As a parent of students at Cornell, I say hurrah, thanks be to the adults who monitor/lead such groups as Chi Alpha...just like adults who lead religious positions on campus ,. such as Dr Clarke, sometimes students need the guidance of older, wiser adults...and in the Chi Alpha group, it sounds like the student body of the group also agrees with the two advising adults... if a Muslim student body group or a Jewish student body group excludes a member due to beliefs, do we hear about that? No, I don't think so..why do Christian groups who "stick to their beliefs" get so critiized? Let them be. Mr Donohue should start religious support groups perhaps, within the LGBT community, perhaps...if he is so unhappy with the Chi Alpha group!

Very nice editorial. Succinct, well-written and spot-on regarding this issue. Hopefully students, staff and administration will concur.

This editorial truly, truly misses the point when it approaches the issue from the angle that the actions taken by the pastors violate the "sanctity of academia."

From the perspective of such religious organizations, the sanctity of academia is completely irrelevant. Nothing is sacred to them except God and his Word as written in the Bible and what they think it means. The problem is that they think they have a monopoly on what the Word of God means and on what people should take away from it. This applies not only to homosexuality, but to other contentious subjects such as evolution.

Chi Alpha can continue to summarily excommunicate people who do not conform to their comfortable bubble of an orthodoxy or they can challenge themselves to understand what it is that homosexuals face in every single day of their lives. Whether they think it is a matter of biblical morality, the growing mountain of evidence is clear: sexual orientation is not a choice, but Chi Alpha obviously thinks that people "choose" to be homosexual or not. Well, my question to their straight members is: when in their lives did they choose to be heterosexual?

Also, Donohoe should be picking his battles right. There is no point fighting to be a part of this organization. They're completely self-contradictory (it's ok to be homosexual as long as you don't think it's ok?) and he would have seen this coming when he chose to come out, as much as I support his courage to.

He's better off joining - or better still, setting up - another Christian group that demonstrates that Chi Alpha does not monopolize the Word of God.

And I fully support SAFC stripping them of funding. Let the faithful raise the money themselves; I want to have nothing to do with them.

Tolerance. As long, that is, as you agree with me.

That is the position taken by those railing against Chi Alpha. Chi Alpha is a Christian organization (in this case, affiliated with an internationally recognized denomination). That implies a creed, a code of conduct, and especially high standards for leaders. This is the nature of ANY social group: There are convictions, creeds, practices that are the covenant of participation. So sports team are allowed to impose curfews, Student Democrats can deny a leadership to a College Republican, ethnicly defined associations may constrain leadership positions to those fitting the demographic, and religious organizations may establish creedal and behavioral terms for leadership to be considered "in good standing."

Mr. Donohoe has chosen to come out and be sexually active. He did that, knowing he was crossing the line of covenant for the group. That is his prerogative. To uphold the standards of group covenant is also the prerogative of the group. Sadly, the editorial "The Sanctity of Academe" utterly fails to recognize (a) the foundtional right to assembly, (b) the foundational right to religious expression, and (c) the fact that this was (as Chapl. Clarke notes) a long and in depth conversation among the leadership of Chi Alpha, and in no way "arbitrary".

How sad, then, to hear such disturbing pre-judgment across campus: “We are very concerned with what happened and we want to make sure this is a campus that does not discriminate in this way,” (Dean of Students Kent Hubbell). Can the Hermans and Chi Alpha expect a fair hearing when they finally meet with the Dean of Students?!

The question every student has to ask (it's YOUR Student Affairs Office) is "What does it mean to be a campus community?" Do you really believe in people's right to assembly and to freedom of religion and conscience? Or only when they agree with you? Should Chi Alpha be able to limit it's leadership to those who uphold it's covenant, or should it and every other group on campus be completely neutered (this would include all the LGBT community as well)? Should SA dollars only go to those who "think like us", even though they are taken by mandate from all? If as a community or nation we cannot respect those who think differently than we do (Mr. Donohoe was never asked to leave the group, just a position of leadership on behalf a covenant he rejected), then we are well on the way to the despotic control of thought and speech of the most repressive regimes known to man.

The conclusion of the editorial is sensationalist and dishonest.

"Those in Chi Alpha would say they gave Chris a choice to reject his sexual orientation and embrace god, or to embrace himself and reject the scripture. But no one at Cornell should be forced to make this choice — to deny who they are in order to gain acceptance from their peers. The University must monitor the role of religion on this campus and ensure that such discrimination does not occur."

They presented Chris with the long standing position of historic Christianity. They never asked him to reject his sexual orientation, only to remain chaste as they ask of all their unmarried leaders. They never refused him friendship. Why shouldn't people be expected, even confronted, to make ethical choices with consequences and live by those consequences? That is the nature of religion, and religion is the fabric of the culture (Isaac Asimov's "Nightfall" is a fascinating exploration of this!). Mr. Donohoe needed to respect Chi Alpha enough to say, "I think we're in separate places, I can't affirm your position any more. I think we need to go our separate ways." Regrettably, that charity and honesty appears to have not been forthcoming, though they appear to have dialogued with him for a long time.

