Privileges or responsibility?

Two Christian organizations -- the Alpha Iota Omega fraternity at the

University of North Carolina and the Christian Legal Society chapter

at Arizona State University -- have been involved in lawsuits

regarding their rights as registered campus groups. Both groups filed

suits to retain their status as registered student organizations on

campus after their respective universities introduced

nondiscrimination policies -- in the UNC case, that student groups

must be open to all students, regardless of belief. In both cases,

the groups have argued that they should not be forced to have members

who weren’t Christians -- in the Arizona State case, a spokesman said

that all students are welcome to attend its meetings, but only those

who agree with the group’s mission statement could become leaders.

Should student religious groups be forced to add leaders who do not

agree with their teachings?

I like to see “We do not discriminate on the basis of race,

ethnicity, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, religion, creed,

sex, sexual orientation, marital status, age, disability or veteran

status.” It says that fairness is a real goal, but the itemization

also alerts us that these patterns of discrimination existed, and

still do. This is the statement that the student groups want to opt

out of. I hope the courts say no.

A close look at the history of these lawsuits brought by Christian

groups on campuses nationwide (about 50 of them) shows that what they

are really about is whether they can exclude gay and lesbian

students. It began at Tufts in 2000 when the Christian Fellowship

told a lesbian student that she could not become an officer.

After this, universities investigated more carefully whether

student organizations were complying with nondiscrimination policies,

and Christian organizations questioned whether they had to obey these

policies. Both the Arizona and Carolina university groups object to

admitting gay and lesbian students, as well as non-Christians.

What is at stake? Use of classrooms? Status as a duly recognized

student group? Club funds? We know these lawsuits touch upon some of

the most challenging and volatile controversies of our day.

How will we end discrimination against gay and lesbian citizens?

How will the right of each religious group to freely teach its

doctrine be respected? How will the rights of those who are not

religious or who believe in different religious doctrines also be

respected?

How great a difference should there be between what is appropriate

in public, and what is permitted to private organizations and

individuals? When push comes to shove, how does the Fourteenth

Amendment prohibition against discrimination relate to the First

Amendment rights to religious liberty, free speech and free

association? How will we balance the value of inclusion and

diversity, and also respect individual freedoms?

Some evangelical advocacy groups ran ads in campus newspapers

asking, “Are You Experiencing Anti-Christian Bigotry on Campus?” and

claiming, “In the name of ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance,’ schools are

systematically violating the rights of students who follow Jesus.”

The courts and legislature considered similar claims in the past and,

to give one example, did not allow restaurant owners to justify their

refusal to serve African American customers on the basis of their

right to choose whom to serve, or allegations of reverse

discrimination.

Closer to home at Cal State Fullerton, where I teach part-time,

the “Nondiscrimination Policy Statement” is aptly subtitled “A

Commitment to Valuing Diversity.”

Upon weighing the competing claims of these groups and

individuals, I believe that our public organizations, especially our

state universities, must give priority to inclusion, to respect for

diversity and to the eradication of discrimination. The rights of

those who disagree can also be respected in a campus community that

encourages open communication and the expression of alternate points

of view.

Students who wish to discriminate against gay and non-Christian

students based on the doctrine of some Christian denominations can

exercise their rights through off-campus organizations, as well as

expressing their opinions on campus.

Although a vocal segment of our society strongly disagrees with

this direction, I believe it will contribute the most to tolerance

and appreciation of diversity in the human family. In Zen, we try to

see through our tendencies to see others as separate or stranger or

enemy, and to realize our unity with all beings.

REV. DR. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

Alpha Chi Rho, my Dad’s and my fraternity, was founded by an

Episcopal priest. Our “Landmark” statement begins, “AXP believes in a

God whose moral law is the guide and law of the universe, and in

Jesus of Nazareth as the one whose human life best exemplifies such

law.”

The statement concludes, “AXP insists that its members be selected

on the basis of intrinsic worth by a true assessment of moral

character. Religion, race, wealth, social position, and other

external standards are not primarily to be considered in the

selection of members.”

When I was a fraternity president and involved in student

government at Cal in the ‘60s, there were fraternities and sororities

that were both Christian and Jewish in origin and identity. The

National Interfraternity Conference had codes and commitment criteria

identical to AXP’s concluding “Landmark.”

My college roommate was a faithful, worshiping Jew who became

AXP’s president himself; he has lived in Israel these last 30 years

and we still keep in touch. Our fraternity was clearly Christian in

its origins and principles, but not only were we nondiscriminatory,

we were very inclusive and we were blessed with my roommate’s (and

others’) leadership.

