Don't read if not interested. Folks on the left will not be jumping up and down over the fact this article comes from National Review Online, however, it's the only source I could find for what the Tennessee legislature is doing with regard to the policy. And now the administration "may" have precipitated a throw down between the legislature and Vanderbilt. Wasn't planning to post today but this is interesting I don't care who you are.

I don't know who wrote that letter of response from Vanderbilt, but whomever it is should get a serious talking to. Using a letter to the media as a way to issue a threat to the state government is just plain stupid. Furthermore, all it did was draw attention to the very side of that argument that VU would rather not have everyone know: It gets a sh*tload of taxpayer money from the taxpayers.

The author went off the rails placing "religious organizations" and "unmolested" in the same paragraph.

---

Originally posted by Mike Rapp:
I don't know who wrote that letter of response from Vanderbilt, but whomever it is should get a serious talking to. Using a letter to the media as a way to issue a threat to the state government is just plain stupid. Furthermore, all it did was draw attention to the very side of that argument that VU would rather not have everyone know: It gets a sh*tload of taxpayer money from the taxpayers.

---

Mike you mean Vanderbilt's admins might not be media savvy when it comes to PR? Who knew?!

seems like they are discriminating against religion to me from what i am reading because it seems religion is the only area that is having to change

I think the only thing that would likely be agreed upon by everyone who's followed this is that Vanderbilt's PR efforts have been utterly atrocious. The university has not been prepared, articulate or responsive to legitimate questions.

Any reasonable person should also agree that the TN legislature is a grandstanding clown show of epic proportions...

---

Originally posted by NewYorkDore:
I think the only thing that would likely be agreed upon by everyone who's followed this is that Vanderbilt's PR efforts have been utterly atrocious. The university has not been prepared, articulate or responsive to legitimate questions.

---

Arrogance comes to mind.

I'm surprised the TN legislature had time for this, what with their now having to ban the word "Takei" as a euphemism for "gay".

Trying to figure out the response from the University. What a brutal failure. The only thing I can imagine is that A) the NCP didn't include the whole of the response or B) that the funding being threatened to be pulled includes the medicaid program referenced. Can't imagine that's the case on B). Possibility C) is that that woman is just a complete dullard.

By the by, again, Fraternities and Sororities are not SGA student groups. They operate under the IFC under their own guidelines. The Legislature's argument there doesn't hold water.

This post was edited on 4/19 11:02 PM by NewYorkDore

I think the IV FAQ page on their position is a solid PR piece explaining their position whether one agrees or not. You then have to ask yourself why is the admin unable to do an equally clear piece explaining their position.

This post was edited on 4/19 11:08 PM by vadore

---

Originally posted by NewYorkDore:
Trying to figure out the response from the University. What a brutal failure. The only thing I can imagine is that A) the NCP didn't include the whole of the response or B) that the funding being threatened to be pulled includes the medicaid program referenced. Can't imagine that's the case on B). Possibility C) is that that woman is just a complete dullard.

By the by, again, Fraternities and Sororities are not SGA student groups. They operate under the IFC under their own guidelines. The Legislature's argument there doesn't hold water.

This post was edited on 4/19 11:02 PM by NewYorkDore

---

You keep saying that, but how does the governance structure matter if they're granted special immunity and continue to enjoy the privilege of on-campus facilities and association with the university? Creating special categories to justify blatant favoritism doesn't make it anything other than blatant favoritism. The idea that Vanderbilt is taking some noble stand of principle simply falls apart.

(In fairness, i haven't gotten a chance to read the long form of your argument on whatever thread that was.)

---

Originally posted by PhilipVU94:

---

Originally posted by NewYorkDore:
Trying to figure out the response from the University. What a brutal failure. The only thing I can imagine is that A) the NCP didn't include the whole of the response or B) that the funding being threatened to be pulled includes the medicaid program referenced. Can't imagine that's the case on B). Possibility C) is that that woman is just a complete dullard.

By the by, again, Fraternities and Sororities are not SGA student groups. They operate under the IFC under their own guidelines. The Legislature's argument there doesn't hold water.

This post was edited on 4/19 11:02 PM by NewYorkDore

---

You keep saying that, but how does the governance structure matter if they're granted special immunity and continue to enjoy the privilege of on-campus facilities and association with the university? Creating special categories to justify blatant favoritism doesn't make it anything other than blatant favoritism. The idea that Vanderbilt is taking some noble stand of principle simply falls apart.

(In fairness, i haven't gotten a chance to read the long form of your argument on whatever thread that was.)

