Gonzo

Link

A couple of high school students attempting to start a "Truth Bible Club" were shot down by the student government, and now they're sueing. The objections were to the "Truth" in the club's proposed name and the club rule that only allowed Christians to be elected officers.

From the article, in response to the complaints about the club name:

Well, there you have it then.

Gonzo

hezekiah jones

I don't get how they can put forward an equal access theory and simultaneously restrict their own "elected officers" to Christians. Why should they be granted equal access when evidently they won't grant it themselves?

Writer@Large

Actually, hezekiah, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for it. Wendy Kaminer discussed this very thing in the last issue of Free Inquirey. The argument basically goes like this: ideological groups need the autonomy to form their own opinions and elect their own leadership, or they risk losing the identity that makes them an autonomous group. From the article:
In practice, it's the same principle that allows school football teams to eliminate students who can't play or don't get in shape--only now we're talking about ideological, not physical, fitness.

Also, what would a group like "Truth Bible Studies" benefit by being forced to accept non-Christian leaders, anyway? Heck, who on Earth who didn't think like they did would want to come in and take control of them? Is there a Hindu or atheist student waiting in the wings to take control of them?

I tend to agree with Kaminer here. Let the group elect who they want.

--W@L

hezekiah jones

W@L, thanks for the article. I agree with it too.

I didn't read the actual complaint, so I don't know what the plaintiffs' theories are. I'm not sure what this "equal access" business is to which the news article refers, actually. Apparently some cases. I would imagine the complaint puts forth other First Amendment grounds: free association, exercise of religion, and speech, for example.

It just seems to me that demanding "equal access," whatever that is, in order to systematically deny "equal access" violates a fundamental notion of fairness necessarily inherent in the law.

zorq

I disagree. I have never seen a football teem which requires that the team captain be no less than five feet tall. Or must weigh more than 100 pounds. Or may not be of Caucasian descent.

Elimination based upon resources and fitness is different from elimination based upon pre-defined catagories.

Let them elect whom they want, but denying access to the club for some students based upon their religion is discrimination.
I doubt that the students would have a case against the school if they only allowed Christians into the club.

Denying acces to the club's leadership based upon religion is discrimination too. I agree that it is a little bit different for the leadership positions, but the line is vague.

I don't think that the name of the club should even be an issue. The word "truth" doesn't offend me even when placed next to the word "Bible."

Calzaer

Similar to zorq's post, I'd like to point out that general physical fitness is not necessarily a protected class. Religion most definitely is.

Writer@Large

Of course not, because those criteria don't accurately define a fit football player. I *have* seen people excluded from a football team for being overweight, too slow, and even female.

How so? Isn't "fitness" a pre-defined category? The goal of a football team is to win games; as such, they discriminate against any individual who will not help them to achieve that goal. If the goal of a group is to promote the Bible, what does it benefit them to have a leadership that isn't fit to achieve those goals? Kaminer's statement puts it most succinctly: "The right to discriminate, on the basis of status or ideology, is what allows a private association to formulate its message, advance its mission, and preserve the freedom of conscience of its members." And our country (usually) preserves the rights of groups to form, think, and proceed as they will.

We here at the II actually benefit from the right to choose our own leadership. That's why there's never been a theist moderator. It's been suggested in the past; candidates have even been noted. But we exercise our right to invite only those who agree with our ideological goals to moderate the boards. Why would I want to deny other groups that same right?

--W@L

Writer@Large

Speaking as an Unfit American: "Quit oppressing me!"

Seriously, though: doesn't that strike you as a tad hypocritical? Why is one's philosophical state in need of protections that one's physiological state is denied?

--W@L

zorq

This is true, but what is also true is that any member of that school could, if given the chance contribute positively to the overall fitness of the team. For example, a quadriplegic student could very well help the team to victory by participating as a player if no other fit individual was available to play. Of course in football other concerns like safety cause the elimination of potential player candidates. The point I am trying to make is that the descrimination based on fitness in football teams is always based upon the population the team has to draw from, financial constraints, safety constraints and others, not absolute physical standards.

So to make perhaps a better analogy, Lets look at Chess Club. Can you think of any justifiable reason for not allowing a well behaved student in good standing from participating in Chess club? Should it matter how smart a student is? Should it matter if the student scored in the bottom 5% of his/her most recent standardized test? Should it matter if the student can't remember consistently how to move each piece? Is there a reason that the worst chess player in the club should not be alowed to be elected Chess Club Chariman? I don't think so. As such, I don't think that discrimination of such a student would be legal. (But of course as was pointed out, religion is a protected class while inteligence is not)

But what we are talking about isn't really a private organization like II. The individuals in question are looking for sanction and resources from a public organization. There is a reason that groups that seek recognition from the school are also required to enlist a school employee as their advisor. It is partially because the group has requested access to public property and the school needs to protect its interests.

If fifty of these kids wanted to meet out on school grounds on lunch hour and talk about how to elect GW Bush to the office of supreme theocrat of America, nobody would care. They are seeking recognition and resources from the school and so can not be considered to be a strictly private organization.

So this is not like II. The way I see it School Clubs are quasi-public entities. I am still not certain that they should be denied the ability to discriminate in their leadership positions, but I can see a case against them.

Mageth

I tend to agree with Kaminer here. Let the group elect who they want.

Note that the group could elect who they want without the rule specifically requiring belief in god to be elected. But, quoting from the article:

I don't see how the school can not allow the club to establish and enforce any religious requirements, or choose any name, it wishes under those rulings.