Defending policy, tradition and faith

Photo Courtesy of Tribune News Service
Photo Courtesy of Tribune News Service
Photo Courtesy of Tribune News Service

When it comes to dictating how clubs and organizations should be led on CSU campuses, government agencies felt it was best to put an end to the InterVarsity Christian Club across all CSU campuses.

In August the chancellor of the California State University, Dr. Timothy White, banned the CSUN chapter of the InterVarsity Christian Club, along with other CSU chapters of the club, for one year.

InterVarsity was told that in order to be recognized as an official student group they must change the core values of their identity as an organization. This means allowing less religious and non-Christians to run for and be elected as an official of the club.

White believes this organization that only allows either Christians, or those that declare faith in Christ to lead is not fair to the other students that attend the school.

The argument that all students should have a fair chance to run for a position in an organization is unarguably a favorable stance. So much so that it should apply to every organization and club on CSU campuses. Of course, this won’t happen.

The Executive Order 1068 clearly states that fraternities, sororities and (specifically) other organizations allow any and every one as long as they are currently enrolled in the school, to run for a board position in an organization. This idea of inclusivity is an idea that should be commended, when it applies to all groups.

Why is only the Christian group the one which is subjected to this rule and not every other religious organization on CSU campuses? The Rohr Chabad House, a Jewish club on campus, requires for its leaders to be of Jewish faith yet they are not banned.

White’s decision to implement these new policies is biased. If one club is going to be banned for wanting its leaders to share the same beliefs or values in order to lead, shouldn’t this act be carried out amongst all clubs?

If a member was to hold a position as a group leader, and did not share the same core values or beliefs, it would no longer be a Christian club.

Clubs are set to bring recognition to the similarities shared between individuals in an organized setting. The purpose of this student organization will lose its value and what it stands for if its leaders do not share the same passion as its members. They should have the right to insist that the leaders of the student religious organization at least share the organization’s religious beliefs.

Why would anyone who is non-Christian even want to be in a Christian-based club, let alone run for a lead position in the club? The only explanation for this occurrence would be for the candidate looking to run wants to change the club, implementing their own views from the inside.

InterVarsity should be able to elect who they deem fit to be a representation of their club.

When picking a group or organization to approach during CSUN’s annual Meet the Clubs event, the first question asked by group recruiters never falls short of “Are you interested in …?”

This organization is called the Christian club. All are welcome to join, but to hold a leading position when the same beliefs aren’t shared is something this chancellor is looking to change among CSU campuses.

When these groups lose the foundation of that they stand for, what’s left?