---

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.