Which of these policies setting the conditions for “recognized” student groups at a university actually reflects and fosters diversity, tolerance, and student freedom (recognized student groups can easily promote themselves and their events to students, routinely get space for meetings, and often are eligible for some funding):

Ohio State University: “A student organization formed to foster or affirm the sincerely held religious beliefs of its members may adopt eligibility criteria for its Student Officers that are consistent with those beliefs.”

University of Michigan: Allows religious student groups to maintain religious standards for their leadership, and says, “Free speech and diversity, including religious diversity, are core principles at U-M. We value the existence of . . . faith-based student organizations at U-M. Their existence and their voices add significantly to our academic community and support those students who find solace, camaraderie, and guidance in their presence.”

California State University system: “No campus shall recognize any fraternity, sorority, living group, honor society, or other student organization that discriminates on the basis of race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, color, age, gender, marital status, citizenship, sexual orientation, or disability. The prohibition on membership policies that discriminate on the basis of gender does not apply to social fraternities or sororities or other university living groups.”

About the Cal State policy, Charles Haynes of the Religious Freedom Center at the Newseum Institute says, “College and university officials argue that their non-discrimination policies prohibit student organizations from imposing a faith-based requirement for leadership. Any student must be eligible to lead any group – whatever his or her beliefs. . . . When colleges and universities enforce ‘inclusion’ by excluding some religious voices, they cripple the spirit of free inquiry and robust debate that should be at the heart of their mission. The ‘marketplace of ideas,’ it should be remembered, is not confined to the ‘marketplace of ideas we like'” (italics added).

Read more:

Chelsea Langston, “Civil Discourse and Principled Pluralism on University Campuses,” Capital Commentary, Dec. 15, 2014

Charles Haynes, “Welcome to college, where religious freedom goes to die,” Newseum Institute, Sept. 29, 2014.

InterVarsity, Campus Challenges/California State University System.