Aja Frost

[follow id=”ajavuu”]

Aja Frost is an English sophomore and Mustang News opinion columnist. These views do not necessarily reflect the opinion or editorial coverage of Mustang News.

I’m an agnostic.

But it wouldn’t be completely bizarre for me to join Cal Poly’s Campus Crusade for Christ (Cru) chapter. After all, I could meet cool people, get involved in the local community, fill up my social calendar and maybe even have some stimulating debates about religion.

But what if I wanted to join Cru’s officer board? I don’t share the group’s core values about religion or its mission to “Win, build and send Christ-centered multiplying disciples who launch spiritual movements.”

Should Cru be able to stop me from being an officer? What about making major club decisions — would I get a vote?

This is where things get fuzzy.

In September, the California State University (CSU) system “derecognized” the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship chapters on all 23 CSU campuses. Derecognition means no funding, no campus meeting space and no representation at on-campus events. While its actual existence isn’t threatened, the change in status is a huge blow to a club’s campus reputation and influence.

InterVarsity was derecognized because the ministry’s bylaws say leaders of the group must self-identify as Christian. In addition, potential leaders must sign a statement of faith before attempting to take on further responsibilities.

According to CSU officials, this violates CSU policy and state law.

“They want their leaders to have specific values,” said Mike Uhlenkamp, director of public affairs at the Chancellor’s Office. “If you force someone to sign a form, you are discriminating by making them say they are a Christian.”

Instead of making religious beliefs a leadership qualification, Uhlenkamp recommended the club use clearly secular criteria such as skills tests or attendance records.

However, the CSU system’s decision to take away InterVarsity’s club privileges based on discriminatory practices seems unfair because it’s a targeted policy, not a blanket one. There are other significant on-campus presences that practice discrimination in their member policies: greek organizations.

Sororities and fraternities are allowed to gender discriminate because of Title V, which permits gender segregation. It’s been argued that the integral purpose of greek organizations would be harmed if gender segregation wasn’t permitted. After all, “sorority” comes from the medieval Latin word “sororitas,” or sisterhood, and “fraternity” comes from the medieval Latin word “fraternalis,” or “of or pertaining to a brother.”

But doesn’t the same logic hold true for InterVarsity? Its integral purpose — “establishing and advancing communities of students … who follow Jesus as Savior and Lord” — would be contradicted if someone who didn’t share its beliefs tried to assume control.

Though this sounds rather paranoid, Nathan Honeycutt — former president of the Cal Poly College Republicans Club — told me last year about a coup in the late ‘90s by Democrats who had joined the club.

“They formed a voting bloc and tried to sabotage the club,” he said.

When I interviewed him, Honeycutt was working on a campaign to end open membership or make some clubs exempt from the policy.

“We have local community members who donate money to our club so we can pursue these objectives,” he told Mustang News in February. “And if we can’t protect that, then really, what’s the purpose of our club?”

However, Associated Students, Inc. (ASI) denied Honeycutt’s campaign.

While sabotage certainly wouldn’t be the first priority of every person who joined a group with beliefs to which he or she didn’t adhere, it’s fair for student organizations to safeguard their mission and purpose. After all, that’s why they’re on campus in the first place.

And clearly, the CSU system recognizes that some discriminatory membership policies are necessary. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have all-male and all-female greek organizations.

Just because a club has a religious focus doesn’t mean it has less of a right to be judicious about its members. By derecognizing the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and prohibiting political organizations from restricting membership to those who share their beliefs, this policy actually restricts students’ freedoms by muddying their causes and blurring their purposes.

And though the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship still continues to exist, derecognition means it’s effectively been removed from campus — suppressing free speech.

As I said, I’m an agnostic. I’m also a female liberal. Do I believe I should be able to participate in important club decisions for Cru, a Cal Poly sorority or Cal Poly College Republicans? No, I do not.

The freedom to practice one’s beliefs is sacred. The freedom to practice another’s beliefs is not.