Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I guess these battles over student groups don't just happen in the US, but this excuse is a new one - you can't form a freethought group because it might offend others that you reject their religion. Wilfred Laurier University, a public college in Ontario, has denied a request by students to form the "Laurier Freethought Alliance" on campus. The freethought group said their mission is to "promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life without the need for superstition or religious belief." It seems that message is not welcome at WLU, whose representatives spelled out the reasons why in an email that said:
While the Campus Clubs department understands the goals and visions of your organization, they are not compatible with the guidelines of what may be approved and incorporated into our department. While the promotion of reason, science and freedom of inquiry are perfectly legitimate goals, what is most in question in regards to your club's vision is the promotion of "a fulfilling life without religion and superstition". While this university is indeed technically a secular institution, secular does not denote taking an active stance in opposition to the principles and status of religious beliefs and practices. To be clear, this is not meant to say that the promotion of science and reason are illegitimate goals. But due to the need to respect and tolerate the views of others, the Campus Clubs department is unable to approve a club of this nature at this time. If you wish to adjust and rethink your club's application and vision, you may resubmit a revised proposal at any time.
Mr. Orwell, call your office. Talk about brazen doublespeak. Due to the need to "respect and tolerate the views of others" they refuse to allow the formation of a group that doesn't believe you need religion in order to live a good life. So where is the respect for this group's view? Apparently, only religious viewpoints are due such "respect."
The school is taking the bizarre position that a chapter of, say, the Campus Crusade for Christ, which holds the view that religion is both good and necessary to live a fulfilling life, does not disrespect the views of the non-religious, but a group that advocates the idea that religion is not necessary somehow fails to "respect" the opposite view. That is as idiotic as it is outrageous.
Comments
Do they allow campus groups for exclusivist religions, which according to the university's standards do not "respect and tolerate" the views of any religion but their own?
Posted by: Gretchen | February 4, 2008 9:31 AM
WLU is just down the street from me (disclosure here that I am at the nearby U Waterloo and am not posting here to gloat or on behalf of anyone but me).
As far as I know, Campus Clubs is not an official organ of WLU admin but is run by the student union.
This does not make things better in principle but I don't think WLU admin is directly responsible for the Clubs so this is not likely a response from WLU admin but from the Student (Campus) Clubs admin and these appear to be arm's length.
I am not sure of how WLU regulates the Student Union though - WLU may still be responsible for the Union and Clubs to adhere to basic WLU charter principles, I'd assume.
They do have a branch of "New Scholars" (a misnomer if there ever was one...)
Minor correction: the school is actually spelled "Wilfrid Laurier U" rather than "Wilfred Laurier U" - easy and sublte mistake to make
Posted by: stephen murphy | February 4, 2008 10:20 AM
...as I just did with the word "subtle" (or as I put it above "sublte"...
Posted by: stephen murphy | February 4, 2008 10:23 AM
I used to attend the University of Waterloo for my undergraduate degree. The religious groups there are quite vocal about their opinions regarding campus activities, iirc.
In fact, I remember the religious groups going out of their way to piss everyone off in order to screw up the Gay-Lesbian group's homosexuality awareness week. As well as they were removed as an official club because more than 80% of their members were not even students of the university.
As well, with the 4 Christian Colleges on campus, and huge amount of fiscal support from those groups, there was always an aura of religiousity around campus. However, even with that, the FEDS were pretty good at being fair to everyone involved, and ensuring the rules were actually followed.
I don't know, however, how bad things got at WLU. Considering how loudly they protested because they didn't like the fact that FEDs was not going to pay for a club that wasn't catering to students, and how much "community" support there was for them. I would not be surprised if the more "local" university has a student union loaded with people willing to stick out their necks to prevent opposition to them or piss those groups off.
Posted by: anon | February 4, 2008 10:37 AM
I thought it was just a (very) sublte joke.
Posted by: Matthew | February 4, 2008 10:37 AM
Laurier is the current incarnation of a University originally founded as Waterloo Lutheran University. I'm not surprised that the religion umbilicus has not been completely cut.
And if I'm not mistaken, Uncommonly Dense (Buy My Book) O'Leary is an alumnus of WLU. Strike 2
Posted by: Bing | February 4, 2008 10:50 AM
Matthew - thanks for that :) I wished it was an intentional if (subtle, sublte, subbbbbtle) joke but it was my usual typo/could not even spot it in preview
steve
Posted by: stephen murphy | February 4, 2008 1:35 PM
But due to the need to respect and tolerate the views of others, the Campus Clubs department is unable to approve a club of this nature at this time.
Hah! I suppose you wouldn't be allowed to form a democratic political club either, since it might offend an existing republican club.
Posted by: jeff | February 4, 2008 3:10 PM
Hah! I suppose you wouldn't be allowed to form a democratic political club either, since it might offend an existing republican club.
Well, it's not in the US, so there's neither.
However, there are clubs for the Greens and NDP, so you would be wrong as far as "banning" left of centre political clubs goes.
I've already fired off a polite email telling them how silly they are being, but I suspect this is nothing to do with Christism, more like PoMo sensitivity run amok.
Posted by: Graculus | February 4, 2008 4:37 PM
....I suspect this is nothing to do with Christism, more like PoMo sensitivity run amok.
Whenever you hear somone blathering about "diversity" in a situation like this, it's usually either
1) Some PoMo twit who really believes it.
OR
2) Some Christianist who doesn't, but knows it provides good cover.
In this case, it's more likely the former.
As I commented at Anatoly's blog, I suspect the word "superstition" was what tripped the alarm.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | February 4, 2008 5:33 PM
Sigh. On behalf of all U.S. citizens who recognize that Canada is a separate, independent, and sovereign country, may I offer my apologies to our norther neighbors?
And for Ann Coulter, too.
But I won't apologize for the South Park movie--way too funny to apologize for.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 4, 2008 7:40 PM
Here's a list of the clubs now at Wilfrid Laurier
Posted by: Monado | February 5, 2008 9:40 PM
Oops! Try again: Current clubs at Wilfrid Laurier. They have everything from PETA to Chinese Christians to German Culture.
Posted by: Monado | February 5, 2008 9:42 PM
Frankly, I do think that including a tendentious word like "superstition" in official documentation was unnecessarily provocative. But I see that that wasn't the reason given for rejection. Yes, bloody idiotic on the part of the university or student union bureaucrats.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | April 6, 2008 9:14 AM