Beginning last spring, Vanderbilt began implementing a new non-discrimination policy that undermines the integrity of many student religious organizations. As a student leader in one of these organizations, I had a front-row seat to the drama that unfolded behind closed doors as many in the religious community attempted to dialogue with the administration. Like so many others, I was dedicated to pleading the case of religious life — but only in private.
Then I received the chancellor's email last week and something inside of me snapped. I realized that the rest of the Vanderbilt community deserves a more accurate picture of what had been transpiring privately for so many months. So this is a public plea. A public and passionate plea for myself and any other student who wants the opportunity to make choices for religious organizations based on their religious beliefs.
It's that simple.
Yet, throughout this process the university has consistently obscured the facts in an effort to gain acceptance for a policy that is widely unpopular amongst those it will affect. I'm going to try to clear up a few of those facts, and then I'll go on to explain what I believe.
From the beginning, Vanderbilt has denied crafting a new, more expansive non-discrimination policy. Instead, administrators have tried to convince us this is actually a case of a few organizations being asked to conform to a longstanding practice.
According to this story, various offices are finally "catching up" with a policy that has been in place across the university all along. But no matter how the facts are framed, the reality is that the student organization handbook was altered last December, when a section specifically protecting religious association was removed, as highlighted by The Hustler in September 2011. Then, in April, a number of organizations were placed on provisional status as constitutions that had been easily approved in previous years were evaluated under this new standard. Call it a policy change or call it "catching up." Either way, something changed. And that change will have real consequences for student organizations.
So far, the refrain echoed by a variety of university officials is that for all intents and purposes, business will continue as usual. But in a meeting with the Interfaith Council last Tuesday, Dean of Students Mark Bandas went so far as to admit that religious organizations could come under investigation if there was suspicion that members used religious criteria in voting for their leaders.
Let's say that you're a member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and that you're running for president of the organization. You win the election, but the student that you beat feels that he lost because members of the organization cast their votes based on his religious beliefs. According to Bandas, Vanderbilt would have grounds to investigate your organization for discrimination if the other student lodged a formal complaint. That hardly seems like business as usual to me.
Many students and administrators have also asked why students who don't agree with an organization's beliefs would try to lead that organization. Do I actually believe that an atheist student would want to lead Navigators? No, I don't believe that "hostile takeovers" are a real threat. But that doesn't make this new policy viable. One main reason being that it exposes religious organizations to other threats.
What if a student leader goes away for the summer and has a change of beliefs? And if she doesn't believe in the shared values of the organization, how can she lead people in putting those beliefs into practice? Under the new policy, asking her to step down qualifies as discrimination, yet keeping her in that leadership position undermines the integrity of the organization. This is only one example of the kind of catch-22 this policy creates for religious organizations.
There has also been a lack of transparency about which groups this policy will affect. While it is still unclear who will be kicked off campus in April, members of several groups have expressed their opposition to the implementation of the policy, including members of: Vandy Catholic, the Baptist Collegiate Ministry, Navigators, CRU, Beta Upsilon Chi, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, the Asian-American Christian Fellowship, Bridges International and the Lutheran Student Fellowship, as well as graduate organizations like the Christian Legal Society, the Medical Christian Fellowship and the Graduate Christian Fellowship.
The current narrative also fails to represent the concern of hundreds, if not thousands, of parents and alumni from across the country who have called, written and recently purchased radio ads expressing their discontent with Vanderbilt's new policy. This is not a case of a few rogue groups flaunting a well-established and accepted policy; this is a story of Vanderbilt enforcing a new, aggressive policy that has been met with widespread resistance from across the Vanderbilt community.
At various times the administration has also argued that they must enforce this new reading of the non-discrimination policy to protect Vanderbilt's federal funding. This claim holds absolutely no weight. In a letter sent to the chancellor and the board of trust in December, six prominent law school professors, including the director of Stanford's Constitutional Law Center, expressed their "collective opinion that no court decision, administrative regulation or federal or state statute requires Vanderbilt to prohibit religious student groups from requiring their leaders to share the groups' religious beliefs."
On numerous occasions the university has also advanced the argument that this new interpretation of the non-discrimination policy is necessary to protect students against discrimination based on their sexual orientation. Yet, even if you believe Vanderbilt's previous policy allowed for discrimination against LGBTQI students, this sweeping new restriction on religious association is overly broad. Protecting LGBTQI students does not require the kind of policy that prohibits members of religious organizations using religious beliefs to choose their leaders.
But let's look past the administration's position. Here's what I believe.
I believe that groups that challenge beliefs and promote dialogue are critical components of Vanderbilt University. I also believe that groups that exist to support members in expressing their commonly held convictions are essential for a healthy campus community. Some groups aspire to meet both purposes, some focus on one over the other - and I believe that an institution like Vanderbilt should promote and encourage both kinds of communal expression.
