|
The groups who are staying under the requirements of the policy receive money. The groups who have left have said in effect the money is not worth compromising our principles. The 11 groups who on the basis of their understanding of religious freedom are objecting are saying we'd rather lose money and privileged status rather than compromise principle. The BCM who is staying would run the risk of losing property on campus. I don't know if that factored into their decision or not but it wouldn't have escaped notice. So while McGillete's line was worth a laugh it also demonstrates how some still don't understand why the fuss but, blinded by their bias, can't deal with the issue in a reasoned manner. It shouldn't go unnoticed that two of the most opposite people on this board with regard to faith agree, granted for very different reasons, on the need for a religious carve out.
Posted on 4/24 9:06 AM | IP: Logged
|
VA, note that I think it's quite possible that other than Vandy+ Catholic, the other eleven groups (or at least 8 of them) have made a choice to try to force the University's hand. Note that V+C chose to leave campus on their own (taking a principled stand). The other eleven are positioning themselves to require Vandy to throw them out.
Although there is obviously principle involved, only three other groups (FCA, BYX and I think CLS) had charters that were in violation before the Town Hall. So the the other 8 have changed their charters to be in violation (i) in an effort to force Vandy's hand and (ii) in solidarity with the other groups. While the solidarity certainly has an element of principle involved, that they previously had compliant charters shows that the primary motive for at least 8 of these groups is to force Vandy's hand.
Posted on 4/24 10:52 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by NewYorkDore:
VA, note that I think it's quite possible that other than Vandy+ Catholic, the other eleven groups (or at least 8 of them) have made a choice to try to force the University's hand. Note that V+C chose to leave campus on their own (taking a principled stand). The other eleven are positioning themselves to require Vandy to throw them out.
Although there is obviously principle involved, only three other groups (FCA, BYX and I think CLS) had charters that were in violation before the Town Hall. So the the other 8 have changed their charters to be in violation (i) in an effort to force Vandy's hand and (ii) in solidarity with the other groups. While the solidarity certainly has an element of principle involved, that they previously had compliant charters shows that the primary motive for at least 8 of these groups is to force Vandy's hand.
NYD Vanderbilt had no written policy prior to this situation rising. At least, as you note with regard to three SGA groups, the admin signed off on charters that now violate their written policy. So I hope you can see how this would be interpreted by those three groups and those that have now aligned themselves with them in solidarity. The fact the groups are "calling the hand" of the admin in this situation makes their action no less principled than Vanderbilt Catholic. V Catholic chose to go quietly into the good night these groups chose to actively resist. Which choice is more principled is in the eye of the beholder. At the end of the day if the admin takes a severe stance it will cost these groups financially and in other ways. I personally admire their stance. As a Baptist of the old school religious freedom is a big deal especially as VA Baptist where the Anglicans used to toss us in jail for being radical in our faith. Just in my blood I guess to fight with honor rather than to withdraw with dignity.
Posted on 4/24 12:08 PM | IP: Logged
VA, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the pre-February review of the policy did clear all but four groups (meaning their Charters were in conformity). Further, the policy existed (non-discrimination) but was not implemented and the factors not fully articulated. There wasn't a full written articulation of the policy, but I believe the "SGA groups must adhere to the non-discrimination policy" has existed for several years now.
And I get that there's a principle involved, but other than for the four groups that were in violation, that principle is solidarity rather than not being willing to remove or, if no affirmation existed previously, include an affirmation of faith. If they were willing to remove it before, you can't really say that it's primarily a matter of principle to not remove it now.
Posted on 4/24 12:54 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by NewYorkDore:
VA, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the pre-February review of the policy did clear all but four groups (meaning their Charters were in conformity). Further, the policy existed (non-discrimination) but was not implemented and the factors not fully articulated. There wasn't a full written articulation of the policy, but I believe the "SGA groups must adhere to the non-discrimination policy" has existed for several years now.
And I get that there's a principle involved, but other than for the four groups that were in violation, that principle is solidarity rather than not being willing to remove or, if no affirmation existed previously, include an affirmation of faith. If they were willing to remove it before, you can't really say that it's primarily a matter of principle to not remove it now.
