Just before I started this blog, I happened to get into a long, winding discussion on this issue on another forum. I don’t know that either of us (the two main posters) made any inroads against the other, but it was a fun back and forth over a period of several hours. This post is an edited version of our exchange.
Student-funded center aiding gays questioned at UT: 09:11 PM CST on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 AUSTIN - Since last year, a student-funded center at the University of Texas at Austin has offered counseling, workshops, forums and other services to gay, lesbian and female students.
“All must pay fee, but some oppose mission”? Is it just me, or is this not particularly stupid. There are probably all kinds of organizations on campus that I don’t agree with who receive funds from the University. Yet in spite of this I support their continued funding because I think the overall campus experience is enriched by their presence.
The first salvo basically involved following arguments: try to see it from their point of view and the service itself can be construed as offensive.
main opponent 2005-12-30 01:59 pm UTC I personally support the services, but I think it is different than other social services. I mean, try to look at it from the point of view of a conservative who may think homosexuality is a sin, one of the ultimate evils. To ask them to pay fees to support that really is asking a lot, I think. I imagine I’d be really outraged if I felt that way too.
That’s why it’s different than other services and organizations offered by the university; at worst, people mind find those services stupid or not worth the money, but it’s not a direct affront to their morality. Try to imagine if there was a club receiving funding from UT that annually executed the student with the lowest GPA because they think it makes society better, and there was a large chunk of the population that supported this even if they were in the minority. Chances are you might be absolutely aghast; no matter what anyone tells you you’re not going to believe that’s okay, and you’re not going to want to pay fees to support it. It’s not the same as other “waste of money” issues.
First, the sin factor. Should a Christian Scientist have the right to demand equivalent payback from the University for fees that go towards the Student Health Center because they believe modern medicine is evil? I don’t really think so. Our student service fees fund such a diverse array of services and groups that I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect you can individually funnel your money. When someone comes to a large university like UT, he or she needs to expect, or learn to adapt to, a diverse cosmopolitan environment with people from all backgrounds and walks of life. This part of the university experience is every bit as much a part of a student’s education as anything they’ll learn in Calculus or Biology or Accounting.
Second, I think a student execution by a funded group makes a poor analogy; it’s rank hyperbole at best. We’re talking about funding counseling and providing a space for students who might be having a tough time fitting in elsewhere. I think a better analogy would be if there was a demand by someone ignorant to defund all the Jewish organizations at school because [and I want to make this clear that I'm not saying this serioiusly] clearly the Jews have enough money and don’t need the University’s support. Would we say, “Oh sure, that’s a valid viewpoint?” I don’t think so. Do we let a Klansman protest the funding of African American student organizations? It’s clearly preposterous, but we better believe that affirmative action and student services benefiting African Americans are very offensive to some people. Why do we ignore those feelings and sentiments? We do it because we recognize there are viewpoints that are less valid than others. The marketplace of ideas is not required to value every opinion equally.
Next, we move into the heart of the matter. Does a state agency (in this case, the University) have the right to abridge (supposedly) the religious rights of fundamentalist Christians by funding groups they’re morally opposed to? Is such funding abridging those rights? Are these rights applicable to this situation?
main opponent 2005-12-30 03:37 pm UTC I actually do think a Christian Scientist should have the right to refuse to pay the fee for those services. I don’t think it’s a good idea to force people to support anything that goes directly against their religion, even if I think their beliefs are stupid. That’s a big cornerstone of our democracy and I don’t take it lightly.
It wasn’t supposed to be the best analogy in the world, it’s only purpose is to make people realize you can’t compare a morality-and-religion-related service to something like health care. It’s not the same thing. That’s why your analogy isn’t better; it has nothing to do with core religious beliefs. (If there was someone whose religious beliefs seriously said Jews are evil, then I actually don’t think they should have to pay the fee.) Affirmative action and health care are not on the same level as stuff like homosexuality, abortion, etc. If there were a Klansman whose religious (not just personal) beliefs said supporting minorities would be a sin — I don’t know what all they base their ideas on — then no, he shouldn’t have to pay the fee.
