“Diversity” vs. Freedom of Association
In discussing Illinois’ newly-expanded anti-discrimination law this week, Josh touched on the idea of freedom of association. While not expressly granted in the Constitution, this freedom has long been considered an innate right and more recently recognized by judicial precedent in the U.S.
This reminded me of an article in the January/February issue of Worldwide Challenge magazine (a publication of Campus Crusade for Christ). The article (not available online) tells of challenges faced by Christian groups on college campuses:
At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a Christian fraternity [Alpha Iota Omega] was recently denied recognition because it would not agree to open its membership to students of different faiths.
…
At Rutgers, the largest university in New Jersey, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship got the boot because they wouldn’t open up their leadership to non-Christians. Eventually IVCF threatened to sue, and the university reinstated them.
This is one example of what can happen when diversity is pursued as an end unto itself. Should the women’s student association be forced to accept self-avowed male chauvinists as members and possibly officers? Should the vegan club have to be open to the possibility of having an Atkins diet devotee as its president? Of course not. That would defeat the purpose of such clubs which, like religious or political student groups, are generally positive contributors to the college community.
A little dose of common sense could go a long way on many college campuses today.
13 Responses to ““Diversity” vs. Freedom of Association”
Unfortunately Eric, the university is in a tough place when it comes to recognizing groups. When a university recognizes a group it usually comes with bestowed benefits (tax free account, free university room rentals, student fee monies). If a group is allowed to restrict its membership, that group is able to restrict university resources to certain members of the student body.
Most universities “solve” this problem by saying any group that wishes to have official, and benefit granting, recognition by the university has to be open to the entire student body. If they didn’t and a religious or political group started block students from meetings, and therefore university resources, the university would find themselves open to legal actions from the excluded members.
It is simply easier for the universities to say all or none and save themselves the hassle.
If those groups affected don’t like the rules, they are most certainly free to form them own group outside the university system.
After all it does indeed sound like common sense when the stance is “Play nicely with others, or don’t play at all”.
I agree with Foltz, but I would put it another way:
is there a precedent saying that hostile takeovers of student groups actually occur with any regularity, or even at all? Is there a mass of anti-vegans or male chauvanists that sweep in to form a quick majority for the sake of electing themseves to the board and then wreaking havoc on the association?
Foltz–You make a good point, but wouldn’t it be a more reasonable stance to say that any students can form a club for any reason and that those clubs can decide their own memberships (provided that the membership “rules” are consistent with the club’s mission)? If the Christian club won’t take you, you’re free to join the Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, or Discordian club. Or start your own club.
Michael–that’s beside the point. Why should a club be forced to sign some kind of “diversity pledge” that violates its own principles, especially when (as you sort of imply) people they are excluding would not be expected to seek membership anyway?
Foltz is exactly right, especially about the freedom of groups to re-form themselves in a non-official way. It’s not like Christian-only (or vegan-only, or any other X-only) groups are banned on any of these campuses — they just cannot get the benefits of being an official campus organization.
If you want common sense on a college campus you are going to have to import it.
Common sense from leon is like taking safety advice from the kid that blew his finger off with a firecracker. Sure you would think they have experience on the matter, but really never learned the lesson.
Eric, the problem with your response to Mr. Foltz is that if you allow one group the opportunity to use taxpayer funded facilities, then any group, with any sort of ideas or rules could ask for permission to use campus facilities, at which point a university would be faced with the choice of discriminating against a group based entirely on their beliefs or having a group meet on campus who’s presence would elicit outrage.
Taken to an extreme, imagine the university chapter of the KKK wanting to hold a meeting using campus facilities. While I’ll grant this is an extreme case (and hopefully isn’t happening anywhere), I hope my point is made; if a university were to not have rules like the ones we’re discussing, there’s always a possibility that the university will end themselves up in deeper trouble.
Unfortunately, Balta, it’s not that far-fetched. Recently the state of Missouri was forced to allow the participation of the Klan in the Adopt-A-Highway program, complete with road sign acknowledging them. In addition they have sued the public radio station run by the St. Louis campus of the University of Missouri because the station didn’t want to accept the Klan as an “enhanced underwriter”.
While in no way related to the case that Eric is discussing freedom of association arguments were tainted by their use to defend Jim Crow laws.
I remember another case (or maybe it’s the same one?) recently where the Klan won the right to adopt a stretch of highway. The state’s response was brilliant: they renamed the highway “Rosa Parks Memorial Highway”. The Klan suddenly stopped doing a very good job of keeping it clean, and thereby lost their right to participate in the program.
if you allow one group the opportunity to use taxpayer funded facilities, then any group, with any sort of ideas or rules could ask for permission to use campus facilities
Gasp! Free speech and equal opportunity! What a ghastly idea!
Seriously, though, the only thing missing from your statement is that on a campus, the group would have to consist of students. Also, please note that I said a group’s membership rules must be consistent with its purpose, e.g. the chess club can’t exclude non-Christians.
And as far as the Klan being on campus, why not? As long as they don’t advocate violence or intimidation against minorities, those (terribly misguided) students have a right to freedom of speech and assembly. The answer to speech you don’t like is not to squelch it. The answer is more speech to explain why they’re wrong.
Of course, this is a radical idea on college campuses today.
Actually Eric, I’d say that the answer to why they shouldn’t be allowed to use campus facilities is that on a publically funded campus, the administrators are accountable to voters and taxpayers of the state.
Even if the group did consist partially of students, the problem with allowing a group which discriminates entirely based on race, creed, etc. still remains; the people of the state funding the institution have every right to demand that their tax dollars don’t go to providing free services for discriminatory groups.
They have a right to free speech and assembly. That is not being infringed upon by denying such groups the right to hold bank accounts and have free usage of the facilities at those institutions.
IU would be the perfect example of this by the way – lots of people make use of the “free speech” qualities of the university by getting permission to go outside and either preach to the students, set up displays, hold a “vigil” in tents during the Afghan conflict, and so on.
However, allowing those groups permission to voice their opinion and assemble in open areas on a campus is in fact a far cry from allowing those same sorts of groups access to facilities and capabilities that they would normally have to pay money for at any other location.
For example, if a group wanted to hold a meeting at a hotel, or any other business outside the university, they’d be charged for the use of the room, the electricity, janitorial services, and so on.
The rules may seem a little overboard, but they’re simply one of those rules you have to keep written down, otherwise in the end, the university will end up regretting it.
the people of the state funding the institution have every right to demand that their tax dollars don’t go to providing free services for discriminatory groups.
Do the people of the state have the right to keep their tax dollars from providing free services for groups that support abortion “rights” (e.g. feminist clubs or the College Democrats)?
But I digress. My point is that there really is no discrimination (not in the sense of taking rights away from people) when a group decides that its members and/or officers should support the mission of the group.
This would never be an issue in the first place, actually, if not for the silly “diversity pledges” some universities are trying to require of student groups. As Michael implied, why would non-Christians want to join a Christian club in the first place? Frankly, I find this to be a shameful tactic by liberals to ostracize groups that they find “icky.”
Actually Eric, I’d say that the answer to why they shouldn’t be allowed to use campus facilities is that on a publically funded campus, the administrators are accountable to voters and taxpayers of the state.
So let’s make this easy and let the voters and taxpayers vote on which groups should be able to meet on campus. I have a feeling that in a lot of midwestern states the Young Democrats, Students for Choice, and Students for Freethought won’t be meeting on campus anymore.