For some time now, Vanderbilt University officials have been scrambling to downplay their hostility to religious liberty by claiming there is nothing to be concerned about. They insist they are “merely enforcing pre-existing rules,” but that is a ruse. They contend that it will be “business as usual.” Professor Carol Swain and other standing against school officials are not swayed by this posturing. They see this action as a usurpation of power in clear violation of the Constitution of the United States. To deny any organization the right to select leaders who truly embrace their core beliefs hardly seems like business as usual.
Despite the onrush of resistance against his policies, Chancellor Nicholas Zeppos chooses to dig in his heels. He jettisons any notion of fairness and democracy in order to shut down all active debate. Case in point: Recently the Chancellor suddenly and arbitrarily rescheduled a town-hall meeting intended to provide a public forum for discussion of this matter. Seemingly, to constrain the public outcry, he selected one of the smaller conference rooms available on campus to serve as the site for this meeting. Oddly, the Chancellor had a “schedule conflict” (this in spite of the fact that it was he who set the date), so three complicit subordinates were tasked with defending the official “party line.”
Much to the dismay of school administrators hundreds of students showed up to voice their support for Professor Swain and to demand that this violation of religious rights be rejected. Still, the Chancellor stubbornly refuses to hear, let alone heed, the voice of reason. Worse yet, he apparently rejects a recent Supreme Court ruling that speaks loud and clear on this issue. As Supreme Court Justice Alito wrote in a recent 9-0 ruling for the high court regarding religious association, “a religious body’s right to self-governance must include the ability to select, and to be selective about, those who will serve as the very ’embodiment of its message.'” That same right is necessary for religious groups at Vanderbilt to accurately represent and adequately serve students.
Consider also this text taken from a letter to Chancellor Zeppos that was co-signed by a prominent group of law professors from elite schools such as the University of Virginia, Stanford and Notre Dame and other schools from around the country:
“Quite simply, it makes no sense for a university to require groups to accept as leaders persons who do not share their beliefs. A Talmud study group does not invidiously discriminate when it chooses a Jewish discussion leader rather than a Baptist. This is simply the free exercise of religion. Of course the University has an important interest in prohibiting religious discrimination where religion is irrelevant. But it is fundamentally confused to apply a rule against religious discrimination to a religious association. The University has changed a prohibition on religious discrimination from a protection for religious students into an instrument for excluding religious students. In so doing, the University has turned its prohibition on religious discrimination on its head.”
Vanderbilt’s altered non-discrimination policy undermines those groups with common interests, especially communities that meet to express commonly held religious beliefs. By preventing students and organizations from choosing leaders based on principles of faith, administrators are charting a new course that inhibits student efforts to create communities that can adequately meet their needs. This new policy also prevents students from maintaining the purpose and integrity of their communities over time.
The current dialogue also fails to represent the concern of hundreds, if not thousands, of parents and alumni from across the country who have called, written and recently purchased radio ads expressing their discontent with Vanderbilt’s new policy. This is not a case of a few rogue groups flaunting a well-established and accepted policy; this is a story of Vanderbilt enforcing a new, aggressive policy that has been met with widespread resistance from across the Vanderbilt community.
Dr. Carol Swain challenges us to “Be the People,” and here she is practicing what she preaches. At great personal risk, she is called to “speak boldly to power,” and she is speaking not from a safe distance but in her own backyard. It is contingent upon us all to support Carol, to join the chorus of dissenting voices. We must stand up and “be the people” to help turn back this affront to religious freedom.
The battle line must be drawn here, now. But what, you may ask, can you do? Certainly, Vanderbilt alumni have a right to voice their concerns directly with university officials and even to curtail their financial support, if so inclined. Those of us who did not attend Vanderbilt should pray for Carol and all those who stand with her. Better yet, I ask that you consider making a donation to the cause at http://vanderbiltreligiousfreedom.com/.
Perhaps, most importantly, we should stand a watchful guard as relates to our own alma maters. We should be prepared to react quickly and decisively if this cultural cancer takes root. For if the secular liberals at Vanderbilt are successful with this patently anti-Christian initiative, like-minded Leftists will soon bring this agenda to a school near you.
