The liberties of groups

We have blogged about universities banning Christian groups unless they are willing to accept non-Christian members and leaders.  The Supreme Court has just refused to hear a case questioning this practice.  See Supreme Court declines religious liberty case.

Meanwhile, Michael Stokes Paulsen, while blasting Vanderbilt University for doing this, goes on to argue that Vanderbilt has the right to do so, the same right that protects Christian colleges:

Groups, as well as individuals, possess the “freedom of speech.” Just as individuals get to control the content of their own expression, groups of individuals, joining their voices together in some common association, have the right to control their collective message. Thus, a vital principle of the First Amendment as it applies to private groups, associations, and institutions—including private universities—is that such groups have nearly absolute freedom to create and maintain their own distinctive group expressive identities: to decide what they stand for and what views they will express.

This is the freedom that supports the right of private religious colleges to maintain their distinctive religious identities. And the same freedom equally supports the right of Vanderbilt University to maintain a distinctive anti-religious identity. In each case, the institution may embrace the principles that define it as a group and exclude or suppress messages at odds with the values for which the institution wishes to stand. . . .

Vanderbilt has a history of excluding groups that express messages antithetical to the one it wants to convey. Well into the 1960s it was a racially segregated institution that excluded blacks from its undergraduate and most graduate programs. In 1960, the university expelled a black Divinity School student, James Lawson, for his participation in peaceful sit-in protests of lunch-counter segregation in the Nashville community. It is perhaps in (unthinking) hypersensitivity to its racist past that Vanderbilt has adopted a policy of forbidding campus religious groups to exclude members on the basis of religious belief. Ironically, in so doing Vanderbilt has done just what it did in an earlier era: expel the expression of views of which it disapproves.

One may disagree with Vanderbilt’s principles of exclusion, now as then. I certainly do: the idea that Christian groups should be excluded for being Christian is downright ludicrous—an Orwellian perversion of Vanderbilt’s stated commitment to diversity. In its own way, it is as unbelievable as excluding James Lawson for his commitment to racial justice.

Freedom sometimes protects one’s ability to do wrong. It is Vanderbilt’s First Amendment right to exclude the groups and messages it wants excluded from its campus and its community. . . .

There is a further, bitter irony in all this. The reason why Vanderbilt may discriminate against religion is precisely the same principle of freedom that Vanderbilt denies to religious groups on its campus—the freedom to form its own expressive identity. Vanderbilt purports to be liberal and tolerant of different views. But its university officials do not appear to understand what this means. They think the university is being open-minded by requiring student groups, including religious groups, to conform to university officials’ view of orthodoxy. This is not so much hypocritical or cynical (though it may be that as well) as simply embarrassingly ignorant. Vanderbilt does not appear even to recognize that its actions are intolerant. It thinks it is protecting its community from improper influences, just as it once thought that segregation protected its community.

HT:  Matthew Schmitz

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Michael B.

    Liberty university won’t recognize the College Democrats group: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5034409-503544.html.

    I suspect Patrick Henry College has the same kind of mentality. Vanderbilt never went this far. Any comments on why it’s okay for Liberty University to do this?

  • Michael B.

    Liberty university won’t recognize the College Democrats group: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5034409-503544.html.

    I suspect Patrick Henry College has the same kind of mentality. Vanderbilt never went this far. Any comments on why it’s okay for Liberty University to do this?

  • SKPeterson

    See this on Patrick Henry:
    http://www.phc.edu/student_6.php

  • SKPeterson

    See this on Patrick Henry:
    http://www.phc.edu/student_6.php

  • SKPeterson

    I can see it from a couple angles. Vanderbilt is being stupid; so is Liberty. But, they are both private colleges, and private colleges should have the leeway to determine what they will allow on campus.

    Now, because higher education has increased in cost because of federal government intervention, we bring along the specter of government interference, since the government is the originator or creditor for almost every student loan in the country. Federal money means no discrimination. The problems is teasing out who gets direct funding and who gets indirect and at what level does the government have a “compelling” interest in allowing College Democrats at Liberty or Christian law student groups at Vanderbilt.

