you think their decision to not let IVCF choose only Christian leaders is reasonable, is the decision to let fraternities choose only male leaders reasonable?

Third: If you think the Greek system's exemption is reasonable, what is the difference between the two clubs that justifies the different treatments, other than your own preference against Christianity and ambivalence about the Greek system?

I think it's 'living groups' the university actually makes the exception for: they will recognize a single sex living group - many of which happen to be fraternities and sororities.

I think you can see why, if you were running a university, you might see it as in the interest of the university to do this.

If you want, I will spell it out.

Look here.

The prohibition on membership policies that discriminate on the basis of gender does not apply to social fraternities or sororities or to other university living groups.

To me, 'or to other university living groups' implies that fraternities and sororities are understood here to be 'living groups' - even if they don't always involve housing.

That's a response to two and three, but not the main one.

Yes or no, Ron. The policy of preventing (for example) atheist clubs from asking a professing Christian to step down from leading and teaching the group at the risk of losing the official status of their club is reasonable, yes or no.

Ron H

So all student groups must allow equal access to their club. How does it follow from that that student groups cannot have leadership requirements of any kind? It seems to me that these requirements are voluntary, if a student wants to be in a leadership role in a group with leadership requirements that student can choose to abide by those requirements.


I can only see this being an issue of discrimination if there is no possibility for some students to be able to even choose to abide by said requirements. Such as if a group made it a requirement to have a particular skin color. Even that could have possible exceptions, is it discrimination for a rock climbing club to not let a quadriplegic be a leader? Maybe it is, but it also seems reasonable.

In the case of IVCF I am not aware of them having any leadership requirements that would be impossible for some students to voluntarily accept.

I was never part of a club or group or anything like that in college, so I have no idea how leaders are chosen. But I'm guessing there's some sort of vote involved where the members vote for their leaders. If that's the case, then I don't see what the problem is with the policy. Even if a school made it a policy that anybody can be a leader of a group, even if they don't subscribe to what that group is about, it's not as if that person could actually become leaders since it's doubtful the members would vote that person in. And if the members DID vote that person in, then they would have nothing to complain about since it was their decision.

What am I missing?

I'd expect the members of any well designed group to be able to remove a leader by something like a recall vote.

If the president of an atheist grooup (Christian or not) loses the recall vote my policy is: he's out.

I have no reason to think Cal State's policy would be otherwise.


RonH, are you going to answer Amy's question? I think it's pretty evident that your answer is, "Yes, it is reasonable," but she is really drawing a line in the sand, which makes me curious what you will say. If you're unsure, why not just say, "I'm not sure" or "I'm undecided"? The tension is killing me, so please say something!

Ron, removing a student for any of those prohibited reasons would be against the policy, so I don't see why the fact that it's done by a recall vote would make it okay.

Is this policy reasonable, yes or no.

Sam

There are no restrictions on group membership. This leaves groups vulnerable to hostile takeovers. All it takes is enough students who are opposed to what the group stands for joining it and then electing their own to leadership.

Sam, what happens if one of the leaders becomes an atheist or some other religion after being voted in and decides he wants to use his platform to persuade others? Or in the case of InterVarsity, this organization is bigger than any one group. If they can't represent a particular theology, how will students know what they can expect from any one club? And it seems completely possible that someone from an anti-Christian group would purposely join the club and become an officer just to test the system and make legal trouble. Why do I say this? Because we see it happening all the time with bakeries, photographers, etc. If you don't think groups would organize to do this, you haven't been paying attention.

Regardless, it doesn't matter whether or not they can get around the policy, it's not rational to make them have to deal with this, and I suspect that this idiotic policy will just end up ruining a lot of things for everybody.

And on the contrary, I don't think it's at all obvious how Ron will answer.

DR84 and Amy, you have both helped me to see what I was not seeing. Thank you.

I sometimes wonder what would happen if somebody, through trickery, managed to get themselves on the board of apostles in the LDS Church and even got themselves voted president, then claiming to speak on divine authority began to negate several of the essential teachings of the LDS Church. I wonder the same thing about the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Papacy. I guess if God really were guiding these organizations, that just couldn't happen. But it's still an interesting thing to think about.

Ron, removing a student for any of those prohibited reasons would be against the policy, so I don't see why the fact that it's done by a recall vote would make it okay.

Within the policy, a Christian can run for the presidency of an atheist group.

Reasonable.

Within the policy, a member of the atheist group to vote for the Christian (or for somebody else).

Reasonable.

The Christian could win and serve as president.

Reasonable.

The policy allows a member of the group to vote for (or against) the Christian president's recall.

Reasonable.

Furthermore, within the policy, the member can cast his votes because the candidate or incumbent is Christian, or because he is not, or for no reason at all.

Reasonable.


