More Liberal Madness!

[robrecht]

So PETA shouldn't have a problem with somebody who works with the meat packers union being in a position of power within their group. Correct?

But why would PETA elect a meat packer to be a leader in their group? The only reason I see for concern is if you are afraid of subversive infiltration of the entire group, as Dart Executor notes above. Is that a real concern? And, even if it is, should a universities ultimately be responsible for preventing people from subversively infiltrating groups volunteer groups, eg, meat packers claiming they are vegetarians, Catholics claiming they are Protestants, Jews claiming they are Muslims, etc?

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't know. I thought the idea was silly at first, but in that NYT article is says that Hillel has elected non-Jewish people to student boards. That plus the fact that non-Evangelical groups don't seem to have a problem with compliance makes me think the issue isn't as it seems.

So PETA shouldn't have a problem with somebody who works with the meat packers union being in a position of power within their group. Correct?

[Darth Executor]

I don't know. I thought the idea was silly at first, but in that NYT article is says that Hillel has elected non-Jewish people to student boards. That plus the fact that non-Evangelical groups don't seem to have a problem with compliance makes me think the issue isn't as it seems.

They don't have a problem because they're all part of the progressive machine and are unlikely to suffer from subversive infiltration. Evangelicals are the only ones still holding out.

[Psychic Missile]

This requirement doesn't strike you as...odd?

I mean, if a Christian applied to be the leader of an atheist group, and was rejected on the grounds that he's not an atheist, should his complaint hold any water?

I don't know. I thought the idea was silly at first, but in that NYT article is says that Hillel has elected non-Jewish people to student boards. That plus the fact that non-Evangelical groups don't seem to have a problem with compliance makes me think the issue isn't as it seems.

[Zymologist]

According the the New York Times article linked by Bill the Cat, all religious groups are impacted if they do not agree to allow for a leader from any religion. Muslim groups, as well as Jewish, Catholic, and mainline Protestant groups, took no issue.

This requirement doesn't strike you as...odd?

I mean, if a Christian applied to be the leader of an atheist group, and was rejected on the grounds that he's not an atheist, should his complaint hold any water?

[Psychic Missile]

Is Islam impacted in any way by this?

According the the New York Times article linked by Bill the Cat, all religious groups are impacted if they do not agree to allow for a leader from any religion. Muslim groups, as well as Jewish, Catholic, and mainline Protestant groups, took no issue.

[Cow Poke]

Is Islam impacted in any way by this?

[seer]

The story broke in June:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/us...as-policy.html

Not surprising that they actually went through with it.

These people really are mad, lunatics, in every sense of the word.

[Bill the Cat]

The story broke in June:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/us...as-policy.html

Not surprising that they actually went through with it.

[seer]

Really? Really?

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF) has been, in modern campus terminology, “derecognized” by California State University schools. Basically, they will no longer be a recognized campus organization on any of the 23 schools in that system. IVCF has been derecognized because they require their leaders to have Christian beliefs.

It's not just InterVarsity that will be impacted. Following the same logic, any group that insists on requiring its leaders to follow an agreed upon set of guiding beliefs is no longer kosher (irony intended) at California's state universities. This will impact many other faith-based organizations with actual, well, faith-based beliefs. Presumably, even People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals would have to allow Oscar Meyer to lead their campus chapters.

Only in a modern American university would this make any sense.

Now, it’s not persecution. Christians are not banned. People can share their faith. But, now, what we once called “equal access” has taken another hit—people of faith do not have equal access to the university community, like the environmentalist club, the LGBT organization, or the chess club.

The university system has decided that speech with beliefs that undergird it—and shape how it is organized—has to be derecognized.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/eds...universit.html