I think where we view this differently is that while I would have agreed with you prior to the written policy being mandated given the events of the last few months I get where these groups are coming from. They see the intentional enforcement of the written policy as a shift from the laissez faire enforcement of the policy pre documentation. Now it looks to these groups as if evangelical Christian SGA groups have been targeted. Probably the most credible case of that being FCA and I believe Campus Crusade and IV were under scrutiny as well. As a lawyer you may assume they should have understood but knowing at least one of the folks in the groups probably not. Their communications with me indicate they felt blindsided. So like it or not, and this is really what counts, they see their current stand as principled. Now to beat a dead horse flat as a pita the administration could have avoided this by some personal conversations early on but history, unfortunately, is now set in stone on this matter.
Posted on 4/24 3:31 PM | IP: Logged
Stupid move by the administration. A pr disaster.Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted on 4/24 7:16 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by Doreking:
Stupid move by the administration. A pr disaster.Posted from Rivals Mobile
Regardless of whether you agree with the policy or not, everyone can agree that this has been a PR disaster. The only way I see for VU to save face is to create a religious group structure.
Posted on 4/24 10:50 PM | IP: Logged
NYD I thought you might be interested in an email I received from the friend I mentioned who is in leadership with one of the 11 "Solidarity" groups. It gets at some of the questions you've been asking me. Here's a portion of their response sans personal stuff:
“We (none of the 11 groups) haven't received word from the University as to an official denial as of yet. Although...a couple smaller Christian groups have been denied…
…the 11 groups didn't really change their constitutions significantly, from what I understand. It's just that many of us looked at them for the first time in several years. In the past the whole "submit your constitution to the University for approval" had just been a formality, a hoop to jump through. So many of us just hadn't paid much attention, to be honest. So this year, some of us re-wrote a few items to make the constitutions reflect what we actually do. Does that make sense?
So, in practice, no one changed what they did - we just made the constitution's language reflect what we actually do (i.e. choose leaders based on faith-based criteria).”
Posted on 4/25 9:23 AM | IP: Logged
"It's just that many of us looked at them for the first time in several years. In the past the whole "submit your constitution to the University for approval" had just been a formality, a hoop to jump through. So many of us just hadn't paid much attention, to be honest."
Great, so the cause for all this drama is a rule about whether you can put a certain clause into a document that previously nobody in the entire world cared about at all.
See what I mean about "no real world impact"?? Somehow these groups have managed to elect their own leaders effectively for all these years without leaning on their constitutions for guidance. Wonders never cease.
You guys have covered the angle of "university PR disaster" wonderfully. I agree fully with that, they never should have stepped in this. But what a joke it is for administrators of some of these groups to very intentionally stir up a national media controversy over documents that the leaders themselves admit have always been irrelevant to the actual function of these groups.
"So, in practice, no one changed what they did "
Eureka! So you mean to say that what really matters is what is done "in practice"? I certainly wouldn't know that from how these 11 groups are handling things.
Suggestion for the religious groups: submit whatever minute changes in constitutional language the powers-that-be at VU are asking for, and then, "in practice", continue to not change what you do. In other words, take exactly the same course of action you were so comfortable with before.
Posted on 4/25 10:15 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by Jake.Lowery:
"It's just that many of us looked at them for the first time in several years. In the past the whole "submit your constitution to the University for approval" had just been a formality, a hoop to jump through. So many of us just hadn't paid much attention, to be honest."
Great, so the cause for all this drama is a rule about whether you can put a certain clause into a document that previously nobody in the entire world cared about at all.
See what I mean about "no real world impact"?? Somehow these groups have managed to elect their own leaders effectively for all these years without leaning on their constitutions for guidance. Wonders never cease.
You guys have covered the angle of "university PR disaster" wonderfully. I agree fully with that, they never should have stepped in this. But what a joke it is for administrators of some of these groups to very intentionally stir up a national media controversy over documents that the leaders themselves admit have always been irrelevant to the actual function of these groups.
"So, in practice, no one changed what they did "
Eureka! So you mean to say that what really matters is what is done "in practice"? I certainly wouldn't know that from how these 11 groups are handling things.
