The American public university system feverishly strives to promote diversity. The principle behind it may be noble, but sometimes they take it a bit too far. Sometimes, their drive to be diverse leads them to be exactly opposite.
Such was the case this month when California State University de-recognized InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, a nation-wide Christian organization, on all 23 of its campuses.
Why? InterVarsity requires its leadership to sign a statement of belief before taking their post.
That’s discrimination and breaking the law—both in California and in university policy—California State administrators say.
It’s easy to get upset about something like this. How could InterVarsity exclude people from wanting to become leaders, just because they don’t fit a certain mold?
But when you look at InterVarsity’s logic, it becomes a little clearer.
Greg Jao, the national field director for the northeast cluster of InterVarsity chapters, told the USA Today that student leaders are charged with teaching Bible studies and mentoring students. To be effective, they must actually believe what they are saying.
We agree. It wouldn’t make sense for a student to go to an InterVarsity Bible study and be taught by someone doesn’t believe what they’re saying. InterVarsity doesn’t appear to be trying to discriminate against anyone. It seems they’re trying to better serve all students—including those who lack their beliefs—by giving them a clearer picture of what they do believe.
In InterVarsity’s defense, they scarcely break the rules. They don’t require members to share their beliefs—just leadership.
We think the university system has gone too far in policing students organizations. Even if a student organization requires all members to sign an agreement, it doesn’t make sense for the university to shut them down. If a student doesn’t agree with the form they are signing, they probably wouldn’t fit into the club in the first place.
To be clear, we are not arguing that clubs should require members to sign statements of belief and exclude students. We are just saying that the university should not ban a club solely on this reason.
If students don’t like having to sign a statement, let them say that. They don’t have to join the club. If the club ultimately fails due to a lack of members, that responsibility falls to the club, not the university.
The university should worry about a student’s education—not whether or not a certain club should be permitted to be recognized.
Of course, InterVarsity at California State University can continue to meet. But the implications of being de-recognized can be devastating, according to Bloomberg View piece written by Virginia Postrel, a member of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s board of directors. Postrel says that recognition can keep an organization from identifying themselves with a university, using rooms provided by the university free of charge, participate in recruitment events or receiving funding from student fees.
The policy ultimately silences student organizations.
And isn’t that the greatest discrimination of all?