  • SKPeterson

    I can see it from a couple angles. Vanderbilt is being stupid; so is Liberty. But, they are both private colleges, and private colleges should have the leeway to determine what they will allow on campus.

    Now, because higher education has increased in cost because of federal government intervention, we bring along the specter of government interference, since the government is the originator or creditor for almost every student loan in the country. Federal money means no discrimination. The problems is teasing out who gets direct funding and who gets indirect and at what level does the government have a “compelling” interest in allowing College Democrats at Liberty or Christian law student groups at Vanderbilt.

  • Carl Vehse

    “the PHC College Democrats serve to promote Democratic principles on campus”

    If “Democratic principles” refers to Demonicrat Party principles (an oxymoron) then this official PHC organization promotes unChristian and genocidal murder-by-abortion and treason. It would be surprising if PHC permits such a terrorist group on its campus.

  • Carl Vehse

    “the PHC College Democrats serve to promote Democratic principles on campus”

    If “Democratic principles” refers to Demonicrat Party principles (an oxymoron) then this official PHC organization promotes unChristian and genocidal murder-by-abortion and treason. It would be surprising if PHC permits such a terrorist group on its campus.

  • Tom Hering

    Carl, have you seen this?

  • Tom Hering

    Carl, have you seen this?

  • Carl Vehse

    No, Tom, I have not seen your bathroom medicine cabinet.

  • Carl Vehse

    No, Tom, I have not seen your bathroom medicine cabinet.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Vanderbilt, as much I disagree with their move, does have the right to determine which groups will be on their campus and how they will operate. I do think though that they should be sued for false advertising if they claim to be a place where people of all creeds and practices are welcomed.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Vanderbilt, as much I disagree with their move, does have the right to determine which groups will be on their campus and how they will operate. I do think though that they should be sued for false advertising if they claim to be a place where people of all creeds and practices are welcomed.

  • Jon

    @2 One might suspect, particularly in light of Carl’s Santorum @4, that peer pressure at PHC might explain why the college democrat group exists but has no officers and very probably no members.

  • Jon

    @2 One might suspect, particularly in light of Carl’s Santorum @4, that peer pressure at PHC might explain why the college democrat group exists but has no officers and very probably no members.

  • DonS

    This is a complicated subject. In absolute terms, I agree with Mr. Paulsen. Our freedom of association rights should permit a private university, private business, or private individual to freely associate or not associate with whomever they want. If they are discriminatory in doing so, let the market punish them accordingly. The Constitution only applies to restrain government, not to restrain private parties, unless and until those private parties substantively interfere with the rights of another, which would not be the case here, since people are free to choose another university or business that has different values.

    On the other hand, that is not where our jurisprudence is today. The reason why PHC, Grove City College, and Hillsdale College maintain their freedoms in this area is because they accept no government funding, even indirectly through student aid. Vanderbilt does, and Liberty University does. This acceptance of funding brings them under the purview of federal and state anti-discrimination laws, which probably makes their current discriminatory practices illegal.

  • DonS

    This is a complicated subject. In absolute terms, I agree with Mr. Paulsen. Our freedom of association rights should permit a private university, private business, or private individual to freely associate or not associate with whomever they want. If they are discriminatory in doing so, let the market punish them accordingly. The Constitution only applies to restrain government, not to restrain private parties, unless and until those private parties substantively interfere with the rights of another, which would not be the case here, since people are free to choose another university or business that has different values.

    On the other hand, that is not where our jurisprudence is today. The reason why PHC, Grove City College, and Hillsdale College maintain their freedoms in this area is because they accept no government funding, even indirectly through student aid. Vanderbilt does, and Liberty University does. This acceptance of funding brings them under the purview of federal and state anti-discrimination laws, which probably makes their current discriminatory practices illegal.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    I am not convinced that accepting government money should require accepting all kinds of groups or affiliations. I think there needs to be accountability to ensure that they are acting in the public interest, but that is as far as I would go. Vandy may be stupid in this matter, but I would rather let market demand judge their choices rather than impose who must be accepted. (As an example of morally good groups that might be disallowed, consider the local – government funded – Millwright Union training school. They exist to train union workers, and members of other unions, non unions, and anti-unions aren’t allowed.)

