I’m not sure if this is overall a good thing, or overall a bad thing.
It seems that the writers over at the Daily Stun have taken to my article ‘Staring into the Sun‘ that I published two weeks ago. (My original article was a response to a ridiculous Sun editorial on Chi Alpha’s ‘discrimination’ case). Since I wrote the article two weeks ago, there have been two editorials, and one letter to the editor, that echo the very same points that I bring up.
What can we conclude from this? 1) The situation is overwhelmingly simple. 2) You should read Cornell Insider more often. 3) Maybe we writers at the Cornell Review aren’t that crazy after all… Here are some examples of the similarities:
The Stun is trying to specify which of a group’s beliefs are compatible with Cornell’s political / social atmosphere
Mike Wacker’s ‘With Us Or…It’s discrimination:’
It is an entirely different argument to say that Cornell should pick and choose a posteriori which religious organizations it will fund based on how socially acceptable their doctrines are. Such discrimination amounts to the state imposing its views on the church, threatening freedom of religion.
Judah Bellin’s ‘Discussing the Multiple Dimensions of Discrimination:’
By forbidding member groups from practicing their beliefs, then, you have precluded their “freedom of expression.” Chi Alpha cannot be said to be privy to this freedom if they cannot make policy consonant with their beliefs.
John Cetta’s ‘Letter to the Editor:’
Freedom of association requires groups be free to limit their leadership to those who belief in the founding tenets of their group, however unsavory those beliefs may be.
My article:
In essence, they oppose a religious group upholding their religious beliefs. What the writers really find objectionable and regressive, then, are the specific beliefs of the religion. They believe student groups acting on such beliefs are contradictory to Cornell’s mission and are deserving of castigation. (follow the jump for more examples.)
The hypotheticals:
Judah Bellin’s article:
Alternatively, how would we feel about a straight student who is told he cannot assume any leadership role in HAVEN, the LGBTQ student group? Or a Muslim student asked to rescind his letter of intent for the Hillel executive board?
My article:
Another situation: the leader of a Muslim Fellowship on campus is publicly known to be a drunkard, party animal, and wayward alcoholic – characteristics incompatible with someone who volunteers to be a beacon of Islamic thought. If such a person would be asked to step down, I can confidently say that the Daily Stun would not dedicate its editorial page to railing against the rampant discriminatory speech at Cornell that threatens the safety of Cornell’s drinking community.
…
One last hypothetical situation – a particularly radical one. Let’s say the leader of the LGBTQ club had a dramatic transformation of ideology and decided he no longer supported gay marriage, and was a straight man. My assumption is that if he tried to retain his position, he would be removed.
The simplicity of the justification for removal
John Cetta’s ‘Letter to the Editor:’
Donohoe was only asked to step down after he later disaffirmed his belief that homosexual acts are sinful — one of the group’s founding beliefs.
Mike Wacker:
The primary impetus was the decision of Chi Alpha, a Christian fellowship, to remove Chris Donahue ’10 from its leadership for espousing beliefs on homosexuality, which clearly contradicted with its doctrines.
My article:
The point is that upon announcing that he is a homosexual, and lives his life in line with that preference, he publicly contradicts one aspect of the group’s doctrine he agreed to uphold.
