For some reason, this incident brings to mind the principle of separation of church and state. Yes, Cornell is not the state, and Chi Alpha is well, maybe church. But this just brings to mind all the problems of politics controlling (not just influencing) religion, and religion controlling politics. I know that Cornell is a private institution, and the SA is no where near being "the state", but the somehow it still feels like the principle is being violated.

Dear Reader,

I have been following this situation ever since it started and I have to say this event certainly brings out something that has been accepted and allowed for at Cornell ever since religious organizations or any other student organizations have existed. Every organization follows different beliefs and associations.

If you read the Supreme Court case of Boy Scouts of America v Dale, the court declares that the 1st amendment protects the Boy Scouts exclusion of a gay leader and in this case Chi Alpha has the right to not allow a gay leader to be a leader. The FACT that Chi alpha has allowed this gay student to remain a part of the organization goes along with Cornell's policies and the Student Assembly Charter and SAFC guidelines. By having a gay leader openly promote his beliefs to the group's members, it goes against the group's internal affairs and its "right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends."

As Christians they followed scripture and what Jesus has said. "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat." (Luke 6:27-28, NIV) They are NOT hating on people who choose to have same gender partners, but rather loving them as God the Father loves all of children.

A taste of the world outside of Cornell has breached the bubble, and hopefully people will see that Christians believe in diversity and promote open hearts and open minds. However, their stances are firm and rooted in God and His word.

This discrimination case against Chi Alpha seems so flaky and hardly warranted. They let Chris join Chi Alpha. They let him be open about the fact that he either was homosexual or was considering homosexuality. They let him take a leadership position with knowledge of his sexuality. There was only one condition to all of this - Chris had to repent for the homosexuality "sin." And, it seemed like he agreed to that until he found a boyfriend, and finally embraced being homosexual. If Chi Alpha deems homosexuality as a sin, and Chi Alpha does not want one of its leaders embracing a sin, but will still allow this person to remain part of the club, how is removing their leadership role discrimination? They are a club, clubs have rules, members are expected to follow the rules. He didn't embrace a tenet of the club, so they removed his leadership role, not him from the club, just one role - seems justified.

Here's a You Make the Call example:

Let's say that someone is a LGBT hater, but they realize this and want to reform so they join one of the LGBT specific clubs on campus explaining that right now they are this way, but through interaction hope to change. So, this club lets them in, and it seems like this hater is making good progress and eventually gets some sort of leadership role or executive board role. However, summer comes around, this hater has some new experiences and realizes that they absolutely hate any homosexual man or bisexual man (lesbians and transgenders are still ok to this person), but s/he wants to stay in the club because s/he has made some friends. They come back to school and this is revealed through the haters new interactions at the club where he makes snide remarks, hateful comments, etc. So, does this LGBT group have the right to remove the hater? Is that discrimination? Go ahead and call the example asinine and unrelated, but it seems to have some parallels.

Ah yes. Across our culture the law is "innocent until proven guilty". That is, until you step on to campus, be it the local grade school, high school, or college. Again Kent Hubble goes on record prejudging the case without a hearing. "We should work diligently and quickly so this doesn’t have to happen again” - what "this"? the exercise of clear convictions by Chi Alpha, or the savaging of them? I suspect not the latter!

The Student Assembly passes judgment without hearing, and deprives resources rightfully due to Chi Alpha (were they planning a water bottle distribution for slope day? We'll never know, as their plans to serve campus are now in limbo).

Pre-emptive punishment is a violation of human rights. Chi Alpha has been vilified and punished without a hearing. Someone show where Chi Alpha has been protected from harassment? Where is the supposed "constructive engagement without degrading, abusing, harassing or silencing others" in this process? Tonight's proposed rally against Chi Alpha seems intended to do just that to them. Any hearings anticipated against the LGBT community for their organized intimidation tonight? Thought not.

"Open Doors, Open Hearts, Open Minds" on the lips of Student Assembly is a joke.

So basically you're saying that the Bill of Rights protects discrimination. That's awesome. Sounds like maybe you're studying law. Just what we need--another bigoted lawyer.

This is a fire safety issue for Chi Alpha:

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Jude 1:7 (King James Version)

To Chi Alpha: Shut Up

@ Ralph

Universities also have rules, so Cornell can kick them off campus in the same way they can kick someone out for being gay.