However, to suggest the university must control all mind-think on campus is against everything the Academy has ever stood for in history. Funny how "tolerance" can become a synonym for repression.

"But there is a fine line between advising and directing, and it is imperative that student groups be allowed to govern themselves. Leaving this power in the hands of others — be it a rabbi, a priest or an imam — allows such leaders to overstep their bounds and undermine the sanctity of academia."

The so-called "sanctity of academia" (whatever that is) does not apply. No one is forcing the students in Chi Alpha to remain in Chi Alpha. The members of this group are willingly submitting themselves to the judgment of their advisers, so they are not being robbed of some God-given right to self-governance.

This editorial is a thinly-veiled attempt to question SAFC funding of religious groups in general. This is a genuine issue, and controversies of this kind will continue until it is settled. Personally, I believe that a university which professes a commitment to diversity of ideas should back up that commitment by making funding available to all groups which have shown the ability to engage constructively in campus dialogue.

Also, no matter what your religious convictions are, 'Bible' and 'God' in a Judeo-Christian context are proper nouns. No competent writer or editor would fail to capitalize the 'r' in 'Rigveda' or the 'k' in 'Krishna'. Insisting on printing 'Bible' and 'God' all in lowercase makes the aims of the Cornell Daily Sun Editorial Board rather transparent.

What we are dealing with here is more than just an question at Cornell University, it is one that is asked all across the country, and that has been for a long time. But I think that we have always missed the point of the "debate" about homosexuality in religion.

Can homosexuals be members of certain religious sects that consider it a choice? Even if we consider it from their viewpoint, how would we compare homsexuality as a sin to other carnal sins? Are people excommunicated for say, adultery? Do we excommunicate sect members when they lie, when they take god´s name in vain, or when they disrespect their parents? The issue here is of course very deep on the nature of forgiveness and repentance, but when it comes to homosexuality, it would appear that there is a clear message: it is not a sin for which we can forgive you. Well, maybe. But you have to repent.

So when Mr. Donohue refuses to repent, does he excommunicate himself from the sect? Would he be castigated for other sexual misconduct, or only if he refused to repent of such conduct?

All communities of assembly and especially all religious groups have the right to determine their membership and leadership. How else to remain true to the founding principles of the group? But an organization that receives University funding must stay true to the University´s principles. It must remain open to all members of the community because all members contribute in kind to its funding. If Chi Alpha wishes to determine its membership and its leadership based on specific criteria, it should find other sources of funding.

I am a student at Cornell and a member of the Varsity Swim and Dive team, of which Chris is also a member. I also have a couple of close friends in XA, as well as a number of friends who feel sympathetic toward Chris in this situation. I just want to bring other details to light which will probably be never reported in the Sun, or any other news article, based on conversations I have had with members of XA (some very close friends with Chris) who agree with Matt and Tracy Herman and those who believe Chi Alpha were discriminatory in their actions:

1. When the reporter for the Sun was looking for interviewees during his research, the Dean advised the Hermans not to comment to the newspaper. Then, he himself went and spoke to the reporter about this issue.

2. Chris and the Hermans made this decision mutually over the summer, before the school year started. He attended many Chi Alpha meetings during the fall semester, and it is only recently that this has become such a grandiose issue.

3. Chris was asked to step down only when he started embracing his homosexuality, which is contrary to the core beliefs of Chi Alpha. The entire time he was struggling to fight that urge, he was allowed to lead the group as VP.

4. The Hermans and Chris are on good terms; they are speaking and currently intend to stay in touch throughout this situation and afterward as well.

5. The funding for Chi Alpha is trivial, and the removal of Matt and Tracy Herman from the Cornell campus would simply result in their relocation to another campus by the national Chi Alpha organization, where the same thing could easily happen again. Note that the Hermans have not been reprimanded by the national Chi Alpha group for their decision.

6. If the funding were removed permanently, and the Hermans were asked to leave Cornell, we would be preventing students members of Chi Alpha from fully exercising their religion, because Christians generally believe that mentors and pastors are needed in order to grow in the faith, and they would not have these resources on hand because the University told them they couldn't have them. Indeed, we are already limiting their free exercise of religion, because we are telling them what they cannot do.

As for myself, I look back to the decision the US Supreme Court laid out about the Boy Scouts of America, which had been disallowing homosexuals from leading their troops. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts, citing that it was a private organization and could therefore determine its own rules as to who can lead their boys. One might compare it to a Christian or Muslim or Jewish private school offering religion classes pertaining to that belief system, whereas a public school cannot and will not. Chi Alpha, as a private national organization, was completely justified in barring someone who did not share their beliefs from a leadership position. He was--and is--completely welcome to attend meetings and events, but he simply is not allowed to lead because he does not agree with the core values of the Chi Alpha organization. Is this not reasonable? When we elect the President of the United States, do we not select the candidate that best fits our ideas of what America is and should be? Most of us believe in the democracy upon which America is founded--that is one of our core beliefs and values, that the people should rule the country via representatives. We would not elect someone to the office if (s)he believed in socialism or dictatorship or communism or an oligarchy or any number of other types of governments.

As for the other members of Chi Alpha, I have yet to hear of a single person who does not stand by Matt and Tracy Herman's actions.