|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
 Posted - 01/18/2008 : 13:56:05 [Permalink]
|
So no matter what the goals or message of the group, the University has no say whatever, it just has to hand over the money? If a group of students wanted to start a White Power organization with the aim of getting rid of minority professors, then the school must fund them or be accused of trampling over their first amendment rights? Nonsense. I am really having a difficult time understanding how you can make the leap from "no free money" to "oppression of free speech."
|
Obviously not. When I made my previous post, I was making the assumption that we are talking about a group such as the one in the opening post. At my university, you must apply for funding. However, almost no applications get rejected because virtually all groups make reasonable requests.
We aren't talking about a white power organization. To do so is distorting the subject.
I suppose that groups should not be allowed discriminate entrance based upon religion. However in my experience, that's a vacuous case anyways. What non-Christian wants to go to Christian prayer group? The only two cases I could imagine is:
(a) They have friends in it.
(b) They want to cause a disturbance.
(a) there would be no discrimination. (b) they shouldn't be allowed in, but not because of religion.
| The University should discrimination against groups that themselves discriminate. There is absolutely no reason why there needs to be state sponsored intolerance or bigotry. |
I disagree with this and I don't think we could ever come to an agreement. I believe that all lines of thought, the good, the bad, and the ugly, should have a fair chance. My only hope is that the bad and the ugly never gain many followers because they are in fact bad and ugly. However, I won't force my opinions of tolerance onto others. To me, that is by definition intolerant. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2008 : 16:30:55 [Permalink]
|
I do not think the judge erred at all. College student organizations should all be eligible for equal funding. When I went to Ohio State University my atheist/agnostic group got funding to promote our worldview, and so did the Christian Coalition, the Muslim, and Wiccan student groups. There was no favoritism. If you had a student organization which was recognized by the university (which involved having a faculty sponsor and filing certain paperwork) you got the same benefits as any other group.
Were the groups proselytizing? Sure. But were they advocating anything illegal? No. That is where a clear line can be drawn. I side with Cune - Universities are special spaces where young people should have freedom to organize and grow and learn and explore, not only in the classroom but through their own group initiatives. Along with religious student orgs, Universities pay for atheists groups to promote a atheistic worldview - and that is not really secular in the political sense because if atheists want equal rights under the first amendment, we can't insist that our wordview get special treatment when it comes to proselytizing. And indeed, when I was in undergrad and we chalked messages (chalk purchased with university money) on the sidewalk which read things such as "God is just pretend." and "Godless and proud" we were promoting, and often trying to convert others to our atheistic worldview. So unless people argue that no groups promoting any particular worldview can receive university funding, I fail to see how it is fair or consistent to deny funding to only the ones promoting a supernatural worldview. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2008 : 17:34:55 [Permalink]
|
Ricky said:
| However, I won't force my opinions of tolerance onto others. To me, that is by definition intolerant. |
That is what you'd call taking a good idea too far!
We all have a great number of things we don't tolerate, as individuals and as a society. We don't tolerate lawlessness, does that make us intolerant? We don't tolerate racism, does that make us intolerant? I'd argue that we are all far more intolerant (the list of things we don't tolerate is longer than the list of things we do) than we are tolerant, and that this is a GOOD thing.
Intolerance is not a negative quality. Only being intolerant of some specific things is.
Tolerance/intolerance is really about making distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable things.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2008 : 19:07:32 [Permalink]
|
| We all have a great number of things we don't tolerate, as individuals and as a society. We don't tolerate lawlessness, does that make us intolerant? We don't tolerate racism, does that make us intolerant? I'd argue that we are all far more intolerant (the list of things we don't tolerate is longer than the list of things we do) than we are tolerant, and that this is a GOOD thing. |
I said tolerate, not allow. We do tolerate people promoting anarchy, we do tolerate the KKK having marches. The difference, as marf said, is in promoting illegal (mostly violent) activities. However, even sometimes this is tolerated as well as long as it isn't explicit.
Everyone should be allowed to promote their views, but that does not mean they should be allowed to act upon them. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2008 : 21:55:27 [Permalink]
|
Ricky said:
| Everyone should be allowed to promote their views, but that does not mean they should be allowed to act upon them. |
I agree.
The problem (back to the topic of the thread) for state funded schools is that if they knowingly provide funding to a group that advocates discrimination (an already illegal practice for employment, schools admissions, and so on), then they are implicitly supporting that group's point of view.
However, I'm torn on this whole topic. I think a university is ok funding religious student groups as long as the group follows the university's policy on who can participate.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2008 : 05:40:44 [Permalink]
|
Humbert.....