I’m not comfortable with telling people that they have to support something when they think it will make them go to Hell; it’s contrary to freedom of religion. The vast majority of people have no religious qualms with health care and affirmative action, even if they think it’s a waste of money or they hate poor people and minorities. I would be extremely pissed off if the university told me I had to support something I found morally offensive, and I think it’s hypocritical to say that people should have to support the same things I do when their religion tells them not to.
I’m an educational idealist. I view the university as the shining light in society, where we send our best and brightest to be educated to then go forth into the world to make it a better place. We do this hoping that gradual change will eventually enable us to send more and more people, so that eventually everyone will not only be able to, but will desire the kind of education one can get from a first-rate post-secondary school. We want people to be smart, to be able to think for themselves, to discriminate among choices in a rational way. We do this because experience has shown time and time again that this works better than any other method we know of for advancing society as a whole.
In a certain way, the public university has strong communitarian aspect to it. The state levies taxes to all (or most) of its citizens to fund a public university (or system) to which it can send students from a broad cross-section of society by subsidizing those students who wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford to attend or otherwise aren’t encouraged to attend. Even after tuition deregulation, the University is still able to assist vast numbers of students through remaining state and federal financial aid, privately funded grants, etc.
The student service fees are a part of this communitarian ideal. We all pay into a big pot and we all have the opportunity to reap benefits of the pot by using those services which most appeal to us. There are Chrisitian organizations, and Muslim, and Jew, and ethnic organizations of all kinds and types. There are interest organizations. There are athletic organizations. There are academic organizations. The point is not that any one person is funding any particular organization; in truth they probably aren’t. But the idea is that we all fund all the organizations so that everyone has an opportunity to feel welcome; everyone has an opportunity to partake of the shared experience of the University; everyone has an opportunity to find a group or organization that they fit in with best. We all fund all of the organizations and not one of us funds any one of them.
The hardcore evangelical right-wing Christian student is no more funding any one organization than I, a secular humanist, am funding any single Christian organization. I’m not offended by that; it seems most odd to me that they should be.
Refunding the fee I think puts the University in a horrible position. Now that the student has had some fee or portion of fee refunded, does the University disallow them from participating somehow in certain areas of student life? How is that enforced? What if there are 100 or 1000 students who demand fee refunds? They haven’t paid for the service, and it seems manifestly unfair to let them participate in services that the other 35K+ undergraduates paid for. But what do we do? Do we put their names on a watch list or roster of some kind? Does the University demand membership lists of every organization on campus to ensure none of the refundees are participating? It would be a nightmare.
main opponent 2005-12-30 04:32 pm UTC Hmm… honestly, I doubt that many people would be concerned enough to go through the trouble and paperwork of demanding a refund that isn’t very large. It’s one of the reasons why I’m not very concerned, really. The way I look at it, the people who would be really freaked out by the fees get the psychological comfort of a refund, and everyone it doesn’t really matter to goes on with life.
I don’t think it’s unfair to say they can participate in the services they paid their share for. For example, say ReligiousKid A gets a refund for the gay counseling service. He might participate in a religious club, but theoretically people could demand refunds for their share of the fees that support his club. If they choose not to that’s not his fault; he still has every right to participate in his club or anything else he helped pay for.
Personally I think this still misses the point. If we don’t verify, we invite abuse. Why wouldn’t a person just request all student service fees be refunded so he or she doesn’t have to pay, and then utilize the services anyway? There is a principle here about the basic purpose of the University. The diversity of the large public school is a huge part of the educational experience, and taking steps towards dismantling that or allowing people to benefit from it without supporting it seems wrong and manifestly unfair.
I guess I just don’t understand why the feelings of fundamentalist Christians are special. There’s nothing inherently, to me, more important about a sincerely and deeply felt Christian belief than there is in any principle for which I stand or in any part of me that makes me me. Why do they get their money back and everyone else has to pay? That’s not fair, and to a certain extent, a little bit of egalitarianism goes along with the public university. By choosing to attend a secular public university, by choosing to place themselves in an environment that they know ahead of time is diverse with people from many, many countries and every background imaginable, they have, to a certain extent I feel, forfeited their claim to religious comfort.