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    I am not convinced that accepting government money should require accepting all kinds of groups or affiliations. I think there needs to be accountability to ensure that they are acting in the public interest, but that is as far as I would go. Vandy may be stupid in this matter, but I would rather let market demand judge their choices rather than impose who must be accepted. (As an example of morally good groups that might be disallowed, consider the local – government funded – Millwright Union training school. They exist to train union workers, and members of other unions, non unions, and anti-unions aren’t allowed.)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Carl Vehse said (@4):

    If “Democratic principles” refers to Demonicrat Party principles…

    But it doesn’t. It refers to the principles of the Democratic Party.

    There doesn’t appear to be an actual “Demonicrat Party”. Are you imagining one, or was that just a typo?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Carl Vehse said (@4):

    If “Democratic principles” refers to Demonicrat Party principles…

    But it doesn’t. It refers to the principles of the Democratic Party.

    There doesn’t appear to be an actual “Demonicrat Party”. Are you imagining one, or was that just a typo?

  • Carl Vehse

    There doesn’t appear to be an actual “Demonicrat Party”

    Oh, there really is a demonicrat party, tODD. Its members, the fifth-column press, and the party’s sympathizers may not call it that or like it to be called that, but it is demonic and it is called that.

  • Carl Vehse

    There doesn’t appear to be an actual “Demonicrat Party”

    Oh, there really is a demonicrat party, tODD. Its members, the fifth-column press, and the party’s sympathizers may not call it that or like it to be called that, but it is demonic and it is called that.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Carl Vehse said (@12):

    …the party’s sympathizers may not call it that or like it to be called that, but it is demonic and it is called that…

    Oh, I see. So this political party to which you refer, it actually goes by a different official name? But you haven’t told me what that official name is! I suppose I’ll have to guess.

    Is it the America First Party? Christian Liberty Party? Communist Party of the United States of America? Freedom Socialist Party? Green Party of the United States? Modern Whig Party? Objectivist Party? Peace and Freedom Party? United States Marijuana Party? Workers World Party?

    Is one of those right?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Carl Vehse said (@12):

    …the party’s sympathizers may not call it that or like it to be called that, but it is demonic and it is called that…

    Oh, I see. So this political party to which you refer, it actually goes by a different official name? But you haven’t told me what that official name is! I suppose I’ll have to guess.

    Is it the America First Party? Christian Liberty Party? Communist Party of the United States of America? Freedom Socialist Party? Green Party of the United States? Modern Whig Party? Objectivist Party? Peace and Freedom Party? United States Marijuana Party? Workers World Party?

    Is one of those right?

  • DonS

    John @ 10: I agree with you. I don’t think the mere acceptance of government funding, particularly indirect funding (student aid), should transform a private entity into a quasi-government entity. For this reason Christian schools should be able to receive the same aid, for example, as any other private school without having to sacrifice their distinctive Christian principles, as long as such aid is available to all qualified applicant schools without discrimination.

    But, as you know, or should know, this is not generally the law as it exists. Public accommodations, even though privately owned, are required to act as quasi-government agencies in certain circumstances. For example, a store or mall must provide a free speech zone, open to all, or exclude all forms of speech from its premises. For this reason, the weight of the law, as it stands today, requires schools that accept government aid, even indirect aid, to wear the cloak of a quasi-governmental agency, held to Constitutional non-discrimination standards, and this is why schools like PHC do not accept any government aid.

  • DonS

    John @ 10: I agree with you. I don’t think the mere acceptance of government funding, particularly indirect funding (student aid), should transform a private entity into a quasi-government entity. For this reason Christian schools should be able to receive the same aid, for example, as any other private school without having to sacrifice their distinctive Christian principles, as long as such aid is available to all qualified applicant schools without discrimination.

