This has a familiar ring to it

[littlebillie]

OGE,

 

Well, when you said that you "...must be missing something" my response intent was that what you may have missed was that these groups have a written, documented exclusionary policy. Until such policy is revoked, they stand in violation. They have de jure exclusion, while you recommend de facto exclusion as a work-around.

 

Regardless, I went on to consider that hey, ya know what - that's exactly what the Constitution gives us for the Presidency! Foreigners, and naturalized citizens need not apply. I added ironically that - looked at in terms of the topic - that the Constitution itself may be considered unconstitutional. Tongue in cheek, strictly. (What may be confusing is that usually I'm on one side of the fence, but in this case, I'm on the side of the student groups.)

 

Finally, tho', I took your suggestion and tried to imply that if folks think this could work for student groups, why not the BSA? Apply the same principal to gays and atheists - go ahead and let them offer up their volunteer services locally (i.e., join the student group), and see if anyone takes them up on it. I thought it was a step in the right direction! :-)

 

QUESTION, Y'ALL! Can a gay be a merit badge counselor? It's not really leadership, is it?

 

 

[eisely]

littlebillie's point about gay merit badge counselors is an interesting one. If I recall correctly, non members can be merit badge counselors and do not have to fill out or sign a volunteer membership application. Certainly there are qualified counselors in the system who are not otherwise active in scouting. Could a unit or district rely on the services of an out of the closet homosexual as a merit badge counselor and still be in compliance with BSA's policy?

 

Coming back to the question in the original post, banning these Christian groups from campus and treating them differently from other groups that discriminate on campus is rank discrimination. Tax monies are not at issue here since the funds involved come from pools of student activity fees. My thought behind posting the original thread was to illustrate the kind of discrimination against believers that is going on. These are people who are being discriminated against on the basis of their harmless beliefs, just as scouting is being discriminated against.

[scoutldr]

In our council, all MB counsellors must be registered as such and fill out an adult application which is approved by the District Committee...but the fee is waived, as I recall. This was purportedly for youth protection and liability purposes. The district maintains a list of registered counsellors but the disturbing trend I am seeing is that units will create their own stable of counsellors who will work with their troop only. These are on the District list as registered counsellors, but annotated as "Troop XXX only". I have always heard that certain MB can be signed off by the Scoutmaster, e.g., Camping and Cooking, but I have been told that's a myth...unless the SM is also registered as a MB counsellor.

 

I assume all of this is standardized policy nation-wide?

[packsaddle]

scoutldr, You are correct. It is the policy unless I have read the regulations incorrectly. You'll find more info at the usscout.org site. I only wish our district was as organized as yours and had its own list. As it is troops more or less fend for themselves and this leads to great disparities in MB quality.

[KoreaScouter]

Actually, I believe it's the Council, not the district, that approves counselors and maintains the list. MB Counselors are not registered with the unit, but with the council (and they must be registered AND trained). When we recruit counselors, we send the application to council without CO signature.

 

Since counselors are not registered with the unit, how would you be able to assign counselors if you didn't have a council list?

 

KS

[evmori]

In my council, the council approves the counselor & our District Advancement Chairman maintains the list for our district.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[firstpusk]

"Coming back to the question in the original post, banning these Christian groups from campus and treating them differently from other groups that discriminate on campus is rank discrimination. Tax monies are not at issue here since the funds involved come from pools of student activity fees. My thought behind posting the original thread was to illustrate the kind of discrimination against believers that is going on. These are people who are being discriminated against on the basis of their harmless beliefs, just as scouting is being discriminated against."

 

eisely,

I read the article and came to the conclusion that Wendy McElroy made a lot of unsupported assertions about discrimination. It is pretty standard for colleges and universities to require student organizations that receive resources from the institution in the form of student fees to be open to all students. These requirements have been in place at many campuses for a number of years. IVF has recourse if they want to continue to discriminate. IVF is not required to have a "non-believer" in leadership only that they are open to the possibility.

 

The IVF definition of believer is narrow enough that a substantial proportion of Christians would not be considered qualified. Her assertions that the IVF was not allowed to discriminate and other organizations were is likewise unsupported. FoxNews shows again why it is the most unreliable of broadcast news sources.

[Twocubdad]

In college, I was a member of the University Student Activity Fees Commission which was responsible for approving the budgets of all campus organizations and allocating money to each one. While this particular issue never came up, I can tell you that the money WAS considered state funds. We were bound by all the same controls as any other university deparment for accounting, purchase orders, bids on major expendiures, etc. Although the money was paid in by students as a mandatory fee, once the university touched it, it became state funds.