Ron, please don’t play games right now. You know that none of those things responds to the question I asked. I need you to answer the question like a real human being—not as an atheist, not as a debater, not as a contrarian, not as an internet robot. Just one human being to another.

This isn’t about me making you bend to my will, this is me asking to see you act as a real human being. After all the time we’ve spent interacting here over the years, I think you owe me that much right now. Just be real for one minute. I want to know that you’re in there.

Is it reasonable that the Cal State system will not allow a Christian club to require that their leaders—who are there to teach, to pray, and to build Christian community—be Christians who agree to this Christian statement of faith? Knowing, as I said before, "that Christianity is a religion that is not mainly about getting together to do good works, but about a relationship with a particular God who asks us to trust in a particular sacrifice and tell others about it as a first priority? Bearing in mind that anyone, regardless of beliefs, is welcome to join them and participate in the club if they want to?"

Yes or no.

It would not be reasonable were the Cal state system not allow a Christian club to require that their leaders to agree to the club's statement of faith.

But that's a hypothetical situation not the actual situation.

InterVarsity can require whatever it wants of its leaders.

Cal State can say nothing about it nor are they trying.

Now if InterVarsity wants Cal State's imprimatur, that's another matter.

By the way, just as I think it is reasonable for Cal State to require equal access to all students, I think it is also reasonable for InterVarsity to require the statement of faith.

This is simply a case where two reasonable requirements come into conflict.

Nobody's wrong, but it's not possible for one club to get both endorsements.


Amy,

That's meant to make it clear why I didn't answer 'yes' or 'no'.

InterVarsity can require whatever it wants of its leaders.

Cal State can say nothing about it nor are they trying.

Now if InterVarsity wants Cal State's imprimatur, that's another matter.

Actually, I think CSU can and is saying something about IV's requirements. To wit: "You don't get the same rates as the other groups".

That is what they are saying today.

Now the question is: why limit it there? If it is perfectly reasonable for CSU to set prices according to ideology, by what principle would things be different if what CSU could and did say were: "You can't meet on campus" or "You must now pay $1,000,000,000,000 to rent classroom 236 for one night"?

I know, of course, that secular statists will say that the cases are different. But I despair of seeing how. I despair of seeing any rational principle by which the cases are differentiated.

Notice, that the case is entirely different at a place like Hillsdale, a private school that receives no government money, not even in the form of scholarship payments. As far as I'm concerned, they have the right to refuse access to anyone for any reason. It's their land, their buildings. The fundamental right of property gives them pretty broad leeway. If I want to disadvantage Christian groups in my living room, I have the right to do so. That's because it's my living room. And the same principle applies to pure private schools, businesses and other entities.

But with CSU, you have an arm of the government saying that IV's religious beliefs are unacceptable and essentially fining them for that. That's way beyond the pale.

At a private school like USC that receives significant subsidies from the government, you essentially have an agent of the government doing the same thing. And it is also unacceptable.

Ron, thank you for clarifying your stance, particularly on this point:

I think it is reasonable for Cal State to require equal access to all students

I’m not looking to debate that point with you (so don’t misinterpret the questions I’m about to ask as leading you for that purpose—I'm not going to pull a Columbo #3 at the end of this), but it would be very helpful to me if you could help me understand why you think it’s reasonable—indeed, within common sense at all, given the nature of what a club is—to disallow qualifications for leadership in order to be recognized by the school. So if you don’t mind my asking a few clarifying questions about that, I would appreciate it. (And I’m interested in hearing your own summary explanation, as well—the more detailed, the better. For you, is it a matter of law? Moral principle? Etc.) I truly want to understand what is behind your stance here, so I’d like to come at it from a few different directions to see if I can get to the core of where our differences started.

So to start, a sorority could easily accommodate living arrangements for two sexes—or at least, for the sake of pinpointing a principle here, let’s concede that they can. That being the case, would it be reasonable for the administration to not allow the sorority to limit their membership or leadership to women in order to be a recognized club? And if not, why not?

Secondly, do you think that universities have been unreasonable all this time by allowing clubs of all types to define themselves and their leadership? Thanks.

Good points WL. It's also worth pointing out, if the term "equal access" is going to be used, that any student can start a club. If the existing clubs don't fit his beliefs and interests, he has the same access as everyone else to receive funds to start a club. There's no need to change existing clubs in order to fit him.

This is, in effect, similar to the kind of reasoning going on with marriage. That is, "If I don't want to enter into marriage as it stands because I'm not interested in marrying the opposite sex, then we must change the definition of marriage for everyone so that it is the kind of thing I want to take part in." (See the tennis court analogy here.)

Nothing can be itself anymore. Everything must be expanded until everything is meaningless. Marriage can't be anything in particular, and a club can't legitimately stand for or teach a particular thing. It's the Left's continued march towards sameness, and it will end with a world of bland ugliness.

The comments to this entry are closed.