    But, as you know, or should know, this is not generally the law as it exists. Public accommodations, even though privately owned, are required to act as quasi-government agencies in certain circumstances. For example, a store or mall must provide a free speech zone, open to all, or exclude all forms of speech from its premises. For this reason, the weight of the law, as it stands today, requires schools that accept government aid, even indirect aid, to wear the cloak of a quasi-governmental agency, held to Constitutional non-discrimination standards, and this is why schools like PHC do not accept any government aid.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I don’t think the mere acceptance of government funding, particularly indirect funding (student aid), should transform a private entity into a quasi-government entity.”

    The problem is that the government requires racial discrimination on the part of the university in order to for students to be eligible for financial aid to attend the school. However, it allow religious discrimination against students. While both positions of the federal government are unconstitutional, the latter is a matter of the First amendment.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I don’t think the mere acceptance of government funding, particularly indirect funding (student aid), should transform a private entity into a quasi-government entity.”

    The problem is that the government requires racial discrimination on the part of the university in order to for students to be eligible for financial aid to attend the school. However, it allow religious discrimination against students. While both positions of the federal government are unconstitutional, the latter is a matter of the First amendment.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The Constitution only applies to restrain government, not to restrain private parties, unless and until those private parties substantively interfere with the rights of another, which would not be the case here, since people are free to choose another university or business that has different values.”

    I am not sure I follow this. If that is indeed the case then why couldn’t these folks have just found a lunch counter that had different values?

    http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/C/CI010.html

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The Constitution only applies to restrain government, not to restrain private parties, unless and until those private parties substantively interfere with the rights of another, which would not be the case here, since people are free to choose another university or business that has different values.”

    I am not sure I follow this. If that is indeed the case then why couldn’t these folks have just found a lunch counter that had different values?

    http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/C/CI010.html

  • Michael B.

    @sg

    “The problem is that the government requires racial discrimination on the part of the university in order to for students to be eligible for financial aid to attend the school. However, it allow religious discrimination against students. While both positions of the federal government are unconstitutional, the latter is a matter of the First amendment.”

    While affirmative action is racial discrimination against whites, I don’t know that racism is necessarily unconstitutional. Presumably racism against the law in many cases, given the Civil Rights act.

  • Michael B.

    @sg

    “The problem is that the government requires racial discrimination on the part of the university in order to for students to be eligible for financial aid to attend the school. However, it allow religious discrimination against students. While both positions of the federal government are unconstitutional, the latter is a matter of the First amendment.”

    While affirmative action is racial discrimination against whites, I don’t know that racism is necessarily unconstitutional. Presumably racism against the law in many cases, given the Civil Rights act.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “While affirmative action is racial discrimination against whites”

    It actually impacts Asians more.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “While affirmative action is racial discrimination against whites”

    It actually impacts Asians more.

  • DonS

    sg @ 16: The problem, of course, is that this whole area of law is confusing and conflicted. It is also a strange mix of constitutional and statutory law, where the statutes have been drafted to, as I said above, apply to private entities the same kinds of quasi-constitutional restraints that are imposed on government by the Constitution itself. Thus, with respect to your lunch counter example, that is an outgrowth of laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which Congress enacted, assertedly, under its Commerce Clause power.

    Now, to my statement above, my argument is that many of these laws run afoul of the Constitutional rights of the citizens being regulated. While the government is free to impose Constitutionally authorized statutes of its choosing, it is not free, in so doing, to infringe Constitutional rights, such as the right of free association, in so doing.

    In a country as highly over-regulated as ours, these constitutional conflicts are theoretically everywhere, but we rely on truly objective courts to protect and defend our rights. U.S. history since the 1930′s, and FDR’s court-packing threat, which caused the Supreme Court to back down from what it knew was right and to essentially eliminate the right of substantive due process, has not been very favorable to the Constitution, I’m afraid.