 

And therein, I think, lies the problem. The issue is not that these kids are being discriminated against, it's that that have their hand out wanting money. The university isn't telling them they what they can or cannot believe or whom they may or may not associate. They are just telling them to do it on their own nickel.

 

Pay you own way as a private organization and elect whoever you like. Take the money and live with the rules that come with it.

 

 

[firstpusk]

Twocubdad,

 

As a former university internal auditor, you are hitting the nail on the head. All students are required to pay the fee and as a result, the organizations looking for support must be open to all students. There are plenty of clubs and organizations that are not recognized and do not receive funds that still are reaching students. I think this talk and the assumptions of many that this is a conspiracy against Christianity are overblown. These assumptions are more than a bit un-Christian, in that they assume motivations that are not supported by the author of the article or those that agree with her.

[evmori]

What about groups that exclude men? Or those that exclude women? What's the difference?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[firstpusk]

"What about groups that exclude men? Or those that exclude women? What's the difference?"

 

Ed,

 

What's your point?

 

[scomman]

Firstpusk, I think you are missing the point of the post yourself. If colleges and universsities are allowed to dictate a diversity policy to the students and to the groups that are on campus it does violate the Constuition and is therefore illegal.

 

Also, many Christians have tried to stop the enforcement of mandatory fees that go to support organizations that they would not normally support such as "Gay Lesbian Straight Alliance" Once the feei s collected it should be made available to all groups regardless of the groups views.

 

Also the article it self doesn't talk about fees at all it just talks about how the diveristy police are trying to froce their views on certain groups.

[firstpusk]

"Firstpusk, I think you are missing the point of the post yourself. If colleges and universsities are allowed to dictate a diversity policy to the students and to the groups that are on campus it does violate the Constuition and is therefore illegal."

 

I understood the claim from the start. The problem for the IVF is simple, they discriminate on the basis of religion. These organizations and leadership opportunities should be available to all students. They aren't. These institutions are not allowed to support these organizations.

 

"Also, many Christians have tried to stop the enforcement of mandatory fees that go to support organizations that they would not normally support such as "Gay Lesbian Straight Alliance" Once the feei s collected it should be made available to all groups regardless of the groups views."

 

Establish with the administration that membership and leadership are not open and you have a case for going after the groups. I work on a college campus. Exactly the groups the author claims are closed are open here. Besides, doesn't this point out the hypocracy of such "Christian" groups? They try to defund groups they don't agree with, run a closed group and then cry discrimination when they are rightfully denied funds and official status.

 

"Also the article it self doesn't talk about fees at all it just talks about how the diveristy police are trying to froce their views on certain groups."

 

The article makes a lot of unfounded accusations. Wendy seems to fly off the handle. She should have gotten the full story and then you would have been well-served and properly informed. Yes, I know plenty of liberals, libertarians and conservatives that try to deny freedom to those with which they disagree. Such accusations need to be grounded in fact. You accept Wendy's accusations without question because they fit your preconceived notions.

[scomman]

Firstpusk before you get your liberal shots in. I am not a conservative or any other title you want to say let me say this I believe that any group has the right to establish their own standards of leadership like the Scouts do. If a group claims to be Christian and is forced to have Non Christian Leaders then that group has effectivey shortchanged.

 

But hey lets see if the Clinton News Network will report on this story. I don't think so.

[Twocubdad]

They're not being "forced" to do anything. They are being ask to agree to certain rules as a condition of receiving money. That's contract law, not constitutional law.

 

Ed asked, "What about groups that exclude men?" Under these rules, they shouldn't be allowed either. That's one of the points of the original article, that the university may be foisted upon its own petard with this rule. But it should surprised no one that they may attempt to enforce the rules against one group while turning a blind eye toward their own programs.

 

While I think these groups should abide by the non-discrimination rules if they wish to take the university's money, I don't necessarily agree with the rule. There should be some exception for groups with a particular idealogical, political or religious purpose to associate with like-minded individuals. The Supreme Court makes this distinction, calling them "expressive associations." The heart of BSA v. Dale was whether or not BSA was a public accommodation and subject to state and federal civil rights laws, or an expressive association and exempt. Universities, like most bureaucracies, will take a meat ax approach to such things, rather than making the effort to make a fine distinction.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)