Randy's Blog

RSS Feed
Congressional Prayer Caucus Urges Vanderbilt University to Stop Discriminating Against Religious Student Groups
Posted by Randy | May 07, 2012
Today I led 35 Members of Congress in sending a letter to Chancellor Nicholas Zeppos of Vanderbilt University, urging him to ensure that the school’s nondiscrimination policy is not being interpreted in a manner that discriminates against religious student groups. 

Last year, several religious student organizations at Vanderbilt University, including the Christian Legal Society and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, were placed on “provisional status” for requiring their student leaders to share the groups’ religious beliefs. Vanderbilt’s nondiscrimination policy requires all student groups to open leadership positions to all students. Yet the university has exempted fraternities and sororities from the requirement, while refusing to exempt religious student groups. As a result, religious student groups are prohibited from selecting leaders who adhere to their core beliefs and can lead in group activities like worship or Bible study. If Vanderbilt does not change its nondiscrimination policy, at least 11 groups will be forced to leave campus and drop their affiliation with the university.

Vanderbilt’s policy defies common sense. Religious student groups form around specific beliefs, and their leaders obviously lead the groups’ activities.  As such, religious groups must be allowed to select leaders that share their core religious beliefs in order to carry out their most basic functions. It is not discrimination; it is common sense.

Members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus sent the first letter to Vanderbilt University in October 2011 expressing their concerns with this troubling policy. This policy not only discriminates against religious student groups whose rights are protected by the Constitution, but also leaves the appearance that it is the religious groups that are specifically targeted.
Comments
Users are solely responsible for the opinions they post here and their comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Congressman Forbes.
  • Thomas G commented on 5/7/2012
    Congressman Forbes - I deeply resent your involvement in this matter, and premise that Vanderbilt University somehow cannot interpret its own nondiscrimination policy. I have no problem whatsoever with the exemption of fraternities and sororities that are by their very nature distant from school policy and educational objectives of the university, not to mention the social accommodation outreach. Nothing prohibits the student groups from operating independently off campus. I can sympathsize with the need for independence here, and to protect our society from even greater ideological divisiveness.
  • Thomas G commented on 5/8/2012
    Mr. Forbes, do you not think it was appropriate to inform your constituency that the Christian Legal Society has already gone to the Supreme Court with a similar complaint, and lost? In Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the Court found that “all-comers” policies were viewpoint neutral, and thus are no more unfair to Christian groups than any other student groups. What this is really about congressman is gay bashing, the ideology preventing participation. I believe your interference here, something the republican Governor of Tennessee himself said was inappropriate, suggests your own discriminatory views. I would implore you sir to please do a much much better job in your columns of telling the whole truth. So many times you do not present all the facts, and that is your sworn duty sir. It is very difficult to trust you.
  • Rich Reviello commented on 5/17/2012
    With all the issues currently before Congress, this is an issue you have a poll question concerning. This is something that has limited impact on the Average American. Seems the "Do Nothing Congress" is alive and well.
  • C Dodson commented on 5/17/2012
    Well said Thomas G.
  • Ed Marston commented on 5/17/2012
    No wonder there's no real work done in congress. Separation of church & state.
  • Robert Praemassing commented on 5/17/2012
    The wording of Forbes question clouds the issue. The rule reads "Vanderbilt Provost Richard McCarty said religious groups are free to choose their leaders but must allow any student to be a member and to run for office, no matter their beliefs. Vanderbilt has ties to the United Methodist Church." So let any member of the group run for office, But during the election process the beliefs of the candidates should be discovered, and group doesn't have to vote for them.
  • C Kersey commented on 5/17/2012
    Why is this even an issue? Why is this even questionable??? Let's switch this up a little... Would a Muslim EVER permit a Jew a leadership position? Would you allow a pedophile teach a children's Sunday School Class? Who is behind this insanity? Let's focus on more relevant Constitutional issues please!
  • Brian Hodson commented on 5/17/2012
    I agree with the actions of Vanderbilt University. More significantly, with all the really important issues facing your constituents in the 4th district, don't you have more important things you could do with your time and energy. I agree with Thomas G's comments of 5/8/2012 regarding your involvement in this issue.
  • John Anderson commented on 5/17/2012
    I do not see a problem. If the membership is allowed to choose their leadership, it seems that all they have to do is NOT VOTE FOR the non-believer and elect a candidate that shares their beliefs. It seems to me that non-believers could be added to the ballot if they insist, but if only believing members get to vote, then that person would not have a snowball's chance of being elected. I apparently am missing a piece of the puzzle. It seems like a very simple non-issue to me.
  • Tom Lord commented on 5/17/2012
    Even if the leadership positions are open to all, doesn't the religious group membership elect their leaders by popular vote? Unless the membership becomes predominately non-core believers, the majority will vote for the person best suited to the position. Fraternities and sororities have restrictions on membership, so it makes sense to exempt them from the requirement. I believe that if a policy is nondiscriminatory, then leave it alone. If the institution is abiding by the law, then they should be left their own devise. I also believe the Congressional Prayer Caucus is wrong; how can Vanderbilt's policies be nondiscriminatory, but yet they still discriminate? This is one Mr. Forbes should stay away from. Or . . . . Maybe I don't understand the issue. - T
  • David Kiracofe commented on 5/17/2012