As an Ithaca community member and an alum ('08), a concern I have is how this proceeds from here. I do think that there is a clear distinction between the call that Chi Alpha was discriminatory against Donohue because of his sexual orientation if he was asked to leave the group versus if he was asked to step down from leadership from the group, but allowed and asked to remain in the group. As far as what I know from public knowledge, it was the latter situation. Let's be clear about this distinction as we discuss what has happened here. Those two situations should be treated markedly differently.

Dean Hubbell- your comment makes it clear that you already believe that discrimination has occurred.

Mezey- I applaud the way that you chose to think and respond. Not that I necessarily agree with your choice, but I agree with the way you want the facts and not automatically take the majority opinion.

No, I don't think that's what the reader was saying (Bill of Rights protects discrimination). It looks more like the reader stated a similar case from before.

I first want to say that I write this response as someone who is not a practicing Catholic (but as someone who grew up learning all the rules, bells, and whistles of it) and as someone who doesn't care what the sexual orientations of her friends or family are.

Since long before Chris Donahue was a member of Chi Alpha, the Catholic faith, many other christian faiths, and Chi Alpha itself have held the belief as written in scripture that homosexual relationships are not permissible. (Note that there is nothing written on the subject of being homosexual; the reference is made to homosexual relationships as equally as it is made to heterosexual intimate relationships before marriage). Whether you agree with this or not, this is a principle mentioned in the doctrine of many christian religions.

The fundamental basis of a religion is that, as a believer, you follow every aspect. That is what faith is: it is the belief that the doctrine of your religion is correct and should be followed in its entirety. Therefore, if you don't agree with a religious doctrine or don't have faith in its values, it would serve you well to find another religion or to discuss your qualms with it in a personal discussion with God. I don't particularly agree with all the positions of the Catholic faith, for example, namely the position the faith takes on homosexual relationships. That is why I choose not to actively practice Catholicism. An option that isn't viable is trying to restructure a particular religious sect around one person's beliefs, because that defeats the purpose of that religion. Essentially, if a person in a religious organization or otherwise violates the fundamental beliefs or aspects of that organization, the organization must oppose that member or it can no longer exist.

Therefore, I can understand through logic why Chris Donahue was not a good candidate for a leadership position in Chi Alpha after announcing a homosexual relationship (though he is welcomed with open arms into the organization, which supports a love and tolerance of all people). I can understand his disappointment and frustration, and I encourage him to search for another organization's position of leadership that will align all of their beliefs with his and allow him to pursue his good work.

All of that being said, there is a much larger issue at hand that no one seems to see right now, and it is GRAVELY CONCERNING ME. For a long time, christian religions have been tolerated on campus as a logical part of the "Open hearts, open minds" policy. I'm sure that it would seem ludicrous to many to disallow christian sects from practicing on campus or getting funded by the Student Assembly. However, by punishing Chi Alpha for defending a principle that is at its core, Cornell is also denouncing christian religion. One could go so far as to say that the christian religion is being censored, and that the Cornell community is sending the message that religious beliefs must be restructured and refurbished before they are allowed and accepted within this community. THIS is where the "Open hearts, open minds" policy is really failing.

Maybe the christian religion should be restructured, or maybe it should be disallowed on campus. If you feel that Chris Donahue should be allowed to hold that position, then you also MUST agree with the previous statement by logic and logic alone.

Reconciling equality of all people with religion is a very slippery slope, and it is one that must be handled with care. You can all decide for yourselves how that should be done. However, Chi Alpha should not be under attack as a target for simply supporting a Christian value like it is supposed to and for perpetuating Christianity, which has existed at Cornell since it was founded.

Is the president of the veggie club allowed to eat meat?

How about bring a steak to a meeting and consume it there?

Chris-

The implications of your actions are far reaching...because not only have you brought much scrutiny and aversion towards Chi Alpha, you have also (whether you realize) brought the same attitude to all the other Christian clubs on campus, at Cornell and elsewhere. People who already have a misconception of Christianity will now, all the more so, automatically associate homophobia with the faith.

The Bible is clear about homosexuality. If Christianity was completely subjective – and sin was whatever each person in the world considered it to be – then there would be no need for Jesus. But Jesus came to give life – life to the full. And it is for freedom, that Christ has set us free.

