The University of Michigan, as an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer, complies with all applicable federal and state laws regarding nondiscrimination and affirmative action. The University of Michigan is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all persons and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, religion, height, weight, or veteran status in employment, educational programs and activities, and admissions. Inquiries or complaints may be addressed to the Senior Director for Institutional Equity, and Title IX/Section 504/ADA Coordinator, Office of Institutional Equity, 2072 Administrative Services Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1432, 734-763-0235, TTY 734-647-1388. For other University of Michigan information call 734-764-1817.
Why can't Christians limit their group to Christians?
Their official policy is as follows:
If you go to their listing of clubs, you will find plenty that are in violation. Student Clubs | University of Michigan
For example:
Friars: All-male choral group.
Gentlemen: All-male a cappella group.
Their Muslim Student Association allows all, but reserves the right to remove anyone who is "unfit to serve as a leader of the local Muslim Community and/or representing the MSA in a fashion that conflicts with Muslim Principles"
I'm sure I could find more, but you get the point.
The point is you are reaching. A male voice choir does not exclude non-males from supporting roles, or even singing if they have a male voice. Likewise if you stick to Muslim principles anyone could hypothetically be a MSA representative. It's all in the wording, and the rejected group were even advised by the university on how they could be in compliance, but they refused, and excluded themselves for their own political reasons.
Their official policy is as follows:
If you go to their listing of clubs, you will find plenty that are in violation. Student Clubs | University of Michigan
For example:
Friars: All-male choral group.
Gentlemen: All-male a cappella group.
Their Muslim Student Association allows all, but reserves the right to remove anyone who is "unfit to serve as a leader of the local Muslim Community and/or representing the MSA in a fashion that conflicts with Muslim Principles"
I'm sure I could find more, but you get the point.
You see nothing wrong with requiring adherence to Muslim principals? How is that in compliance with their religious discrimination policy?
Presumably, if you as a non-Muslim were a member of the group, and were elected as a representative of that group, then you would have an understanding of the relevant principles.
What do you find objectionable about a member of a Muslim group adhering to Muslim principles when they represent it?
Now people are delving into the absurd.
The university is now demanding or requiring that a Christian club appoint a dissenter to a leadership position. Why does this seem to be so difficult for some to comprehend.
The university simply says a club cannot have a rule which bars any person from running for office in the organisation. Do you honestly think that a club of fundamentalist evangelicals would choose an outspoken atheist as one of their leaders?
In short, those objecting to the University's policies regarding "Registered Student Organisations" are simply refusing to look at the facts - and I call that "being stupid"
Now people are delving into the absurd.
The university is now demanding or requiring that a Christian club appoint a dissenter to a leadership position. Why does this seem to be so difficult for some to comprehend.
The university simply says a club cannot have a rule which bars any person from running for office in the organisation. Do you honestly think that a club of fundamentalist evangelicals would choose an outspoken atheist as one of their leaders?
In short, those objecting to the University's policies regarding "Registered Student Organisations" are simply refusing to look at the facts - and I call that "being stupid"
Big booboo in this post, surprised nobody has thrown it at me
"The university is now demanding or requiring that a Christian club appoint a dissenter to a leadership position." That NOW was supposed to be NOT
They are saying that anyone can run for and hold office, regardless of religious beliefs. The same university approved a constitution that allows their Muslim Student Association to remove people they deem "unfit to serve as a leader of the local Muslim Community and/or representing the MSA in a fashion that conflicts with Muslim Principles".
The Christian group can't require someone to affirm their faith because of a nondiscrimination policy. However, the Muslim group is allowed to remove people who don't follow the religion. That seems a tad hypocritical.
Proof please. The MSA has apparently signed up to the rules that the one Christian group refuses to do.
What is also unclear from your post is, from what positions have people been removed?
And further, do you have any evidence that the Christian group wouldn't be allowed to do the same, provided they sign up to the non-discrimination clause?
Despite Nick's misinformation, no one is saying that the membership has to vote anyone they don't want to the leadership of their club, nor that they don't have the right to remove anyone that 'they deem "unfit to serve as a leader of the local Christian Community and/or representing the club in a fashion that conflicts with Christian Principles" '?
I never claimed someone was removed from a position, I just showed that the university approved a constitution that allows that to happen.
The point is not whether or not the Christian group could have the same clause. It is that allowing removal solely due to religious beliefs or actions is akin to requiring the same to join or run for office.
Essentially, the university is saying you cannot be denied a chance to run for or hold the office for religious reasons, but you can be removed for religious reasons. It is a logical fallacy
Well, you didn't show that, you asserted it; that's why I asked for proof. Where are you getting that assertion from?
Your last sentence doesn't make sense. What you quoted was that someone could be removed if they were "unfit to serve as a leader of the local Muslim Community and/or representing the MSA in a fashion that conflicts with Muslim Principles". That sounds like it could apply to Moslem or a non-Moslem, for religious or non-religious reasons.
They are saying that anyone can run for and hold office, regardless of religious beliefs. The same university approved a constitution that allows their Muslim Student Association to remove people they deem "unfit to serve as a leader of the local Muslim Community and/or representing the MSA in a fashion that conflicts with Muslim Principles".
The Christian group can't require someone to affirm their faith because of a nondiscrimination policy. However, the Muslim group is allowed to remove people who don't follow the religion. That seems a tad hypocritical.
“We want to model a lifestyle of integrity. Holding the Bible as the inspired, divine word of God and seeing the commands for us to choose leaders who have a vibrant faith in Jesus – is obviously something very important that we want to continue to uphold.”
It depends how you define religious principles. When I googled Muslim principals, I got a lot of results with the five pillars of Islam
1. Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad;
2. Establishment of the daily prayers;
3. Concern for and almsgiving to the needy;
4. Self-purification through fasting; and
5. The pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able.
The problem I see is that someone could be removed solely for not following a religious principal, which definitely has the potential to violate their some of their own principals.
It depends how you define religious principles. When I googled Muslim principals, I got a lot of results with the five pillars of Islam
1. Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad;
2. Establishment of the daily prayers;
3. Concern for and almsgiving to the needy;
4. Self-purification through fasting; and
5. The pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able.
The problem I see is that someone could be removed solely for not following a religious principal, which definitely has the potential to violate their some of their own principals.
It depends how you define religious principles..
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?