Suggestion for the religious groups: submit whatever minute changes in constitutional language the powers-that-be at VU are asking for, and then, "in practice", continue to not change what you do. In other words, take exactly the same course of action you were so comfortable with before.
This.
Posted on 4/26 10:01 AM | IP: Logged
I don't agree with that interpretation.Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted on 4/26 10:20 PM | IP: Logged
You forgot to add the ever-persuasive "so game-over"
Posted on 4/26 10:25 PM | IP: Logged
It was appropriate in that thread.Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted on 4/26 10:28 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by Jake.Lowery:
"It's just that many of us looked at them for the first time in several years. In the past the whole "submit your constitution to the University for approval" had just been a formality, a hoop to jump through. So many of us just hadn't paid much attention, to be honest."
Great, so the cause for all this drama is a rule about whether you can put a certain clause into a document that previously nobody in the entire world cared about at all.
See what I mean about "no real world impact"?? Somehow these groups have managed to elect their own leaders effectively for all these years without leaning on their constitutions for guidance. Wonders never cease.
You guys have covered the angle of "university PR disaster" wonderfully. I agree fully with that, they never should have stepped in this. But what a joke it is for administrators of some of these groups to very intentionally stir up a national media controversy over documents that the leaders themselves admit have always been irrelevant to the actual function of these groups.
"So, in practice, no one changed what they did "
Eureka! So you mean to say that what really matters is what is done "in practice"? I certainly wouldn't know that from how these 11 groups are handling things.
Suggestion for the religious groups: submit whatever minute changes in constitutional language the powers-that-be at VU are asking for, and then, "in practice", continue to not change what you do. In other words, take exactly the same course of action you were so comfortable with before.
Jake have you ever been involved in a major organizational conflict before? As so many recent studies have pointed out reason and self interest don't guide nearly as much as we believe our decisions--emotion does. This is especially true in conflict situations. Therefore, at least I've found in organizational leadership at both a church, local, and national level, the folks with the power have to be the first to reach out with a conciliatory gesture. That tends to diffuse the situation to where folks can begin to talk and slowly and cautiously work toward a solution. As an outsider looking in seems to me the admin took a hardline stance and has made no gestures of conciliation and so this thing has spiraled out of control. And yes the religious groups could if they would take a different stance. Yet, my hunch is that they feel targeted and singled out and have decided to take a stand. Others and you may disagree with their approach but it's not too surprising in these kinds of situations.
You want logic to prevail, and I would admit logic and reason tips to your side of the argument, but human beings are not just rational and logical creatures which is why organizational leadership must entail "emotional intelligence." That to me means understanding where the center of power rests in all this (the administration) seeking solutions that will assuage inflamed passions (the solidarity groups concern over religious freedom) and accomplishing the central objective (tolerance toward protected classes). Probably ain't and can't happen now. It's a shame really.
Posted on 4/25 10:31 AM | IP: Logged
"Yet, my hunch is that they feel targeted and singled out and have decided to take a stand. Others and you may disagree with their approach but it's not too surprising in these kinds of situations. "
Agree completely -- but the fact that I'm not surprised by it does not make me feel compelled to approve of it. I'm very proud of the 2/3 of VU religious organizations who elected to act rationally.
Posted on 4/25 1:54 PM | IP: Logged
As I told NYDore in an off-site discussion, I am so relieved that RUF, the campus group with which I was most involved and to which I still donate money, has no stated membership requirements or leadership positions and therefore has never had any reason to even be tempted to join the Solidarity group.
Posted on 4/25 10:21 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by vandystu:
As I told NYDore in an off-site discussion, I am so relieved that RUF, the campus group with which I was most involved and to which I still donate money, has no stated membership requirements or leadership positions and therefore has never had any reason to even be tempted to join the Solidarity group.
OTOH, RUF works closely in conjunction with a PCA campus minister. To ordained in the PCA that minister not only couldn't be a practicing gay individual, but couldn't even be a woman! The idea that RUF members would suddenly elect a gay leader, without some sort of intentional influx of voting members, is just absurd.
So, i agree with Jake -- this is more about appearance than substance. Which just underscores my point: The admin is willing to fall on its sword for the
appearance of principle for the campus ministries, but not for the Greeks. Apparently it's too sensitive to take on the Greeks, so instead they identified another class of groups they hoped would be their patsy.
