Vanderbilt University's enlightened intolerance, with a note on RUF's response...

(TB: This post is the collaborative work of an Indiana University graduate student and Vanderbilt undergrad, Elliot Huck.)

Sounding the alarm over eugenics, G. K. Chesterton warned about the “terrorism of third rate professors” whose evil lurks behind the “strengths of their splendid dupes.” Recent developments at Vanderbilt concerning religious and political societies remind us how little has changed since Chesterton’s time. Arguing that no registered college society should be allowed to limit membership and leadership based on religious and political belief, the university threatened any groups requiring such limitations with expulsion from university property. The administration dressed this splendid dupe in the garb of equality and nondiscrimination, with Chancellor Zeppos stressing how the university, more than anything, supports “open inquiry, equal opportunity, compassion, and excellence” (you can read his article here). 

The doublespeak would be laughable if it weren’t...

sobering in its implications. Vanderbilt takes its authority from the June 2010 Supreme Court decision, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez requiring religious societies affiliated with public universities to accept "all comers" as members and leaders regardless of their religious and sexual orientation, so long as the requirement is supported by a university-wide nondiscrimination policy.

Despite the fact that they are not a public university, Vanderbilt took their cue and the administration warned the Christian Legal Society last fall that this “all comer” policy would soon apply to Vandy and CLS would be expected to comply. CLS would be forced to uphold the university’s policies forbidding any religious or moral discrimination in the election of officers, or it would face the consequences. The students spoke up [including Clearnote alumnus Elliot Huck, now a Vandy undergrad], pointing out the crucial distinction between a policy affecting one person and a university-wide policy that would affect multiple campus groups. [Huck also wrote an article for the student newspaper.] But as the semester progressed, it became clear Vanderbilt’s administration would not compromise.

After relative silence on the issue, Vanderbilt’s administration, headed by Richard C. McCarty, provost and vice chancellor of the university, held a town hall meeting in January to field questions. (Here's a YouTube recap and here's the full meeting.) During the meeting, McCarty made it clear where he stood on the issue of Christian faith in the academy. To one student, he stated, “I’m Catholic. What if my faith beliefs guided all my decisions in a given day?” He went on to explain that his religion shouldn’t influence his daily decisions as vice chancellor of Vanderbilt. To another, “Everyone isn’t as fortunate as you are to be firm in their faith. We’re asking you to—oh my gosh—to take a leap of faith for one year and give it a try.” Also, “If your organization has the ability to say no to this person, then that organization is discriminating against that person.” He suggested those students who were against the university’s policies would all benefit from being a little more open to the issue. The irony, of course, is the administration is not open to religious belief when it runs contrary to their own creeds of gender and sexual nondiscrimination. But were one to raise this objection, you can expect McCarty would roll his eyes and state, once again, that we just need to be a bit more open and tolerant to other ways of thinking.

In response to the administration's new policy of intolerance, Vanderbilt Catholic declared they will leave Vandy's campus. Meanwhile eleven other religious groups jointly announced their refusal to comply and they are expected to be denied official group status and campus privileges next year. Those joining in this announced refusal to comply include Navigators, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and Christian Legal Society.

The local chapter of the PCA's campus ministry did not join this protest. When contacted, Vandy's Reformed University Fellowship said they intend to remain on campus.

Chesterton offers a healthy way of dealing with academics in Orthodoxy, where he would have diagnosed such zealous commitment to the narrow rationale of nondiscrimination as lunacy. Dedicated to treading the same water of Chancellor Zeppos’ “inquiry, equal opportunity, and compassion” over and over again like dogs chasing their tails, Vanderbilt’s administration is unwilling to be honest and admit they simply hate Christianity and Christianity's God. In an email from James Stofan, Associate Vice Chancellor of Alumni Relations, Joseph Bayly, a Vanderbilt graduate, was assured there “is no concerted effort to eliminate religious organizations from our campus.”

Their actions speak clearer than their words. They are tyrants who preen themselves over their magnanimity. What else would inspire Zeppos to write that “we believe that in gaining exposure to the unfamiliar we may discover common ground.”