  • DonS

    sg @ 16: The problem, of course, is that this whole area of law is confusing and conflicted. It is also a strange mix of constitutional and statutory law, where the statutes have been drafted to, as I said above, apply to private entities the same kinds of quasi-constitutional restraints that are imposed on government by the Constitution itself. Thus, with respect to your lunch counter example, that is an outgrowth of laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which Congress enacted, assertedly, under its Commerce Clause power.

    Now, to my statement above, my argument is that many of these laws run afoul of the Constitutional rights of the citizens being regulated. While the government is free to impose Constitutionally authorized statutes of its choosing, it is not free, in so doing, to infringe Constitutional rights, such as the right of free association, in so doing.

    In a country as highly over-regulated as ours, these constitutional conflicts are theoretically everywhere, but we rely on truly objective courts to protect and defend our rights. U.S. history since the 1930′s, and FDR’s court-packing threat, which caused the Supreme Court to back down from what it knew was right and to essentially eliminate the right of substantive due process, has not been very favorable to the Constitution, I’m afraid.

  • Michael B.

    “The problem is that the government requires racial discrimination on the part of the university in order to for students to be eligible for financial aid to attend the school.”

    Virtually every university will discriminate against whites without the gov’t having to interfere. Take Patrick Henry College as an example. Let’s imagine they have 2 candidates applying for admission, black and white, and both have very conservative beliefs. However, the white guy’s grades are much better. Let’s say the PHC only has room for one. You think the white guy isn’t going to get sent home so that PHC can prominently show the black guy in all their pictures?

  • Michael B.

    “The problem is that the government requires racial discrimination on the part of the university in order to for students to be eligible for financial aid to attend the school.”

    Virtually every university will discriminate against whites without the gov’t having to interfere. Take Patrick Henry College as an example. Let’s imagine they have 2 candidates applying for admission, black and white, and both have very conservative beliefs. However, the white guy’s grades are much better. Let’s say the PHC only has room for one. You think the white guy isn’t going to get sent home so that PHC can prominently show the black guy in all their pictures?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Let’s say the PHC only has room for one. You think the white guy isn’t going to get sent home so that PHC can prominently show the black guy in all their pictures?”

    No, I don’t think it will play out that way. Goofy false dichotomy.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Let’s say the PHC only has room for one. You think the white guy isn’t going to get sent home so that PHC can prominently show the black guy in all their pictures?”

    No, I don’t think it will play out that way. Goofy false dichotomy.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “In a country as highly over-regulated as ours,”

    Isn’t this due to people not self regulating? In a society with more general agreement, you don’t have to legislate and dictate every dang thing.

    Consider Japan. They seem to have more general consensus than any other place in the world. The joke about Japan is that the religion in Japan is “Being Japanese”. Diversity in everything means disagreeing on everything. When people don’t share heritage, culture, religion or values, then of course it is endless bickering and retaliation with oppressive institutions like Vanderbilt choosing to discriminate against some and favor others.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “In a country as highly over-regulated as ours,”

    Isn’t this due to people not self regulating? In a society with more general agreement, you don’t have to legislate and dictate every dang thing.

    Consider Japan. They seem to have more general consensus than any other place in the world. The joke about Japan is that the religion in Japan is “Being Japanese”. Diversity in everything means disagreeing on everything. When people don’t share heritage, culture, religion or values, then of course it is endless bickering and retaliation with oppressive institutions like Vanderbilt choosing to discriminate against some and favor others.

  • DonS

    sg @ 22: Sure. But I would argue that you have it backwards. Our society, and that of other western cultures, no longer “self-regulates” like it used to because it ceded that function to government with a continual attitude that every problem that occurs needs a regulatory solution. Forgetting, of course, that individual liberties decrease as regulatory activity increases. And that no one ever clears the books of old regulations, meaning that the web of regulatory edicts continually increases in density.

    Of course, as said above, as regulatory activity increases, the Constitutional rights of citizens are inevitably infringed. And the courts, more often than not, acquiesce to the compromise of the Constitution in the name of political comity.

    The Obamacare appeals will evidence whether the Court is willing to stand up for the constitution or if the drift is irreversible.