I don’t go to an evangelical church and proclaim my offense at the pastor’s sermon. A person who takes a job as a miner or firefighter necessarily accepts certain risks. When we travel to international states on the State Department’s watch list, we necessarily accept certain hazards. And when one comes to UT, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect them to play by the rules like everyone else.
I draw an analogy to hazards and risks because attending a secular public instituion, I think, probably is a little hazardous for the deeply religious. It’s no secret that they are, as a rule, fairly liberal places because of their size and the kinds of people who are usually attracted to higher education. If the deeply religious are truly secure in their faith, then I guess I don’t see what they have to fear, but if, on the other hand, they aren’t, it might be best for them to seek out an environment where their faith can be nurtured properly. A public university certainly is not one of those places.
Funding services that directly “support” homosexuality does not infringe upon someone’s religion in my opinion. How is the Center directly supporting anyone’s homosexuality? They aren’t giving out grants for homosexual acts. As near as I can tell from the website, the Center doesn’t even necessarily focus on homosexuality, but on women’s issues and issues relating to sexuality in general. “Support” in this context is a loaded word.
I don’t think we’re infringing on anyone’s rights. There is a recognized moral, ethical, and legal difference between a requirement of an organization a person is forced to join or participate in (say for instance mandatory public school education through secondary school) and requirements of orgnizations that a person joins voluntarily. The Boy Scouts of the US has a charter through the US Congress to be the official scouting organization of this country. It is in the minds of many people a de facto public organization. But when a person joins the Boy Scouts, he or she accepts certain rules of the organization. Nobody makes anyone go to UT. In that way, a person has already voluntarily limited his or her rights by accepting the terms of attendence of his or her school of choice. If a person went to Bob Jones University and then started complaining about the restrictive dating policy of that school, I would be no less unsympathetic to the complaints.
Everyone pays into the system with the expectation that everyone else is doing so, too. When we make exceptions for the special, suddenly it’s not a communitarian system. It’s a system rigged so that one group gets to participate by being the squeaky wheel being totally underwritten by everyone else.
main opponent 2005-12-30 03:43 pm UTC I don’t think it’s fair to say “just don’t go to UT then.” They have as much right to attend UT as anyone else, even if they might be more comfortable somewhere more conservative. If UT were conservative and made everyone fund some extreme right wing cause, I’d be very annoyed if someone told me to “just don’t go to UT then.”
Absolutely they have a right to attend, and I’m happy to have them! I want a diverse university; I want there to be viewpoints of all kinds and types. I want to have these discussions because I think they’re valuable for their own sake. But I still think that when one agrees to accept the education that UT provides, he or she also agree to certain ground rules and standards. A person gains substantially from the deal; he or she is receiving the education of a lifetime, and to a certain extent, the University gets to determine what that eduation entails.
Just as one cannot major in Biology and refuse to take a course in Evolution that’s required under the degree plan because he or she is a Young Earth Creationist and it offends deeply held religious beliefs, one shouldn’t be able to dictate what the University does with a tiny, tiny sliver of student service fees that ultimately goes to fund any one particular group. The University has, in its judgement, determined the group deserves funding because it furthers the well-being of students, and anyone who doesn’t think that this plays directly into the education of the students affected is fooling themselves.
Let’s try it another one, just for grins. Let’s say there is a Young Earth Creationist in the College of Fine Arts. Evolution offends this person. He or she pays tuition and fees to the University. Ultimately, that money can be seen to help maintain the University itself, including the College of Natural Sciences. Does this person have a right to demand that the University ensure, without error, that no money of they pay ever goes to help fund any evolution program that might happen anywhere in the University? How would one track such a thing? How could anyone ever by sure? It’s not a reasonable request.