Alpha Chi Rho at Cal in the ‘60s might serve as an example in this

situation. People who could not live with our “Landmark” statement

rejected us, not we them. Why would people want to lead groups which

teach what they cannot live?

VERY REV. CANON

PETER D. HAYNES

St. Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar

Groucho Marx said, “I don’t care to belong to a club that accepts

people like me as members.”

I would not care to belong to a club that would not accept me and

which was inimical to my core beliefs. It may be, in terms of

legality, that a student organization must be open to all comers

under the mandate of freedom of speech. But it flies in the face of

common sense that the right of free association be so compromised.

On a college campus, should an atheist be permitted to seek a

leadership position in a religious group? Should a Holocaust denier

be allowed to run for office of a Jewish organization? Should

conditions exist that result in a white supremacist assuming a

position of authority in a group devoted to carrying on the ideals of

Martin Luther King? Should organizations comprised of gays and

lesbians be forced to open themselves up to leadership by those who

believe the Bible condemns homosexuality? Should a carnivore lead the

campus vegan society? Should a conservative Republican enjoy the

opportunity to lead the campus branch of the ACLU?

Last year, Harvard’s weekly newsmagazine asked, “Should

organizations within the Harvard community and endorsed by Harvard

University discriminate based on race, sex, religion, or sexual

orientation?” The obvious answer is no. But many groups, such as the

Harvard Radcliffe Christian Fellowship, explicitly discriminate.

The Fellowship’s constitution states, “Officers of this

organization must subscribe without reserve to principles that

include ‘The Deity and Humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ’ and ‘The

necessity and efficacy of the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ

for the redemption of the world, and the historic fact of His bodily

resurrection.’”

Would I, as an advocate of Judaism, want to be this group’s

Recording Secretary, let alone President?

I believe it is predictable and natural that this Christian

organization would want its leadership to be composed of those who

wholeheartedly subscribe to its evangelical agenda. Aren’t the

chances slim to none that a member of another faith who does not

share its goals would seek a leadership position in the HRFC? And

even if those opposed to the group’s ideology and mission ran for

office, they would be resoundingly defeated! If one sought such

office, say to change the group’s rationale or as a college prank,

his chances of being elected would be less than mine becoming

president of the Safety Razor Society for the Promotion of Clean

Shaven-ness.

In this confused day and age, a pacifist and conscientious

objector should be allowed to join ROTC, students who espouse

“pro-life” positions should be allowed to affiliate with Planned

Parenthood and men should be allowed to pledge sororities. Far

stranger things go on in our college classrooms and on our campuses.

And for anyone who is interested, I saw a website promoting the

Gay Black Jewish Klansmen for Tolerance and Understanding. It was

tongue-in-cheek.

At least, I think it was.

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach

What’s the point? Why have a knitting club if people are going to

come to play cards or weave baskets.

The point of having a club is to get together with like-minded

people for a common purpose. Why have a Muslim Students Assn. club

(like we do at Orange Coast College) or Jewish students’ organization

(like at UCI) or Christian students’ organization (several at both

schools) if the university were to require the groups to be run by

people of other faiths?

Why let the basket weavers run the rocket science club? They

probably wouldn’t want to anyway.

The beauty of a free society is the diversity that flourishes in

it. I love that in our culture guys can wear long hair because if

they didn’t, everyone would look the same. It is the same with

tattoos or piercings or clothing styles.

A person’s choice to be unique creates beauty and color in our

culture that makes it fun to be an American. It is unfortunate that

there is a minority of secular fundamentalists who are trying to

erase diversity in our culture in the name of tolerance and equality.

It is right for the Girl Scouts to be for girls and Boy Scouts for

boys. In the same way, people of faith should be able to meet

together without being coerced by the government or university

leadership.

I have helped students at OCC form a group that was called Common

Ground. It was created for Presbyterians, Lutherans, Calvary

Chapelites, Baptists and Christians of all brands to come to

encourage one another through the school day and the onslaught of

secularism and humanism they had to endure in the classroom. The last

I heard, they merged with Campus Crusade and have between 30 and 40

attendees a week.

Once, when I was invited to speak, they invited Muslim students to

join the discussion on Islam. It was a great learning time for both

groups.

These groups have a meaningful place on any campus. It is

unfortunate that there are people who cannot recognize the benefits

of diversity. If there are students who want an ecumenical club, then

let them start one. The universities should encourage the meeting of

diverse groups on their campuses.

SENIOR ASSOCIATE

PASTOR RIC OLSEN

Harbor Trinity

Costa Mesa