Originally posted by bngbuck:
| This reasoning states that most Fundamentalist Christian religions, Islam, Catholicism, Scientology, Atheism, Conservatives, Liberals, Environmentalists, and so on should all be denied funding. |
Humbert: | No, just religious organizations. |
bngbuck:
| So specifically, what groups should receive such funding? |
Humbert: | Secular ones willing to abide by the University's non-discrimination policies. |
Then, does it follow that even if specific religious groups agree to abide by the University's non-discrimination policies (open to all, requiring no specific or general religious convictions to become members, etc.), they should not receive funding, even though all abiding secular groups are receiving funding? |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2008 : 12:28:34 [Permalink]
|
Ricky said:
| Implicitly supporting? How is that so? |
If you are funding it, you are supporting it. The inference is that you agree with the group.
| And when two opposing viewpoints are supported by the school, what then? |
As long as the opposing views are things like apple vs pc. When you start funding groups who openly discriminate against other people, as the fundamentalists do against atheists, gays, etc, is where you run into a problem.
But again, I agree with you that any student group with a reasonable request for funds should get it as long as they abide by the university's policy on participation.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2008 : 13:46:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Ricky said:
| Implicitly supporting? How is that so? |
If you are funding it, you are supporting it. The inference is that you agree with the group. |
I don't know, Dude. I mean, when I give money to, say, political candidate X, then yes, the act of giving money shows that I support that candidate.
But if State U gives $350 to the Sci Fi Club, what is it that the university is agreeing with? Indeed, as a quick example, in Colorado College's student organization guide, they specifically say: | Although the recognition and/or chartering of a student organization underscores Colorado College's commitment to provide a forum for the expression of ideas, this official certification does not necessarily imply the institution's agreement with and support of the proposed programs of any student organization. |
Among their chartered groups are a Hillel group, something called the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, and a number of clubs which cater to niche interests (Carnivore Club, Poetry Club, Queer Straight Alliance, etc.).
| And when two opposing viewpoints are supported by the school, what then? |
As long as the opposing views are things like apple vs pc. When you start funding groups who openly discriminate against other people, as the fundamentalists do against atheists, gays, etc, is where you run into a problem. |
I largely agree. I mean, no school would or could rightly fund a local "Whites Against Colords Club" or something. But would the Queer Straight Alliance happily let some rabid gay-hating Christian to their Friday night social event? If not, is that discrimination?
In general, I think that the rabid gay-hating Christian can hang out with his Christian club, and the Queer-Straight club and do their thing and life goes on. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 01/19/2008 14:05:15 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2008 : 14:37:29 [Permalink]
|
Ricky.....
What I'm trying to ask is how can a university support two directly conflicting points of view?
If it was true that funding shows support for a group's point of view, then universities would not fund the opposing view. That simply isn't the case. |
Ricky, the University may have no choice but to fund all groups who abide by their non-discrimination and fairness policies. Fringe, hatred, and extremist groups need not be considered here, as their claims would not hold up in court.
As simple a document as the Constitution is, constitutional law can be exceedingly complex, particularly as it applies to matters of discrimination in the 21st century.
I spent several hours last night re-reading the Constitution as currently amended, and some of the tonnage of case law that has collected just in the last fifty-odd years. I am not a lawyer, particularly a Constitutional lawyer, but as of now I would give odds that Judge Shabaz' decision will be upheld upon appeal. This matter certainly appears to be a First Amendment issue, involving FoR, FoS, and FoA in a highly convoluted mix.
If it is taken to the SCOTUS, I believe it is a certainty, given the personal biases of Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, that the decision will be upheld. This year's politics conceivably could affect that possibility, depending upon the Court's case load and how long it would take this to get to a hearing.
The SCOTUS rules as the members' personal biases form a quorum, as always.
Are there any legal scholars out there who disagree? |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 01/19/2008 14:45:57 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2008 : 15:49:23 [Permalink]
|
Ricky said:
| If it was true that funding shows support for a group's point of view, then universities would not fund the opposing view. |
There is a flaw in your reasoning, I'm sure you can see it.
Cune said:
| But if State U gives $350 to the Sci Fi Club, what is it that the university is agreeing with? |
That sci-fi is cool?
In the case of student groups that don't advocate a strong or controversial position, this point is more or less irrelavent.
Not so when a student group advocates something controversial (and in some contexts, illegal).
Should a university fund a student group who advocates the legalization of heroin, LSD, or methamphetamine? If no, why not?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2008 : 16:09:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Cune said:
| But if State U gives $350 to the Sci Fi Club, what is it that the university is agreeing with? |
That sci-fi is cool?
In the case of student groups that don't advocate a strong or controversial position, this point is more or less irrelavent. |
Agreed. So my Sci-Fi example is not the best one.
Not so when a student group advocates something controversial (and in some contexts, illegal).
Should a university fund a student group who advocates the legalization of heroin, LSD, or methamphetamine? If no, why not? |
Probably not, but only because I don't know of any redeemable aspects of LSD or meth use. But I don't think that a university should prima facie deny funding to all but the most ridiculous groups. But that said, universities don't hand out funding for clubs and student organizations willy-nilly. Again, look at the example of how the system works in the link I provided. My suspicion is that if the Advocates for LSD Legalization group at Colorado College tried to apply for "charter" status so as to be eligible for receiving funding, they probably wouldn't be accepted. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2008 : 22:35:26 [Permalink]
|
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise, making your statement a non-sequitur.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Judge errs
