|
"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
Yahoo! Sports