Vanderbilt's new non-discrimination policy undermines those groups with common interests, especially communities that meet to express commonly held religious beliefs. By preventing students and organizations from choosing leaders based on principles of faith, administrators are charting a new course that inhibits student efforts to create communities that can adequately meet their needs. This new policy also prevents students from maintaining the purpose and integrity of their communities over time. As Supreme Court Justice Alito wrote in a recent 9-0 ruling for the high court regarding religious association, "a religious body's right to self-governance must include the ability to select, and to be selective about, those who will serve as the very 'embodiment of its message.'" That same right is necessary for religious groups at Vanderbilt to accurately represent and adequately serve students.
Over my four years here, members of various religious organizations have supported, strengthened and stretched me as person. Organizations like BYX, the BCM and Navigators have truly changed my life, and I know that religious organizations of all types have contributed in important ways to the lives of hundreds of other students at Vanderbilt. So tomorrow I'll be wearing white to express my love for Vanderbilt, my conviction that religious students should be allowed to make decisions in religious organizations based on their religious beliefs, and my hope that this new policy will be changed in order to protect religious life for future Vanderbilt students. If you share the same feelings, I'd love to have you join me.
Brant Bonetti is a senior in Peabody College. He can be reached at .
Stephen Smith posted at 1:22 am on Wed, Feb 1, 2012.
Lizzie Young,
Actually being Jewish is much more complicated than being religiously Jewish. Many times it is used to describe ethnicity. I know many Jews who are Atheist, agnostic, or Christian. So assuming that just because someone is Jewish means they practice Judaism can in itself be seen as close minded. I was in favor of calling those who weren't religiously Jewish Hebrew but after taking many Jewish history courses, my professors who are Jewish, told me otherwise.
lizzie young posted at 7:55 pm on Tue, Jan 31, 2012.
President Emeritus Andrew Richardson,
You don't even have to say anything like that to make people see that you're closeD minded.
And I'm not Jewish, but you don't have to be to know that Judaism is a religion, not a nationality.
Good luck in your very noble fight for religious freedom! Christians have been persecuted long enough.
Andrew Richardson posted at 4:27 pm on Tue, Jan 31, 2012.
Joseph,
It IS an attack on religious. Take BYX for example, to still exist as a university recognized fraternity, they would have to make an alteration to their constitution so that it no longer requires a profession of Christian faith for membership and officer positions. In doing this you are taking away their ability to have a frat/student org/whatever based upon the common ground of their Christian beliefs. You are also taking away the right for them to insist on a like-minded President, Vice President, and so on. The university is telling them (them being BYX in this example) that to gain the administration's approval they must remove from their constitution the very basis for their existence.
Israel,
I think I've managed to sift through your overly-verbose writing and get at your main point, which seems to be "deal with it and get over your infantile tantrums". Ironic, since if the same was said by Christians to people complaining that they require similar beliefs of members, they would be called close-minded and prejudiced (to stick to the nicer phrases).
What is wrong with having a commonality that you expect all of your members to share? Could you even have an organization without such shared beliefs/hobbies/ideas/etc.? In my 40+ member chapter we have a plethora of races represented (for instance: in your listing of nationalities I believe the only ones we are missing are native Americans and Jews and I would actually have to double check on that), not to mention various social, regional and economic backgrounds. Requiring your members to be Christians in a Christian organization is no more "anti-diversity" than requiring members of the Chess Club to be interested in chess.
Andrew Richardson
President Emeritus
Beta Upsilon Chi
Epsilon Chapter
Israel Finklestein posted at 11:54 am on Tue, Jan 31, 2012.
Well I laud the University for taking such a drastic action against certain religious groups especially those with a historical basis for persecution against endangered groups. Also this is apt considering the fact that this was a typical white Anglo Saxon Protestant Institution in the south comprising of your typical bucolic white conservative christian populace. Well to some of the religious diehards whinning about change and the new laws that are coming into place - deal with it and get over your infantile tantrums.
And more so as a democrat and as a Jewish American, I welcome such measures that promote harmony, diversity, multi culturalism and especially the LGBT community. A drowning of thr traditional conservative moral majority ( white Protestant Christians) would imply greater freedom for the LGBT community, Blacks, Jews, Non Christians - East Asians, Asian Indians, Arabs, Africans, Pacific Islanders, Catholics, Native Americans etc. As for 2012 - Go Obama!
Peace!
Israel Finklestein.
Zach Blumenfeld posted at 4:13 pm on Mon, Jan 30, 2012.
When I first learned about this issue, I leaned towards the side of the University. To me, it seemed that since these organizations were religion-based, the decisions on leadership would be self-selecting; that is, if the organization were to vote, it would almost always select a leader who represented the beliefs of the organization as a whole. Thus, I thought that nothing would change for these organizations if they were to step into line with the new University policy, and it seemed like it would even be a good PR move for them to accept the changes.