---

For one, they're not "on-campus facilities". Each organization on Greek Row owns their house on some level (locally or nationally). Second, they are not Vanderbilt entities outside of the fact that their membership is made up of VU students. By comparison, the FCA is the "Vanderbilt FCA", where as I Felta Thigh is not Vanderbilt's I Felta Thigh, but instead a local chapter of a national organization. VU has limited standing to regulate the Greek organizations outside of the fact that they own houses located on VU property.

Phil:

The key points are:

a) All IFC group facilities are rented or owned by the chapter using them (I believe only two fraternities actually own their houses, not sure on sororities);

b) IFC groups do not receive student activity fees and, I don't believe they are subsidized in any other way by the university -- there may be certain things that happen between landlord and tenant for those groups that rent, but that is not university subsidy as we are discussing it.

c) Fraternities and sororities are recognized by the University though. Under IFC their charters are recognized. The University further has the power to regulate and even throw greek houses off campus. Those determinations are made through the IFC.

Fraternities and Sororities are probably more akin to a club athletic team (except a different funding structure) than an SGA group. And, fwiw, I would bet there is some form of anti-discrimination policy in place for fraternal organizations -- just not covering gender or requiring being open to all students. Those rules would be established by the IFC and not under the SGA umbrella though.

---

Originally posted by NewYorkDore:
Trying to figure out the response from the University. What a brutal failure. The only thing I can imagine is that A) the NCP didn't include the whole of the response or B) that the funding being threatened to be pulled includes the medicaid program referenced. Can't imagine that's the case on B). Possibility C) is that that woman is just a complete dullard.

---

By the by, the Tennessee legislature passed the bill that opposes the VU policy. Interestingly enough, the bill explains the VU response. The Legislature's referral to $24M in state taxpayer funding has nothing to do with Hope scholarships (which are lottery funded) and everything to do with taxpayer funded TennCare payments. In as much as that is the case, Vanderbilt's response was actually trying to indicate that the funding from the state that was being threatened was Vanderbilt's funding for TennCare. So, despite the fact that I can't believe the Legislature would favor opposing the policy over promoting indigent medical care, that's what they've done here. It was item B) after all.

The Tennessee legislature is a laughingstock by the way. I would be utterly ashamed if I still lived there.

If Breslin signs this, I imagine Vandy will have to cave... but if they do, I hope they have long memories and "do right" by those who participated in this mockery.

As a side note, what does it say about the Tennessean that they don't even get the policy correct with respect to it not truly being "all comers". What a freaking joke.

Of course the NYC and NY St governments are such a source of great pride, it is understandable that you would be ashamed of Tennessee.

Albany is hardly without problem (the NYC council is worse), but they don't spend their time worrying about a) holding hands as a gateway to sex (Footloose to the extreme there); b) saying "gay" before 8th grade; c) trying to permit religious-based bullying; d) combating science education and now e) confusing subsidy of student groups with religious liberty.

Then again, I wouldn't expect a state to understand what religious liberty means if its constitution includes an illegal ban on holding office that prevents anyone who is a polytheist, Buddhist or atheist from holding office.

Your state legislature is bad and you should feel bad.

This post was edited on 5/1 11:08 PM by NewYorkDore

If you asked the people who drafted the religious liberty clauses 200+ years ago, I wonder what they would say they intended?

All i can say is that the Tennessee Legislature doesn't need to be monkeying with 2 hospitals (Vanderbilt and VCH) that ACCEPT Tenn-Care right now, considering that (with the switch from Blue Cross to to the new administrators), there's an excellent chance that Metro General may become the ONLY hospital in Nashville that takes Tenn-Care patients. Hospitals don't HAVE to take Tenn-Care patients, and many do not (a number that is increasing)---- and this legislative grandstanding would give VU a perfect reason to no longer take Tenn-Care patients.

There is no way Vanderbilt will choose this policy over TennCare. It would be horrifically upsetting if they decided to abandon a program to treat indigent patients over a leadership qualification issue. I don't think anyone would fault them for caving like that.

That said, I will fault them if they don't have long memories about the legislators who put this forward.

As a side note, to no one's surprise, a quick google search shows that the sponsor of this bill (Mark Pody, Republican of Lebanon) opposes the Mufreesboro Mosque. Religious Freedom for All!!!!!

FYI, Haslam vetoed the Vandy bill.

---

Originally posted by NewYorkDore:
As a side note, to no one's surprise, a quick google search shows that the sponsor of this bill (Mark Pody, Republican of Lebanon) opposes the Mufreesboro Mosque. Religious Freedom for All!!!!!

---

As an aside to your aside, in Michigan it's so common to see women wearing headscarves in Target that i barely even think about it. That only underscores the stupidity of trying to dehumanize Muslim Americans by making them all out to be terr'ists.