This isn't just anti-Christian. It is also anti-Muslim, Jewish, Homophobic Deist, and of course, offensive to the Circle of Wizards That Do Not Like Dudes Kissing.
Anyone that thinks this states 'you cannot have leaders that are open and honest lovers of Jesus, Allah, God, Harry Potter, whomever' needs to take a new reading comprehension class. It just says that you cannot have a required statement of faith. Unless I am much mistaken, candidates can still campaign on the issue.
The US Constitution contains the following: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification of any Office or public Trust under the United States". Yet, we still seem to run elections that have as hot button issues the candidates faith. Substitute "United States" with "VU" in the above, and you have the same policy. Can anyone honestly say with a straight face that any candidate in this country has been legally prohibited from running as an explicitly Christian (or Jewish) candidate? I'm not talking about the media bias here, I am talking about has any candidate ever been told "Hey Rick, we are signing an injunction precluding you from saying the word "Bible" in your campaign"?
This is an invented issue. If these religious groups are really saying "How dare you, you non-faith-based institution put conditions on the money you are giving us! How dare you require us to secure private funding to continue to advance our discriminatory agenda!", then good riddance. I'll GLADLY donate to the university the balance of any donations they lose (to the extent that I can, of course).
Calling this a 'war on Christianity' is offensive, DEEPLY, to those that are members of ethnic groups that have actually had a state declare war on their religion.
I am generally very reticent to play the 'persecuted Jew' card, but really, let's drop the war rhetoric here. It is inapt and deeply, DEEPLY offensive to folks that had relatives die in a real war on religion, and have had members of said faith killed in no small part for their religion, in the Southeast, not so long ago.
This is about having previously unconditional money given to them by the university, and the university wanting to put some conditions on it. Nothing more, nothing less. Power of the purse. It isn't even confined to religious groups. It is confined to ANY group that has as a part of its election requirements a statement of faith. Likely, College Dems could not have a required statement of Democrat-ness, or the Freemasons, who require an affirmation of 'a deity' would similarly be hurt.