Comments on To Discriminate or Not?

• "Discrimination" and student groups
• Posted by John K. Wilson at Illinois State University on February 22, 2005 at 1:28pm EST

• The claim that "The university has no interest in being thought or religion police," is exactly right. Unfortunately, that's exactly what will happen if a university removes anti-discrimination policies. Once student groups are allowed to write religious tests into their organizational constitutions, it will be the responsibility of the university to interrogate the religious beliefs of student leaders. If a conservative Christian files a complaint that a Mormon is not a Christian and therefore cannot be the head of a Christian campus group, then the university must determine whether Mormons are Christians. That's just one more reason why universities must protect the religious freedom of their students and prohibit such religious tests.

• Posted by Thomas Devlin on February 22, 2005 at 9:39pm EST

• It seems to me that the issue is not whether these students are free to exercise their religion or associate with whom they see fit to associate but whether they are entitled to state funds to engage in their discriminatory activity. I would find it surprising that a federal judge would appear to see nothing wrong with this obvious violation of the establishment of religion clause but recent Republican presidents, especially the current one, have appointed federal judges with an eye toward undermining the first amendment in this respect.

• Posted by Stu Gittelman on February 25, 2005 at 12:00pm EST

• John Wilson wrote: "Once student groups are allowed to write religious tests into their organizational constitutions, it will be the responsibility of the university to interrogate the religious beliefs of student leaders."

  First off, this isn't an issue of the university "allowing" religious groups to "write tests" regarding their membership. The university doesn't have the power not to allow that because the students and the groups have that right from the constitution. No public institution has the ability to interfere in that (nor, I would argue, should any private one which accepts public funds). UNC is doing the latter - attempting to abridge the freedom of the fraternity. The poster's concern about the university becoming some sort of "sanity board" is misplaced because the university is already involved in such decisions. The proper solution is for UNC to butt out entirely.

• Posted by Tom McCool on February 25, 2005 at 2:23pm EST

• As a devout Christian, I am too often amazed when fellow disciples of Jesus Christ choose to associate only with other Christians. Jesus did not die and rise again for the purpose of creating an exclusive club. I think this fraternity can find a way to accept everyone, and still adhere to Christian values within its organization.