The Virginia Senate passed legislation last week that would allow student organizations to exclude individuals from becoming members if they do not seem committed to the organization’s mission. The wording of the legislation is as follows: “A religious or political student organization may determine that ordering the organization’s internal affairs, selecting the organization’s leaders and members, defining the organization’s doctrines, and resolving the organization’s disputes are in furtherance of the organizations’ religious or political mission and that only persons committed to that mission should conduct such activities.”
Advocates of the bill assert that it would ensure that organizations are not forced to offer membership to every student and that such groups would not be accused of discrimination if they were to turn students away . Sen. Mark Obenshain, R-Harrisonburg, said the bill would specifically allow religious organizations to deny admittance to those of different religious backgrounds. The argument is that limiting membership to those with similar backgrounds or beliefs will enhance group cohesion.
If a particular person is not consistently meeting the requirements of an organization, then it could hurt the organization. As a result, I can understand that organizations cannot accept everyone interested in joining. The problem is that the legislation essentially opens up a Pandora’s box of discrimination against minorities. Moreover, that discrimination could be covered up by claiming that an organization denied admittance because a person did not seem committed to the organization’s goals. The law’s wording is ambiguous enough to allow for racial prejudices. How does one determine if someone is or is not committed to an organization’s mission? If someone is committed to a group, but that organization does not wish to accept the individual, the organization could simply claim the person was not committed enough. Thus, in cases of discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation or other categories, the legislation does not allow universities to take action against student organizations that wrongfully or prejudicially exclude members.
We already have a substantial degree of political and religious disunity in our society; the legislation reinforces this disunity by promoting exclusivity. For example, an organization may deny admittance to an individual because he is not politically conservative or liberal enough. The legislation also discourages a student of one faith from joining an organization largely composed of people of another faith. But interactions between people of different faiths and backgrounds in general is positive — it allows them to have a greater understanding of the world and different opinions. The legislation seems to present the view that contrasting viewpoints are not beneficial, when differing views can actually be a catalyst to increase collaboration among a group’s membership. One may argue that the law is only at the university level, and therefore its effects will perhaps be minimal in the “real” world. But it is, to a large extent, at the college level that people begin to formulate political and social ideas. It is these same ideas that will shape students’ outlooks and decisions in the future.
Now the question that remains is how much of an impact the legislation will specifically have at the University. Past incidents at the University have me concerned about the possible negative consequences of the legislation, especially with regard to gay students. The incident last year when a group of students made derogatory comments at a gay student near the Corner, and the “not gay” chant during football games, demonstrate that exclusion of minority students can be a problem at the University. My concern is that this type of behavior, especially toward gay students, will become more commonplace and reinforced as a result of the legislation.
This piece of legislation appears to be both counterproductive and regressive. I can understand its motives, but I think the form of discrimination for which the legislation argues will allow for discrimination against minority students. The bill will increase the exclusivity of organizations. And, while I am proud to be at the University, I worry this measure will hinder us from coming together more cohesively as a community and overcoming prejudice against certain groups.
Fariha Kabir’s column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at f.kabir@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KING: Virginia’s felons deserve the opportunity to work without discrimination
By Michael King | 1 hours agoThe sealing law is one step to help place Virginia back on this path of treating its felons as equal citizens but it cannot be the last step.
SHRAUGER: We must fight against transportation deregulation
By Alex Shrauger | 2 days agoSpecifically, the reduction of funds in public transportation may leave University students stranded without convenient means of transport. But more broadly, the environmental impacts which deregulation may have are long-lasting.
Letters to the Editor: The resignation of University President Jim Ryan
5 days agoFollowing this resignation, The Cavalier Daily has received letters from the University community which provide various perspectives on what this moment means to them and to the University’s future.
