Christian group in California no longer recognized because....

[Sstavix]

... of one of the stupidest reasons I've ever heard of.

This is a Christian college group. For Christians. But California State University no longer recognizes it as a legitimate student group because of one "discriminatory" reason.

The leader of the Christian group has to be a Christian.

Read one analysis here.

In other news, bureaucracy is idiotic....

[ccgr]

Sad, but not surprised..

[ArcticFox]

This is just the ultimate conclusion of the nondiscrimination policies.

I think this is the problem with "policies" in general. Whenever someone deploys the word "policy" you can bet that's shorthand for "I'm using no personal judgement in this matter."

[RoosterOnAStick]

Yeah, that's not cool.

I'm hoping this isn't that prevalent across the country though. Usually most campuses have some sort of agreement or compromise that works for both sides. I know at my alma mater religious groups were allowed to exclude leadership to only Christians. Of course, the trade off was they wouldn't get funding from the Student Government. It wasn't like they did much anyway so it wasn't much of a loss.

It would have different implications depending on how the group was set up. Some groups had chaplains and clergy from elsewhere come to direct the worship, Bible Studies, and so on. They really wouldn't be affected as much since the student officers could serve in administrative roles only.

Other groups had these things led by the students and while they would get funding from the Student Government, it wasn't ever a problem and everyone could peacefully co-exist.

[storm]

I am by far no expert on colleges but from what I see and read about California colleges it would be more surprising if they accepted a Christian group. Anyone from California sorry not about you I got family member out there he is total liberal and says he even thinks they are bit harsh on church groups

[ArchAngel]

As a CSU alum, it's not that bad. We had several churches who congregated on campus and even had a chapel.

Honestly, I'll go ahead and say I agree with this ruling. If you want to be recognized as a legitimate student org, you need to abide by some rules and regulations and that includes non-discrimination based on religion, race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Yes, this also means the Vietnamese Student Association can't keep non-Vietnamese out of their leadership positions. Atheists can join a Islam club. Etc and so forth.

The christian group shouldn't need to meet a "diversity quota" nor is it required to, but in it's charter, it can't have discriminatory clauses written in.

Everybody has to play by the rules. Is that so idiotic? You guys think one of these groups should get a free pass on the rules because _____?

[Lazarus]

Everybody has to play by the rules. Is that so idiotic? You guys think one of these groups should get a free pass on the rules because _____?

Persecution complex.

[ccgr]

We're not saying one of the groups should get a free pass. If Muslims only want Muslim members fine, if girl scouts only want girls fine, if atheists only want atheists fine. If Christian groups want Christian members, fine. But let them!

[Lazarus]

We're not saying one of the groups should get a free pass. If Muslims only want Muslim members fine, if girl scouts only want girls fine, if atheists only want atheists fine. If Christian groups want Christian members, fine. But let them!

Since the Christian group is the only one having a problem, I'm assuming everyone else is aware of the downside of being an echo chamber.

[Sstavix]

We're not saying one of the groups should get a free pass. If Muslims only want Muslim members fine, if girl scouts only want girls fine, if atheists only want atheists fine. If Christian groups want Christian members, fine. But let them!

This, in my opinion, would be equality. If people want to form groups that are exclusionary to others, then that's perfectly fine.

With the California example, here's one thing to think about - suppose someone white wanted to be the one in charge of an African American group. Would the group let him? Or would they accuse the white guy of racism and kick him out?

According to the strict rules-abiding by California State University, if the African American group did that, then they should lose their recognition. But if they did do that, you can bet that the student group would scream "racism" and get the ACLU involved faster than a gamer can be at a store before the words "free Xboxes" fade from the store owner's lips. So, of course, CSU wouldn't do anything - let the African American student group discriminate however they see fit.

It's that kind of double standard that really irritates me. Blacks can discriminate against any other race they want without any repercussions! Celebrities can spout off anti-Semitic statements and end up winning awards regardless of their hate-filled beliefs! Someone makes rules or laws specifically against Christians? They are just supposed to shut up and suck it up.