However, recently I have begun to reconsider, and I'm no longer sure who to support. Because even though the leadership roles in the organizations would most likely continue to be self-selecting (I don't think non-believing students are malicious enough to infiltrate their ranks), the new policy is more a symbolic act than anything. Essentially, Vanderbilt is forcing these groups to deny their own beliefs in leadership and conform to its wishes, and threatening their dissolution should they defy the university. Put like that, the University comes across as an overbearing force. Especially in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision, Vanderbilt has begun to look like it is in the wrong.
I get what the university is trying to do. Vanderbilt has a long history of being the "Harvard of the South," an overwhelmingly WASPy institution noted for its regionality and strong Southern roots. Now, it is trying to change this image, and inviting diversity is a fantastic idea. To paraphrase John Stuart Mill, where diversity and freedom of people and ideas exists, we can together make more progress towards truth. Do I think it would be great for Christians to allow others to challenge their beliefs? Yes. The result, whether they change their beliefs or find new faith in upholding them, would be positive. But the fact of the matter is that these organizations have to WANT change; it can't be effective if forced upon them. And because the leadership selection process would be self-selecting regardless of the university policy, it seems like only the religious groups will suffer from this new rule.
Change is a good thing. But forcing change on those who are unwilling to have it never turns out well.
Vandy Alum posted at 3:06 pm on Mon, Jan 30, 2012.
The issue is not at all about student organization AcFee funding.
First, no tuition money goes to student organizations. Only the money collected as part of the 'student activity fee' is distributed by the student government to qualified student organizations.
Second, the student organization manual already clearly states, "Due to the nature of the activities fee’s purpose, certain organizations and programs are ineligible for receiving activities fee allocations. Generally, activities fee money may not be allocated to ... groups classified by the Student Finance Committee as Religious or Political Groups or with those affiliations."
nicole nick posted at 2:14 pm on Mon, Jan 30, 2012.
I'm still not sure I understand the point of all of this, and I have been on campus to see it unfold. From what I understand, students' tuition goes towards funding clubs. It makes sense to me that if my money is going to fund clubs, I should be able to join those clubs (just like the bulk of taxpayer money goes towards things that most ALL people can use--schools, roads, etc.).
I honestly don't see anyone taking the time to join and participate in a group just to gain an advantage for the "other side" (like a College Dem joining College Republicans). Realistically, as a college student, I know how much time goes into being in an organization and having a leadership position. People don't do it if their hearts aren't in it and if they don't agree with it.
I have complete faith in student organizations to appoint people to positions based on their qualifications. When electing someone to be treasurer of a religious club, shouldn't his keeping-track-of-money skills be the most important qualification, not his religious beliefs?
Additionally, as a spiritual individual, I realize we are all on our own journeys. It is not my choice to decide who is most religious and least religious and therefore fit to stand beside me in a school organization.
Atlanta Dore posted at 12:09 pm on Mon, Jan 30, 2012.
Joseph Gibson,
Respectfully, the scenarios that Brant is outlining in his article are not akin to fear-mongering. These are real developments that have been taking place over the past year and are not projections of what 'could be'. The actions of the administration in this instance have been mishandled and the description of said actions in the above article is not hyperbole.
To your point, Brant's organization has been under investigation for over a year now. This is not a knee jerk reaction to the administration, rather a long overdue and well thought out response to what has been a very challenging experience. I respect your opinions and there are many factors to consider here, but please do not discount the entire article by declaring Brant a fear mongerer. Definitely not what's happening here, and if you were on Vanderbilt's campus during this time, rather than at George Washington University, you would have better context and insight into that...
Joseph Gibson posted at 11:10 am on Mon, Jan 30, 2012.
While I understand your desire for religious and organizational autonomy, your doomsday scenario regarding the repercussions of this new policy are akin to fear-mongering.
1) Several student organizations have had the approval of their constitutions delayed: This is hardly a life-or-death issue, and will most likely not affect their continued operation. It is a healthy process for a constitution to go under review periodically, as for many student organizations it is similar to their yearly strategic plan.
2) Complaints regarding religious-voting procedure or leadership selection can be lodged: Are you really that terrified of an "investigation" into your organization by the university administration? Also, no commission in their right mind would ever sanction a publicly defined religious college group for taking their beliefs into account when choosing leadership.
AT MOST what you fear is a closer review of your constitution, and possible investigation (almost guaranteed not to result in violation) in the case of a complain that is most likely never going to be filed. It appears to be the default of most religious institutions or groups to ferociously cry out that their rights are being infringed upon the moment that they must deal with the kind of scrutiny that every other group does. Being a religious group does not except you from basic oversight, and it is clearly not an attack on religious freedom. Please stop perpetuating the crisis tone that is wrongly attributed to this policy.
Joe GIbson, The George Washington University