    Practically speaking, this is surely a non-issue; the religious group is not required to elect non-religious candidates, only to permit any who wish the opportunity to join and participate. If a student group was trying to isolate its membership so completely from the student body at large, it would give every appearance of being a cult.
  • Heather Nees commented on 5/17/2012
    Sir, you hold a secular, political office. Stop trying to force your religious beliefs/values on those who may not share them. You are not elected to be an evangelist. I resent your moral Christian interference in my secular life and my healthcare. Stick to what you are elected to do and what is of concern directly to your constituents in your district. The question was ridiculous in that even if these religious groups are forced to be open to anyone to run for an office/position, it would stand to reason that people vote for those who share their beliefs and views. This certainly holds true of you and your fellow elected officials since in our DEMOCRACY we all get to vote for the candidate of our choice. What are you so threatened by? Common Sense? What do these religious campus groups fear? Is it that their proselyting will be compromised in some way or they will be forced to contain their religious beliefs to within their group? When choosing an institution of higher learning, certainly these fervently religious students had the option of attending a university that shares their religious beliefs. Since they chose to attend a university that prides itself on exposing its students to a vast array of knowledge and experiences, they should make the best of the choice they have made.
  • Sonyia Elder commented on 5/17/2012
    If an organization is affiliated with a University, and benefits from all that affiliation entails, then the organization should have to follow the University's guidelines for leadership positions. The organization can chose not to be affiliated with the University and have full control over its leadership positions. You are inferring that a leader must personally share every belief/value of an organization to be an effective leader, which of course is not true.
  • Gina M. commented on 5/17/2012
    I agree whole heartedly with Thomas G., Randy. You consistently pose questions that are misleading in their design to produce the results you would like to claim as majority opinion of your constituents.
  • Gregg Williams commented on 5/17/2012
    Why are you involved in this. It's the economy stupid! So the answer is, if public dollars are supporting the organizaiton, they should require open elections. If it is a completely privately funded org or they can make up their own rules. Hopefully the group is smart enough to elect someone that shares their own values. I do not like the way you craft some of the responses to lead people into answering. Please get back to the economy.
  • Richard Burwell commented on 5/17/2012
    Dear Congressman Forbes, Although I am not one of your constituents, I will answer the poll that you sent to me unsolicited. I believe that no organization that holds itself out to the "public" has a right to discriminate against any individuals that come as a "user' of that organization's goods and services. I am of the opinion that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be the governing rule as to membership and office occupancy of organizaitons on college campuses. This is already enshrined in law and does not need debate, unless one is trying to turn back the hands of time. Is that your aim? I have retained a copy of this answer to your poll and I have forwarded a copy to my Senatorial Representative. Yours truly, Richard Burwell
  • Carmela Picone commented on 5/17/2012
    Dear Congressman Forbes: I respectfully ask you why is this a problem that the federal government is involved in. This is a Vanderbilt University issue. I personally would like our federal government to concentrate on issues like the budget, health care, economy, etc. Sincerely, Carmela Picone, M.D.
  • Benjamin Duff commented on 5/17/2012
    Christianity is not under attack in the United States; move on. Your outright discrimination towards citizens based on sexual orientation are appalling. Please stop wasting your time as a representative on these issues.
  • Melde M. commented on 5/18/2012
    Your polls have bias undertones; it appears your are trying to foster support of you view; can you hire someone to assist you in making OBJECTIVE fact seeking survey questions? Look at Pew center; you are making a great case on why not to have you for another term.
  • hilton vaughan commented on 5/18/2012
    This is a waste of tax payer dollars and a waste of time in general. As a previous commentor stated, you dont have to vote for them. If the person does not match the religious affiliatin of the group then that person will most likely not get the votes. If i read this correctly it states that anyone may be able to run for the leadership position, not be appointed. What a waste of time.
  • John Bakoss commented on 5/18/2012
    Randy, your records will show I am a consistent supporter of yours. However, I think this particular poll, as posed, was a mistake. The practical answer, "don't elect whom you don't want", is all too obvious. Furthermore, I would not want to see institutions like Vanderbilt subjected to all manner of crackpot "religious" notions as an unintended consequence of trying to support America's Christian heritage. Likewise, certain current enemies of the United States are known to style themselves as religiously motivated. To combat such forces, we must preserve our ability to divorce religion from politics, lest we run afoul of the constitution.
  • Todd Kennedy commented on 5/18/2012
    How does this improve our district? You work for us, not the religious right.
  • Hal Loken commented on 5/21/2012
    Elected representatives get real! Here we are, with our economy in shambles and you worry about whether some students will elect a nonbeliever to head a student religious organization. Our country needs leaders who will guide us to an system that fosters prosperity with a fair opportunity for all. Those who desire an intolerant government enforcing social or religious dictates should move to China or Iran!
  • Todd Kennedy commented on 5/23/2012
    either only people who are against this posted comments about this poll, or....the results are rigged.
Post a Comment
We encourage you to analyze and comment on the posts featured on this blog, but please understand that comments which include campaign content, engage in personal attacks, or include vulgar, profane, obscene, or inappropriate language will be removed from the site. Please note that there may be a brief delay in the publication of your comment.
Address (optional):

*By leaving a comment on this blog, you are subscribing to my e-mail newsletter.

Services

Other Services

Issues

More Issues