That is not equality.

[Bruce_Campbell]

With the California example, here's one thing to think about - suppose someone white wanted to be the one in charge of an African American group. Would the group let him? Or would they accuse the white guy of racism and kick him out?

Uh... the way I understand it that's not how it works, and besides that you're just making up a scenario (that would be AGAINST the same rules you're complaining about) and using that as a base for your argument. To quote AA's post...

Yes, this also means the Vietnamese Student Association can't keep non-Vietnamese out of their leadership positions. Atheists can join a Islam club. Etc and so forth.

Basically you're complaining that Christians have to follow the same rules as everyone else. And all that other stuff is red herrings and hypotheticals.

[Sstavix]

With the California example, here's one thing to think about - suppose someone white wanted to be the one in charge of an African American group. Would the group let him? Or would they accuse the white guy of racism and kick him out?

Uh... the way I understand it that's not how it works, and besides that you're just making up a scenario (that would be AGAINST the same rules you're complaining about) and using that as a base for your argument. To quote AA's post...

Yes, this also means the Vietnamese Student Association can't keep non-Vietnamese out of their leadership positions. Atheists can join a Islam club. Etc and so forth.

Basically you're complaining that Christians have to follow the same rules as everyone else. And all that other stuff is red herrings and hypotheticals.

That's the reason I proposed the scenario I did. Sure, Christians have to follow the rules... but if other student groups didn't, I'm thinking that they wouldn't face the same ramifications, due to "political correctness." If any. It's the double-standard I'm complaining about, not just the singling out of Christian groups.

[ChickenSoup]

The other groups at my alma mater were all receptive, so I guess the Christians are the only ones breaking the rules

[Bruce_Campbell]

That's the reason I proposed the scenario I did. Sure, Christians have to follow the rules... but if other student groups didn't, I'm thinking that they wouldn't face the same ramifications, due to "political correctness." If any. It's the double-standard I'm complaining about, not just the singling out of Christian groups.

So you don't know if other groups are breaking the rules or not, you're just assuming they must be?

I mean, if it was shown that other groups break the rules regularly and are overlooked but Christians groups try to break the rules regularly but are almost always smacked down for it, you'd have a point, and I would agree with you. But as it is, it looks like this group came upon a rule they didn't like and think they should get a free pass that other groups don't get. That's not equality, that's special treatment.

PS: The link in the OP is not what I would call an unbiased source.

[Sstavix]

So you don't know if other groups are breaking the rules or not, you're just assuming they must be?

Actually, based on the way things are going in this country, I'm predicting what would happen in the scenario I presented. Whether or not it would happen that way, I have no idea. I have a feeling we would never know, because the vehement liberal/progressive community is so vitriolic that they've cowed outsiders into compliance. Basically, the bully mentality forcing people into doing what the bullies want.

While it isn't related to this case or even schools in general, I can provide one example of the kind of racially-skewed bully mentality I'm talking about. Members of the New Black Panther Party intimidated voters in Philadelphia in 2008, singling out white voters and black people traveling with white people and keeping them away from the voting booths. Clearly racially-based voter intimidation... but the Justice Department decided to let the case drop, rather than prosecute the offenders. You can bet that if the group doing the intimidation had been the KKK, the Justice Department wouldn't have been so quick to let it slide (and I would agree that the perpetrators should be locked up for this!).

So, back to the case at hand... another hypothetical example, if a Muslim student group refused to let a Jewish woman lead their student organization, I would think there wouldn't be one word in the media. But for some reason, Christians - especially white Christians - are perfectly acceptable targets to pick on.

Interesting... while looking for other examples, I came across this article from 2010 that discusses the same thing, also out of California, with a case going to the Supreme Court. So this certainly isn't a new issue. I wonder how this case turned out? I may have to do some more digging!