Laurier Univ. refuses to recognize student freethougtht club

[Ladewig]

From a student's blog (http://acosmopolitan.blogspot.com/2008/02/campus-freethought-groups-intolerant.html)

A couple of months ago, last April, the club that I'm the vice-president of submitted it's application to become an official campus club. Our name - "Laurier Freethought Alliance," our goal, to promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life without the need for superstition or religious belief. Since that is, after all, what a CFI-affiliated group should be about. Yesterday, after not getting through to us for 9 months (a problem in it's own right), the representative from the Campus Clubs department sends us an e-mail: Our application has been denied. Their reasons?

While the Campus Clubs department understands the goals and visions of your organization, they are not compatible with the guidelines of what may be approved and incorporated into our department. While the promotion of reason, science and freedom of inquiry are perfectly legitimate goals, what is most in question in regards to your club's vision is the promotion of "a fulfilling life without religion and superstition". While this university is indeed technically a secular institution, secular does not denote taking an active stance in opposition to the principles and status of religious beliefs and practices. To be clear, this is not meant to say that the promotion of science and reason are illegitimate goals. But due to the need to respect and tolerate the views of others, the Campus Clubs department is unable to approve a club of this nature at this time. If you wish to adjust and rethink your club's application and vision, you may resubmit a revised proposal at any time.


wow.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Needs to be escalated to the media in this province. General laughter should embarrass the university to reverse the decision.

[sthomson]

The statment of purpose for the club indicates that it will be prejudiced towards students who ascribe to a spiritual or religious faith. At my alma mater, clubs were not allowed to discriminate based on race, sexuality, religion, or creed. The Christian club allowed and encouraged atheist or agnostic students to participate in activities. The GLTB club actively recruited "allied" students (ie, NOT gay, lesbian, transgendered, or bisexual). The Chemistry club was open to students of all majors.

If the statement of purpose was re-worded to exclude discriminatory language, I assume the club would be acceptable.

[Ladewig]

The statment of purpose for the club indicates that it will be prejudiced towards students who ascribe to a spiritual or religious faith. At my alma mater, clubs were not allowed to discriminate based on race, sexuality, religion, or creed. The Christian club allowed and encouraged atheist or agnostic students to participate in activities. The GLTB club actively recruited "allied" students (ie, NOT gay, lesbian, transgendered, or bisexual). The Chemistry club was open to students of all majors.

If the statement of purpose was re-worded to exclude discriminatory language, I assume the club would be acceptable.


Before I could agree with your interpretation of the school's position, I would like evidence that the Christian Club at Laurier University encourages atheists and agnostics to join.

[RobRoy]

Before I could agree with your interpretation of the school's position, I would like evidence that the Christian Club at Laurier University encourages atheists and agnostics to join.

I would think that would be a given, then they could thump them with Bibles and try to get them to convert.

[Jimbo07]

Before I could agree with your interpretation of the school's position, I would like evidence that the Christian Club at Laurier University encourages atheists and agnostics to join.

Oh, I can imagine they'd be encouraged to join...

Why not just rephrase:

Our name - "Laurier Freethought Alliance," our goal, to promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life.

You get your check-in-the-box and then do what you like at your meetings. Like it or not, you live in a political world. Besides some kind of compromise, your options are: forget it, or fight.

[tsg]

The statment of purpose for the club indicates that it will be prejudiced towards students who ascribe to a spiritual or religious faith. At my alma mater, clubs were not allowed to discriminate based on race, sexuality, religion, or creed. The Christian club allowed and encouraged atheist or agnostic students to participate in activities. The GLTB club actively recruited "allied" students (ie, NOT gay, lesbian, transgendered, or bisexual). The Chemistry club was open to students of all majors.

If the statement of purpose was re-worded to exclude discriminatory language, I assume the club would be acceptable.

I would think that "promoting ... a good life without the need for superstition or religious belief" could be achieved without excluding from membership those with religious beliefs. In fact, it might be desirable, even necessary, to include those with religious beliefs in order to fulfill the stated goals.

What makes it more interesting, however, is that, according to the blog, the "Campus for Christ" group is apparently an official campus club as are many other religiously motivated clubs.

[Jimbo07]

In Canada, the social grain is to be inclusive of all religions. I'm not sure that this is a bad policy. It has the net effect of watering-down the influence of any one. Specifically anti-religious language may only raise hackles...

[propheteer]

Focus on the science. Promote "Scientific Tolerance" with regard to all things.

Our goal, to promote scientific tolerance, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life.

I bet that would fly. You have to be 100% postive in your goal, you can't discount things like religion or superstition in your published goal, you have to endorse and encourage the opposite like scientific fact.

Besides, those pansy's will eat up the word tolerance and ask for seconds....

[sthomson]

If the student in question wanted to start an Atheist club, I doubt there would be a problem. That student could, in his statement of purpose, point out that there are other clubs that cater to religious beliefs.