  • DonS

    sg @ 22: Sure. But I would argue that you have it backwards. Our society, and that of other western cultures, no longer “self-regulates” like it used to because it ceded that function to government with a continual attitude that every problem that occurs needs a regulatory solution. Forgetting, of course, that individual liberties decrease as regulatory activity increases. And that no one ever clears the books of old regulations, meaning that the web of regulatory edicts continually increases in density.

    Of course, as said above, as regulatory activity increases, the Constitutional rights of citizens are inevitably infringed. And the courts, more often than not, acquiesce to the compromise of the Constitution in the name of political comity.

    The Obamacare appeals will evidence whether the Court is willing to stand up for the constitution or if the drift is irreversible.

  • Michael B.

    @SG

    “No, I don’t think it will play out that way. Goofy false dichotomy.”

    Yes it does. If you want to make room for a black guy (or whatever group you prefer), you have to get rid of someone who would have normally had his spot. Even if you didn’t have to get rid of the white student, it’d still be racist because you’d be making it easier for the black guy to get in than the white guy. You can argue that affirmative action is necessary to correct racism in the past, but you can’t argue that it isn’t racist itself.

  • Michael B.

    @SG

    “No, I don’t think it will play out that way. Goofy false dichotomy.”

    Yes it does. If you want to make room for a black guy (or whatever group you prefer), you have to get rid of someone who would have normally had his spot. Even if you didn’t have to get rid of the white student, it’d still be racist because you’d be making it easier for the black guy to get in than the white guy. You can argue that affirmative action is necessary to correct racism in the past, but you can’t argue that it isn’t racist itself.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @24

    I disagree that Patrick Henry College administrators would discriminate so it could put a black guy in its promotional brochures or some other such nonsense.

    Discrimination based on race is, of course, racist, but it doesn’t play out as you describe.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @24

    I disagree that Patrick Henry College administrators would discriminate so it could put a black guy in its promotional brochures or some other such nonsense.

    Discrimination based on race is, of course, racist, but it doesn’t play out as you describe.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Our society, and that of other western cultures, no longer “self-regulates” like it used to because it ceded that function to government with a continual attitude that every problem that occurs needs a regulatory solution.”

    Okay, that is the action of the feedback loop. Governments don’t make regulations to stop people from doing things that no one is doing. If people were self regulating, we wouldn’t need all these regulations.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Our society, and that of other western cultures, no longer “self-regulates” like it used to because it ceded that function to government with a continual attitude that every problem that occurs needs a regulatory solution.”

    Okay, that is the action of the feedback loop. Governments don’t make regulations to stop people from doing things that no one is doing. If people were self regulating, we wouldn’t need all these regulations.

  • DonS

    sg @ 26: I completely disagree. Our government looks for things to regulate. Actively. Whether or not there is a genuine problem caused by the people failing to self-regulate. Why? Because regulation is power.

  • DonS

    sg @ 26: I completely disagree. Our government looks for things to regulate. Actively. Whether or not there is a genuine problem caused by the people failing to self-regulate. Why? Because regulation is power.

  • DonS

    The Tennessee legislature is challenging Vanderbilt’s religious discrimination policies, threatening to take action against the University with respect to state subsidy funding unless Vanderbilt either: 1) stops discriminating against religious student organizations, or 2) truly applies its supposed “all comers” policy to all organizations, including fraternal organizations, rather than in the current discriminatory manner.

    Here is more information, including sizable excerpts from the legislature’s letter: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/296544/battle-vanderbilt-tennessee-legislature-steps-david-french

  • DonS

    The Tennessee legislature is challenging Vanderbilt’s religious discrimination policies, threatening to take action against the University with respect to state subsidy funding unless Vanderbilt either: 1) stops discriminating against religious student organizations, or 2) truly applies its supposed “all comers” policy to all organizations, including fraternal organizations, rather than in the current discriminatory manner.

    Here is more information, including sizable excerpts from the legislature’s letter: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/296544/battle-vanderbilt-tennessee-legislature-steps-david-french


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X