Equality vs. Freedom: Anti-Discrimination Policies and Conservative Christian Student Organizations
Saved in:
| Title: | Equality vs. Freedom: Anti-Discrimination Policies and Conservative Christian Student Organizations |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Singer, Kevin |
| Source: | Journal of Student Affairs, New York University. 2019 15:60-76. |
| Availability: | New York University. 82 Washington Square East 7th Floor, New York, NY 10003. e-mail: josa.nyu@gmail.com; Web site: https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/journal-student-affairs |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 17 |
| Publication Date: | 2019 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Universities, Inclusion, LGBTQ People, College Students, School Policy, Student Organizations, Religious Organizations, Christianity, Educational Discrimination, Professional Recognition, Court Litigation, Civil Rights, Academic Freedom, Freedom of Speech |
| Abstract: | Over the last two decades, many colleges and universities strived to make their campuses more inclusive to the LGBTQ+ community. Many institutions incorporated sexual orientation into their anti-discrimination statements and policies, placing sexual identity in the same category as racial or gender identity as a protected class. Additionally, some institutions adopted all comers' policies under which all students are eligible for membership in registered student organizations and all members in good standing within those organizations are eligible to compete for leadership positions. As these policies became more robust, some colleges and universities scuffled with student organizations who, on the basis of their ideology, excluded some students from becoming members or serving in leadership roles. The most prevalent instances included public universities and evangelical Christian student organizations. In these cases, the institution moved to derecognize the evangelical group on the basis of their anti-discrimination or all comer's policy. Some of the barred groups pursued litigation, arguing that their First Amendment rights to free speech, religion, or association were violated. This paper will examine the policies prompting the derecognition of evangelical Christian student organizations, and the arguments used by these groups to defend themselves. In addition to investigating what these policies have in common, arguments for and against these policies will be presented. Finally, implications for policy, practice, and future research will be presented. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2022 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1341444 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | Over the last two decades, many colleges and universities strived to make their campuses more inclusive to the LGBTQ+ community. Many institutions incorporated sexual orientation into their anti-discrimination statements and policies, placing sexual identity in the same category as racial or gender identity as a protected class. Additionally, some institutions adopted all comers' policies under which all students are eligible for membership in registered student organizations and all members in good standing within those organizations are eligible to compete for leadership positions. As these policies became more robust, some colleges and universities scuffled with student organizations who, on the basis of their ideology, excluded some students from becoming members or serving in leadership roles. The most prevalent instances included public universities and evangelical Christian student organizations. In these cases, the institution moved to derecognize the evangelical group on the basis of their anti-discrimination or all comer's policy. Some of the barred groups pursued litigation, arguing that their First Amendment rights to free speech, religion, or association were violated. This paper will examine the policies prompting the derecognition of evangelical Christian student organizations, and the arguments used by these groups to defend themselves. In addition to investigating what these policies have in common, arguments for and against these policies will be presented. Finally, implications for policy, practice, and future research will be presented. |
|---|