To be fair, within their narrow circle of logic Vanderbilt’s administration is willing to follow their premises to whatever ends they lead. Answering a question concerning fraternities and sororities, one representative admitted such cases would have to be reconsidered, and that if one exception were made other exceptions would have to be weighed as well. They have complete faith in their democratic principles. One wonders what would happen were a conservative Christian to run for election as president of Vanderbilt’s chapter of the Association of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, and Allied Graduate and Professional Students. We might learn the commitments of Vanderbilt’s administration are not so rigid after all.

This is a maddening circle. Anyone familiar with the current state of the American university is weary of such totalitarianism. Vanderbilt’s administration betrays their demonic alliance by making Christianity their first line of attack. Like Chesterton, C. S. Lewis in his That Hideous Strength warned these attacks would start in the Academy.

The tragedy will be the silence of those Christians who, watching it all happen, respond by scrambling to keep their on-campus privileges, explaining to their students and financial supporters that the kettle is actually a pond, the water isn't getting warm, and they are certainly no stupid frog.

Comments

I think what we need is more diversity in civil engineering opinions. Who really needs a safety factor exceeding 1 or a positive margin in design, anyways? It's not like a gusset plate that's too thin can cause a bridge over the Mississippi to collapse or anything.

>>> The local chapter of the PCA's campus ministry did not join this protest.

What will they do when God-haters demand to join their leadership?

>>What will they do when God-haters demand to join their leadership?

What's more telling is their failure to stand with the other campus groups now.

Love,

#3 Yes, agreed! Even the sometimes-criticised Cru decided to display some backbone and join the protest, as did the Catholic group there. So a tip of the hat to our Catholic friends as well, and here's why:

... “How could we sign such an agreement?” Fr. Baker said. “Our purpose has always been to share the Gospel and proudly to proclaim our Catholic faith ... It has become quite clear to the Vanderbilt Catholic students that we either stand for something or fall for anything,” said Fr. Baker in a written statement. “We choose to stand for Jesus Christ, and we expect that our leadership do the same.”

It's routine by now that no unaffected student groups are willing to speak out against this kind of persecution, out of student solidarity or belief in freedom. Or am I wrong? Have the campus Republicans, for example, spoken out on this? The Federalist Society?

It's just illogical. It's also sad, because these cases are brought about by the lunatic fringe of activist liberals, yet they lead to stupid policies that affect everyone.

Most students (gay or straight, liberal or conservative) have the decency and the rationality to not try to join groups that clash with their own personal beliefs. Groups, by their very nature, are meant to be associations of like-minded people. If you aren't like-minded, why even attempt to join the group? Most people have the sense not to. It's only the morons who want to engineer society in their image that even attempt it. The rest are too ambivalent to make a stand.

I have a hunch that if a Christian student tried to join a Muslim student association, the university would side with the Muslim students. If a white man tried to join an all-black fraternity, the university would side with the fraternity. If a Republican tried to join a group of young Democrats, the university would side with the Democrats.

Granted, if a man tried to join a sorority, who knows where the university would stand? It's clear that they don't like discrimination... Unless you're white, politically conservative, male and Christian, that is. Then you're fair game.

In fact, not even affected groups are willing to speak out against this nonsense. For instance, I'm pretty sure some of the other non-Christian religious groups on campus are uncomfortable with the new policy, but they won't speak up. Why? Perhaps as long as they silently consent, judgment will be reserved for the Christian groups and these other groups can submit their constitutions quietly and hope the administration looks the other way.

The Christians just need to go ahead and join the LGBT group en masse, each one carrying a copy of the administration's official statement and that article. Just push the Vanderbuilt decision to its logical extreme, and show up their ridiculous hypocracy to all the watching alumni, donors, and so on.

As an alum (School of Engineering, 1999) this is pretty disappointing.

NRO just posted that the campus greek societies have been exempted from this "all comers" rule. So the rule is not even being applied as it was in Martinez, as the Tennessee legislature pointed out.

I had the exact same thought as JWD Smith. Eliot needs to lead a peaceful take-over of the lgbt group. Fight the ludicrous with the ludicrous!

>>What's more telling is their failure to stand with the other campus groups now.

I think it must be obvious, but I still don't understand. Can someone help me?

I wonder if RUF will change its name to the Three Self Fellowship?

Add new comment