advertisement
On MovieTome: SEX AND THE CITY clips are here!
Find Articles in:
all
Business
Reference
Technology
News
Sports
Health
Autos
Arts
Home & Garden
advertisement

Content provided in partnership with
ProQuest

Viewpoint Discrimination by Public Universities: Student Religious Organizations and Violations of University Nondiscrimination Policies

Washington and Lee Law Review,  Spring 2004  by Snider, Mark Andrew

<< Page 1  Continued from page 12.  Previous | Next

Proponents of the existence of groups selected by sex, race, or religion on campus believe that, while discrimination may play an evil role in the larger life of the nation, the existence of select social groups at universities does little to engrain discriminatory beliefs into students' minds.214 Students widely interact with different groups of people in the classroom, dormitories, and dining room, they argue, so occasional exposure to small exclusive groups does not breed a segregated campus community.215 They also point out that while adherents to fervent religious beliefs may be majorities in some American communities, that is often not the case at large public universities where left-leaning thought is commonplace and only a small minority of students hold traditional religious beliefs.216 These groups encourage students to discuss viewpoints and issues with a core group of people who face the same problems and challenges from the same point of view, thereby building a sense of security and camaraderie.217 Proponents argue that the inclusion of outsiders would prevent the group's members from speaking openly about their problems and reaching beneficial solutions.

Most Popular Articles in Reference
The importance of understanding organizational culture
Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
What factors attract foreign direct investment?
Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
More »
advertisement

Others, however, believe that exclusive student religious organizations perpetuate discriminatory attitudes and engender intolerance in impressionable young adults. These people argue that universities shape the moral fabric of the emerging generation and instill in students the mores that they pass on to society in general.218 If universities allow groups to discriminate, those excluded may be permanently handicapped by receiving fewer political and social advantages.219 Supporters of nondiscrimination regulations argue that the policies protect historically disadvantaged groups from the barriers erected by others.220 They argue that everyone suffers when society prevents large segments of the population from contributing to the group because it stifles the outsiders' talents.221 Further, these proponents argue that the artificial division of people fosters stereotypes about what goals, abilities, and interests certain types of people hold.222 Finally, they argue that university policies do not actually restrict the way that these religious groups practice their faith.223

The collision of nondiscrimination policies and associational freedoms illustrates what Lawrence Tribe has called "the ancient paradox of liberalism."224 Freedom inherently conflicts with equality.225 While contemporary constitutional jurisprudence views eliminating discrimination as an important goal, constitutional protections of associational rights are also clearly important.226 Thus, permitting student religious groups to engage in self-constitution furthers several important societal goals.

The existence of student religious groups with policies and methodologies that differ from the university's "official" viewpoint leads to the furtherance of democracy. While a single student is unlikely to contribute significantly to the political process on a large campus, joining with others to engage in a common mission helps to ensure that other students, faculty, and administrators on campus will hear and take into consideration the unorthodox viewpoints.227 The forced inclusion of dissonant voices in the group dilutes the group's message and weakens the group's force.228 Commonality, on the other hand, produces solidarity,229 ensures that only those who will effectively communicate the group's viewpoint are included, and makes the group and its purpose more identifiable to others.230