Indiana University (Bloomington) Eliminates (Illegal) Discriminatory Funding Policy Against Religious Groups
Posted by iusbvision on May 7, 2011
This is a good note to read, especially for you pinheads on the Academic Senate who went after Chancellor Reck for not kicking Chick-Fil-A off campus again (that’s right, I am defending Una Mae).
The first thing the “Academic Senate” needs to do is read is the entire IU Code of Conduct, which states that the university will abide by all laws and respect the constitutional rights of all. To economically punish Chick-Fil-A because a franchisee has a Christian point of view (who demonstrated it by donating some sandwiches to a religious activist group) is illegal. It is discrimination on the basis of religion (creed), and viewpoint discrimination against a religious point of view which is a violation of federal First Amendment case law.
The IU Code of Conduct and its nondiscrimination policy must be interpreted within the bounds of the law, and the fact is that the law does not recognize a right for anyone to get married and that includes gays. Just because some may want the non-discrimination policy to apply to the marraige issue does not mean it does. IU is NOT in the marraige business and it does not discriminate against gays in hiring or who gets approved as a student etc. The non-discrimination policy cannot be construed as to be used as a weapon to censor, nor can it be used to punish people (Chick-Fil-A) for innocent associations and/or a religious/cultural point of view that is 100% constitutionally protected.
The fact that the Academic Senate took the action it did tells us several things. The most obvious is what history has shown us time and time again, like most faculty and administrators, they do not know the IU Code of Conduct worth a darn and/or simply do not care what it says and wish to push their agenda because of malignant narcissism or blind hate for Christians (until one has spent some time on campus and realized what a warped and often subversive culture it is do not discount what I just said); or they are simply intellectually incapable of reading it for context and have taken a position that cannot withstand 10 minutes of intellectual scrutiny out of ignorance amplified by an unwillingness to challenge ones own assumptions (do not discount that one either as while many professors are well educated, many are rather poor critical thinkers).
Read carefully, and that goes double for you in Student Government, who are abusing it by utilizing it as a platform for partisan/divisive ideological ends, in a complete reversal of what student government’s mission is (and where is the student life director who should be helping student government protect itself from its own foolishness).
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) reports today that Indiana University-Bloomington (IUB) has eliminated a policy that had prevented the Christian student group Impact Movement from receiving student activity fee funds to help pay for its attendance at a national conference. Previously, groups at IUB had been excluded from receiving funds for activities that involve “religious proselytizing” or for “sectarian events.”
According to ADF’s press release:
In December of last year, Impact Movement sought activity funding to send some of its members to its national conference. The university permits partial funding of conference attendance for members of registered student groups and had approved funding for Impact Movement in previous years. Nevertheless, the IU Student Association Funding Board denied Impact Movement’s request for 2010, citing the university’s Student Organization Funding Guidelines. The director of student activities upheld the decision.
ADF wrote to the university pointing out that such discrimination is unconstitutional, citing a recent United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decision in favor of a group at the University of Wisconsin-Madison that had been similarly discriminated against.
We’re glad to see this reversal at IUB.
FIRE, meanwhile, continues to fight another unconstitutional funding policy in force at Northern Illinois University, which also falls under the Seventh Circuit’s jurisdiction. At NIU, all groups classified as “religious” or “political” in nature are prevented from receiving funds from student activity fees, while groups committed to “social justice” or “advocacy” are not. In light of the Supreme Court cases Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995) and Board of Regents v. Southworth (2000), and especially in light of the Seventh Circuit’s recent ruling in this area, NIU’s unconstitutional position on student group rights is thoroughly untenable, and the university would be wise to follow IUB’s example immediately.