It's no principle at all, just a way for VU to congratulate itself within higher ed circles. They deserve the flak, and i hope the philanthropy angle becomes so untenable that there are some major repercussions for those who hatched this scheme.
Mind you, i'm for educational equity and would have no problem with an across-the-board ban on university resources for discriminatory groups.
Posted on 4/27 8:55 PM | IP: Logged
"It's no principle at all, just a way for VU to congratulate itself within higher ed circles."
Bingo.
The three VS publishers had lunch with James Franklin and some of his staff this past Friday. It was a great time to share war stories, get to know each other better, and find some common ground for working together in the future.
One thing we talked about was how the current culture at Vanderbilt as it relates to athletics is a direct outgrowth of the past culture as it relates to academics. IOW, there has long been an attitude on VU's campus among certain administrators (and it exists on all campuses, but more prominently at schools "like" Vanderbilt) that being good at athletics meant you were a lesser academic institution.
Many professors, especially pre-Gee, were adamantly opposed to anything that sought to elevate athletics. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many, these professors wanted Vanderbilt to be akin to Ivy League schools, that, quote, Have athletics in its proper place, unquote.
Historically, VU has the reputation of being one of the more conservative of the elite private universities in the U.S. And by conservative, I mean from an "academic ethics" and campus culture standpoint. Contrast this with Dartmouth (which my sister in law attended) or, even further, Cal-Berkley. If there is a scale, Vanderbilt would probably fall fairly solidly on the right side of that scale. In some ways, even farther right than some so-called Christian universities like Baylor, TCU and SMU.
Historically, there have always been people at Vanderbilt that have embraced and promoted this "academic liberal" agenda. I honestly have no idea where Zeppos falls on that scale, or where Gee fell (if he fell anywhere). Nevertheless, choosing to pick a fight about gay rights on Vanderbilt's campus, and continuing to dig in their heels clearly for no apparent reason other than to make such a statement, is so Same Old Vanderbilt. To me, it sort of stirs up some of the anger I felt toward Chancellor Wyatt, when he rarely saw fit to even darken the door of a VU athletics contest.
Anyway, thought I'd toss that out there.
5/2 11:19 AM | IP: Logged
Mike, are you really trying to say that support for athletic teams is an issue on par with human rights?
5/2 12:21 PM | IP: Logged
What a great idea! I think we should re-write the US Constitution to formally reflect what we actually do. You know, like how we don't elect women to the Presidency, so let's just put that in writing. Or how we subject minorities to significantly more detention and prison than we do whites. Let's just write that into the 8th and 14th Amendment.
I recognize that I was a bit of an idiot as an undergrad in terms of how I should act and how I should structure my behavior insofar as I was a public person. But DAMN. Don't these student groups have access to pro bono lawyers or at least VU law students for advice?
Posted on 4/25 9:44 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by McGillite:
What a great idea! I think we should re-write the US Constitution to formally reflect what we actually do. You know, like how we don't elect women to the Presidency, so let's just put that in writing. Or how we subject minorities to significantly more detention and prison than we do whites. Let's just write that into the 8th and 14th Amendment.
I recognize that I was a bit of an idiot as an undergrad in terms of how I should act and how I should structure my behavior insofar as I was a public person. But DAMN. Don't these student groups have access to pro bono lawyers or at least VU law students for advice?
Your post is insulting garbage.
Posted on 4/25 10:15 AM | IP: Logged
NYD another email from my friend. Asked them about the possibility of a religious carve out and the groups have already suggested that as an idea and has been at least informally rejected apparently. Here's what they emailed me:
"We actually submitted a request for a religious "carve out". (Other universities have done that - University of Florida being one). The U Admin response was that if they carved out an exception for us they would be guilty of discriminating and therefore violating their own policy. (They, of course, then proceeded to carve out an exception for the Greek system). "
This post was edited on 4/25 10:05 AM by vadore
Posted on 4/25 10:02 AM | IP: Logged
Does anyone have a link to the full list of the (I believe) 26 religious groups who elected to stay on as part of the VU system?
Posted on 4/24 10:15 AM | IP: Logged
Yahoo! Sports