I am disappointed to see how so many have quickly accused Chi Alpha of discriminatory practice. I think it is absurd to equate the plight of homosexuals and African Americans. I think it’s even more absurd that for a campus that prides itself of being open-minded, so open-minded that they’ve rejected a group that chooses to follow what their holy text prescribes. If the SA finds Chi Alpha guilty because of asking a person – who understood and agreed to the bylaws, and who also understood the consequences of breaking the bylaws, and willingly violated the bylaws – to step down for breaking the bylaws of the group, then the SA will have to answer to a host of personal vendettas and no club will be able to practice freely because someone will always be offended. “Open-doors, Open Hearts, Open-Minds” is a two-way street.

Boy Scouts Of America V. Dale had nothing to do with one body providing funding to another, it was a simple discrimination law suit. Chi Alpha's first amendment right to assemble has not been violated. They can still meet, but they will not receive funds from Cornell. That is a major difference.

One thing easily lost in these discussions is that funding of a student

organization is a privilege and not a right. Cornell has very few

nondiscriminatory principles -- it should perhaps have more -- but

those that it does have represent a broad consensus that the issue is

now closed for debate. We would no longer defend an organization that

discriminated (either for membership or leadership) solely on the basis

of race or gender, though a century ago this was an active debate.

The larger world is still in the process of accepting an enlarged

spectrum of private sexual practices as irrelevant to one's

public life. In universities like Cornell, this debate should

effectively be over.

I strongly support the rights of organizations to have wholesale

autonomy on choosing their bylaws and membership criteria. But

I also strongly support Cornell in refusing funding to organizations

whose bylaws and membership criteria deviate from Cornell's

nondiscriminatory umbrella.

Thus I strongly support the cancellation of Chi Alpha's SAFC

funding and even its official endorsement as a registered student

organization, so long as their policies on membership *and* leadership

include elements which discriminate based on consensual sexual behavior.

This is not point of contention. Chi Alpha is sponsored by Cornell but it remains a christian student organization. The students uphold their own views and they have a right to exclude any body who holds a contradictory stance or I should say he has a right to expel himself. I belief Donohoe knew what was expected of him and if he had contradictory views, there are so many groups at Cornell which would accepted him. I don't feel Chi Alpha should embrace leaders with opposing views.

After extensive review of the "Open Hearts, Open Doors, and Open Minds" policy, Cornell's Statement on Diversity, I see nowhere that states, or even implies, that leadership positions must be open to all. I fail to see how Chi Alpha's bylaws "deviate from Cornell's nondiscriminatory umbrella". Furthermore, if we do say so, then by that logic if Koach, the Conservative Jewish group on campus, prohibits people who do not affiliate as Jews from leadership roles, it should then be deprived of funding and status as a registered student organization, since discrimination based on religion is just as prohibited as discrimination based on sexuality. This situation strikes me as startlingly similar to the "Cornell Review" incident where many argued that the Cornell Review should be deregistered based on comments that may or may not have been offensive. Tolerance means tolerance of all positions, even those that we find repulsive. In the Open Minds section, it says" Cornell stands for civil discourse, reasoned thought, sustained discussion, and constructive engagement without degrading, abusing, harassing, or silencing others. Cornell is committed to act responsibly and forthrightly to maintain an environment that opens doors, opens hearts, and opens minds." I fail to see how a group removing a member from leadership qualifies as "degrading, abusing, harassing, or silencing others." I include the links to Cornell's Statement on Diversity and the SAFC statement on ethical conduct for your information.

http://assembly.cornell.edu/uploads/SAFC/EthicalConductForm.pdf

http://www.cornell.edu/diversity/history/statement.cfm

A very basic part of this is - he signed an agreement when he entered leadership to abide by certain principles. He was not coerced into it - he chose to sign it. He didn't have to be in Chi Alpha, he chose to. Then he chose to not abide by the principles he signed by and was asked to step down from leadership - not to leave the group. This is standard procedure for any group - when leadership has certain rules, you agree to them and are in leadership, then break them, there are consequences.

Where was the protesting that the rules were unfair when he first agreed to them? Where were the vigils? This is a joke. The true hate here is hate against Christian values that so called liberal, open-minded, open-heart people don't even TRY to understand. Maybe consider for a second that other people might have a legit viewpoint you haven't considered before passing judgment?

One area of ignorance: positions of leadership are not viewed in Christian circles the same way as in secular circles. It's viewed as a position from which you are expected to serve more and sacrifice more. Being asked to step down is a huge disgrace in the secular eye because people put so much stock and value in leadership positions. That's considered idolatry in Christian circles.