http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110915/OPINION03/309150052/Vanderbilt-flirting-religious-suppression?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s
Hmmm. It seems that Vanderbilt has a new definition of diversity. Let me see now. It is not that clubs have to allow anyone to join that wants to, which seems like a reasonable request. They must also make no distinction when it comes to the leadership of the club. Follow this to its natural implications then a Tea Party must be given an opportunity to lead the college Democrats and a Marxist gets a shot to take command of the Ayn Rand club. Seems kind of stupid to me.
But it is also kind of dangerous. First, I am not surprised that it seems that Christian clubs seem subject to this more than other kinds of clubs. Conservative Christians have a reputation for intolerance but all clubs have to be intolerant to some degree. Even something as benign as a biking club has to be about biking and not about ballet. This does not make the biking club intolerant but it is about what the focus of the club is. I will be more likely to accept that there is not an anti-Christian bias when Vanderbilt goes after the Atheist club for not having enough Muslims or the Feminist Majority for its insufficient number of men in its leadership.
Second, in trying to be more "diverse" this sort of ruling actually discourages diversity. To see this let's play a thought game. Assume that Baptist U. decides to have such a rule. Baptist U tends to attract a lot of white Christians who are more likely to be Republican than Democrat. So when the College Democrats decide to start a club those Republicans can just join and then take over the leadership of that organization. In fact if there is enough of a Republican to Democrat disparity then any organization that departs from a conservative orthodoxy will be taking over by white conservative Republicans.
But let us be honest with each other. Having too many white conservative Republicans is not a problem on most state campuses. Students are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. Conservative Christians tend to be underrepresented on these campuses. The groups that can overwhelm those they disagree with are more likely to be progressives. Even if Vanderbilt is not using this ruling to go after conservative Christian groups, and I am skeptical that they are not doing that, merely enforcing this ruling evenly among all groups can reduce a rich diversity of opinions among the groups on campus to the same progressive voice droning out from all the different groups. This rule does not enhance diversity. It kills real diversity.
It is clear that student organizations have to be able to select their own leadership if they are to retain their unique voice and character. An atheist club should not have to have a born-again Christian as the president and making decisions to pass out bible tracks at their meeting. A Republican club should not have to put up with a liberal as the leader and have to sponsor a Michael Moore file night. These things are ridiculous. Yet these are the type of things that come from rules like the one at Vanderbilt. I guess the leaders there would be perfectly happy if all of the student clubs support some degree of progressive political and/or religious ideology. They are free to feel that way. But that is not diversity. That is boring.
Sincerely,
Trouble-maker
Hmmm. It seems that Vanderbilt has a new definition of diversity. Let me see now. It is not that clubs have to allow anyone to join that wants to, which seems like a reasonable request. They must also make no distinction when it comes to the leadership of the club. Follow this to its natural implications then a Tea Party must be given an opportunity to lead the college Democrats and a Marxist gets a shot to take command of the Ayn Rand club. Seems kind of stupid to me.
But it is also kind of dangerous. First, I am not surprised that it seems that Christian clubs seem subject to this more than other kinds of clubs. Conservative Christians have a reputation for intolerance but all clubs have to be intolerant to some degree. Even something as benign as a biking club has to be about biking and not about ballet. This does not make the biking club intolerant but it is about what the focus of the club is. I will be more likely to accept that there is not an anti-Christian bias when Vanderbilt goes after the Atheist club for not having enough Muslims or the Feminist Majority for its insufficient number of men in its leadership.
Second, in trying to be more "diverse" this sort of ruling actually discourages diversity. To see this let's play a thought game. Assume that Baptist U. decides to have such a rule. Baptist U tends to attract a lot of white Christians who are more likely to be Republican than Democrat. So when the College Democrats decide to start a club those Republicans can just join and then take over the leadership of that organization. In fact if there is enough of a Republican to Democrat disparity then any organization that departs from a conservative orthodoxy will be taking over by white conservative Republicans.
But let us be honest with each other. Having too many white conservative Republicans is not a problem on most state campuses. Students are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. Conservative Christians tend to be underrepresented on these campuses. The groups that can overwhelm those they disagree with are more likely to be progressives. Even if Vanderbilt is not using this ruling to go after conservative Christian groups, and I am skeptical that they are not doing that, merely enforcing this ruling evenly among all groups can reduce a rich diversity of opinions among the groups on campus to the same progressive voice droning out from all the different groups. This rule does not enhance diversity. It kills real diversity.
It is clear that student organizations have to be able to select their own leadership if they are to retain their unique voice and character. An atheist club should not have to have a born-again Christian as the president and making decisions to pass out bible tracks at their meeting. A Republican club should not have to put up with a liberal as the leader and have to sponsor a Michael Moore file night. These things are ridiculous. Yet these are the type of things that come from rules like the one at Vanderbilt. I guess the leaders there would be perfectly happy if all of the student clubs support some degree of progressive political and/or religious ideology. They are free to feel that way. But that is not diversity. That is boring.
Sincerely,
Trouble-maker
No comments:
Post a Comment