It’s also not reasonable to expect the University to refund the Creationist an amount based on the funding the College of Natural Sciences receives using some kind of sharing formula. At the very least it would require the University to track, fairly exactly, how much money each College is getting from student tuition and fees as opposed to money from other sources. This might already be done, I don’t know. But again, if there are a reasonably significant number of students demanding such refunds, the University is now in a tight spot. Let’s say again there are 1000 students getting refunds in all the colleges except Natural Sciences. Let’s also assume it’s a not insignificant amount of money that’s refunded, but not too terribly much. Now students in Natural Sciences are being short changed, even if it only means that one or two or three additional TAs could have been hired for that 500 student CHEM1 class. Should Natural Sciences be reimbursed in some way from the colleges to which the various other students belong to make up for the deficit? Ultimately then what’s the point of the refund? If Natural Sciences is reimbursed by the other colleges, it’s likely prices will adjust themselves throughout the University to compensate. In the end, there’s no true refund for the protesting students.
main opponent 2005-12-30 06:00 pm UTC I think you’re looking at this from a very liberal point of view; essentially, you’re saying that conservatives are supposed to go to college to learn how to quit being conservative, i.e. they’ll learn not to find gays morally offensive. Saying that is the “wrong” way to think and it should be overcome is what infringes upon their religious rights; like it or not, it’s a matter of opinion. It’s like saying Hindus should go to college to learn that there’s only one God because their many-limbed polytheistic icons are silly and outdated, or that people should go to college to learn that there isn’t a God at all because reason XYZ, or that they should learn threesomes or any other manner of sexual activity is really okay, etc.
Forcing them to pay the fee is saying, “Now now, your religion is too ignorant and backward to understand how things should be. Because we feel your religion is wrong, your rights don’t matter.” The government can’t say any religion is wrong. All it can do is try to keep people from killing each other over it.
Really, I wish college did what you describe. In the real world, if I say I should be able to mess with their freedom of religion, there’s not a whole lot keeping them from disrespecting my rights later on. It’s just plain dangerous to start infringing upon people’s rights because they seem ignorant.
Yes, I’m looking at it from a very liberal point of view because that is my point of view. No, I don’t think learning to think critically, to investigate and question rationally will necessarily lead one to a liberal worldview. I think there are plenty of rational intelligent conservatives out there with genuinely good arguments (George Will comes to mind) for their positions that it would be really stupid to think that. There are also plenty of really dumb liberals who seem to me no better than the kneejerk reactionary conservatives they fight against (Randi Rhodes comes to mind).
Regarding the Hindus, do the Hindu students get to demand that no beef be served by the University? Also, I think this is another poor analogy. Does a group of students have the right to demand all their money be withheld from the Asian Studies Center because, in part, it studies polytheistic religions of the east (including, horror of horrors, idolatrous religions)?
“The government can’t say any religion is wrong.” Oh really? The government gets to tell religion it’s wrong all the time. We couldn’t teach evolution or heliocentrism or modern geology with vast timelines on earth if no public institution could contradict the religious beliefs of any of its participants.
I also disagree that requiring they pay the fee like all the other students sends a message that their religious beliefs don’t matter. They’re forcing an issue that doesn’t exist. The Center does not do what they think it does. Funding a group that exists for counseling and facilitating discussion panels and speakers does not fund homosexuality. It’s such a ludicrous position for them to take that it’s farcical. Helping people, who have to come to the Center themselves to receive services, feel better about themselves and their situation is not promoting anything. No one from the Center is handing out pamphlets on the West Mall recruiting heterosexuals to the homosexual lifestyle. Promoting dialog is not promoting the act. For all the talk I hear about “hate the sinner, not the sin” since nobody is engaging in homosexual sex that I know about in the Center, it sure seems to be more of the former than the latter.
We want people to treat us how we’d like to be treated. But I don’t think this applies here. 1) The students are here volutarily and have of their own free will put themselves under the aegis of the University, 2) The University is not restricting actual worship by the students, but only allowing activity the students disagree with in no different a manner than teaching heliocentrism would offent a biblical literalist, 3) The University has an obligation to be fair in its dealing with all its students. Allowing one group to benefit from community resources without fully contributing to the community is not fair. We fund all the programs together and we fund none of them individually.
Technorati Tags:
education, religion