However, the student wants to start a club whose implied message is "Only people without religious beliefs are scientific, or skeptical, or open-minded." I can't see why the student gov't should allow this.

An Atheist Club and a Skeptics Club should be two different organizations.

[NobbyNobbs]

The statment of purpose for the club indicates that it will be prejudiced towards students who ascribe to a spiritual or religious faith. At my alma mater, clubs were not allowed to discriminate based on race, sexuality, religion, or creed. The Christian club allowed and encouraged atheist or agnostic students to participate in activities. The GLTB club actively recruited "allied" students (ie, NOT gay, lesbian, transgendered, or bisexual). The Chemistry club was open to students of all majors.

If the statement of purpose was re-worded to exclude discriminatory language, I assume the club would be acceptable.

I disagree that the statement says what you say it does. It says "without the need for superstition or religion". This is not anti-religion per se. It does not say "down with religion". It just says it isn't necessary.
It may still be desired, and indeed, someone else pointed out the advantages of having religious people in the club.

I would also point out this statement the Campus Clubs department made:

But due to the need to respect and tolerate the views of others, the Campus Clubs department is unable to approve a club of this nature.

You may want to point out to them that by denying your application, they are being disrespectful and intolerable of your views.


When I was in college, there was a black fraternity. In its mission statement, it expressed the goal of promoting equality and racial harmony among all.

Of course, you had to be black to join.

[sthomson]

I disagree that the statement says what you say it does. It says "without the need for superstition or religion". This is not anti-religion per se. It does not say "down with religion". It just says it isn't necessary.
It may still be desired, and indeed, someone else pointed out the advantages of having religious people in the club.

I would also point out this statement the Campus Clubs department made:.

I understand that, NobbyNobbs, and you understand that, and the student who wrote the statement understands it.

But, to the coordinator of student clubs, whose job it is to weed out clubs that could cause problems for the college downt the road, it's probably quite the red flag. Honestly, he's got two choices:

1) Make a big fuss about it, until he graduates or stops caring.

2) Resubmit the skeptics proposal with language that will pass their red-flag filter. Get funding for the club and their activities. Have fun.

In other words, US social custom has agreed that science/skepticism and religion are not mutually exclusive. The student can accept that and move on, or he can buck the system with little benefit.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

My secret (NWO) sources tell me that:

The issue is already nearly settled. After receiving dozens and dozens of angry letters from across the world, the president of the student union had a private meeting with Tyler and Anatoly and effectively overruled the campus clubs officers. There is some unfinished business but it looks like their ratification is imminent

Nothing to see here folks. Please move along.
:D

[Achán hiNidráne]

Sorry, It's just that stories like this really make me angry.

[NobbyNobbs]

Don't get Mark angry. You wouldn't like it when he's angry.

:)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Sorry, It's just that stories like this really make me angry.

Me 2. :D

But the anticipated resolution makes me happy. ;)

If my agent reports in again, I'll post an update.

[fuelair]

Needs to be escalated to the media in this province. General laughter should embarrass the university to reverse the decision.
That should be the result. Bet it wouldn't though. The ignorant have the numbers right now.:(

[UnrepentantSinner]

You may want to point out to them that by denying your application, they are being disrespectful and intolerable of your views.

This seems like a really bizarre twist on the persecution card. Sort of like the one a "deliverance from homosexuality" club, that encouraged traditional marriage, family values and "living a fulfilling life without sodomy and perversion" would play. Not allowing that club, with disrepectful and interlant views would similarly be disrespectful and intolable of their views by this logic.

I think the school is wrong and needs to allow the club, but I agree with sthomson, etc. that it shouldn't be that big a deal to change some verbiage in your mission statement.

[UnrepentantSinner]

You may want to point out to them that by denying your application, they are being disrespectful and intolerable of your views.

This seems like a really bizarre twist on the persecution card. Sort of like the one a "deliverance from homosexuality" club, that encouraged traditional marriage, family values and "living a fulfilling life without sodomy and perversion" would play. Not allowing that club, with disrepectful and interlant views would similarly be disrespectful and intolable of their views by this logic.

I posted my response when I was pressed for time at work and wanted to clarify it a bit. My reply to your comment Nobby was based on me taking a strictly legalistic approach to, what apparently is Laurier's discrimination policy when it comes to school club missoin statements. Analogize it, if you will, to the claim of anti-choice people saying abortion is murder when, until the Supreme Court declares it so, it isn't. I feel the decision by the Club gatekeepers is wrong, but it passes the school policy smell test IMO and thus I didn't find your "intolerance of our (again, misguidedly suggested) intolerance" argument compelling.

[Ladewig]

Looks like this debate has been going on for more than 80 years:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105668

[Loss Leader]

They pretty much begged him to resubmit the application. I hope he did.