The Daily Tar Heel
URL: http://www.dailytarheel.com/index.php/article/2011/08/unc_will_look_into_christian_group
Current Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:00:42 -0500
UNC will look into Christian a capella group
| 
Tools
Possibly Related
The University will investigate whether or not the Christian a cappella group Psalm 100 violated UNC’s non-discrimination policy in dismissing senior Will Thomason, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Winston Crisp said.
On Sunday, members of Psalm 100 unanimously voted to remove Thomason, who is gay, for his views on homosexuality. He had been a member of the group since his freshman year.
“We are on notice that there is a question as to whether or not a student organization has acted in compliance with the policy or not,” Crisp said. “We take that very seriously and that will be investigated.”
Blake Templeton, general director of the group, said Thomason was not removed for his sexual orientation but for his opinions about homosexuality. He said the views clash with the ideology of the Bible, which the organization’s constitution mandates members must uphold.
Psalm 100 is a student organization that receives student fees and is bound by the University’s non-discrimination policy. Between Feb. 17 and June 30, Psalm 100 received $152.20 in student fees.
The policy states that groups may limit membership to those who share the beliefs of that group but cannot exclude members based on personal characteristics, including sexual orientation.
“Our commitment to non-discrimination is bedrock strong but so is our commitment to the First Amendment rights of freedom of association,” Crisp said. “The non-discrimination policy for student organizations tries very hard to balance those issues.”
He said if an organization does not comply with the policy, it must change or face losing University recognition.
“We’re going to take the time that is necessary to thoroughly investigate the issues before we draw any conclusions,” Crisp added.
Zealan Hoover, student body vice president, said he has asked the student solicitor general to prepare a legal brief and the student body treasurer to prepare a list of the funds allocated to the group. The two will report to the executive branch tonight.
“We’ll be discussing how we want to respond,” Hoover said.
Jon Curtis, associate director of student activities and organizations, said the unusual nature of the situation makes crafting a plan of action difficult. He added that he has not received a formal complaint against Psalm 100.
Templeton said he acknowledged that the University has the right to investigate any group on campus.
He said he was worried that the decision has been perceived incorrectly.
“This isn’t a salvation issue, and it’s not Psalm 100 saying whether or not Will Thomason is a Christian and whether or not he’s going to go to heaven,” he said.
“I’ve gotten approached about that and that’s not the case at all.
“The decision was really about honoring the (group’s) constitution that the University approved of,” he said.
Terri Phoenix, director of the UNC Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Center, said there was not enough information to know if it was a case of discrimination.
“I feel confident that the University is going to do its due diligence in making sure that the policy was adhered to, and if they find that it was not adhered to they will take the appropriate action,” Phoenix said.
Thomason said he still enjoys a strong friendship with members of the group.
“I’m especially appreciative of the willingness of the larger UNC community to openly engage in the dialogue and I trust there will be continued respect for all parties involved,” he said.
Contact the University Editor at university@dailytarheel.com.
Online Poll: Student Body President
I want my student body president to:
57 comments
If the University does ANYTHING to discipline this group, there is an army of young lawyers out there willing to make a name for themselves by taking up a easy First Amendment case on behalf of Psalm 100.
I think I have pretty strong liberal credentials, and I find these situations so dispiriting precisely because I do believe that religion can be a force for good in the world. If Jesus were around today, though, do you seriously believe he would be spending his energy kicking gay people out of a capella groups and lobbying to prevent them from marrying? I hope he would find there to be much more pressing matters to attend to.
On the freedom of speech/association front, Psalm 100 has the right to discriminate against gay people. But the freedoms of speech and association do not carry along with them an absolute right to government support or funding, and governments can (and should) decline to support and fund groups that exclude people on the basis of protected characteristics.
The same does indeed apply in reverse: if GLBTSA started excluding Christians (or people who believed that Christianity was an acceptable belief), their recognition and thus student fee funding should be revoked.
Psalm 100 was perfectly within their rights to dismiss a member for not adhering to their Constitution. This matter should not even be investigated.
The Supreme Court already ruled on this type of situation: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/hastings-college-christia_n_627708.html
If he was discriminated against for actually being gay, this applies. The Court ruled that there was no violation of the First Amendment in disciplining a discriminatory group.
I’ve written a bit too much on this topic already, but I still ask the fundamental question here: How can a person be expected to hold a view that is contrary to their identity, and is such an expectation so unreasonable that it is equivalent to discrimination?, i.e. how can a homosexual be expected to believe homosexuality is wrong?
Again, for clarification, if our schools finds that discrimination has taken place, then they are not protected by the First Amendment. Yes, our school does not itself represent any kind of legal authority, but I can’t imagine this case being an “easy First Amendment case” by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, the First Amendment may not even come into play in this situation as the school would not be restricting their overall right to assemble; they would just remove their funding and sponsorship as they will have found that the group has come into contention with their contract to obey the school’s non-discrimination policy. Along these lines, I will side with Terri Phoenix on this issue in her trust that the school will do its due diligence to find one way or another what has happened. However, I still think my fundamental question above requires answering and clarification by the school.
Can’t Follow Blindly, you changed what that verse says. Go Biblegateway it, it says:
“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave RECOVERS after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”
Hmm, an arbitrary document gives bigots power to use public funds while practicing discrimination. This sounds very familiar for some reason….
Hey, army of young Christian lawyers laying in wait, tell me how it is that just because a group writes something in a constitution, that makes the matter untouchable? For example, I’d have to brush up on my tort law, but just because you sign a contract doesn’t mean you’ve lost all your civil rights. A contract can easily be found to be overreaching in its terms. Correct?
I guess it can’t be at all discriminatory to ask that someone follow the tenants of the Bible, certainly not after you put it in your constitution. Nevermind that the Bible is so ambiguous on most points, and rife with contradictions on elaborated points. Since you guys wrote your constitution, I guess you’re free to use whatever parts of the Bible you wrote? My bad, I meant to say use whichever parts of the Bible you feel like? Whichever part you interpret to support your salvation from bigotry? New flash, none of those parts will ever help you not feel ashamed of whatever causes your bigotry.
If you think you are right with Christ for doing this, that’s fine. Undoubtedly wrong, but fine. That doesn’t mean you deserve a cent of student funding.
If the University investigates and finds that discrimination occurred, they will not ask Psalm 100 to stop singing. Psalm 100 can sing to their hearts content. The University refusing to fund a discriminatory group in no way impedes on their right to assemble or to free speech. For those defending the group by invoking their arbitrary constitution, have you ever even read the one that our country has had for over 200 years? Taking money away from people is not telling them not to assemble or speak. It’s just that no law can be made against them. The Journalism school at your higher institution of learning has loads of experts on the nuances of First Amendment rights, and a Law school with many of the same. I would ask supporters of the group to use their resources and their brain before they speak, but why would they do that when they have the word of God instead? Cowards.
RE: I’m Baaaack
They are citing the group’s constitution because it has been approved by the University. The school can’t get rid of their funding for following the same constitution they previously approved.
There are various issues at hand. But one is whether or not what Templeton said is true: “The decision was really about honoring the (group’s) constitution that the University approved of”.
If Will were NOT gay, perhaps there would be less emotion about this. Regardless that does not merit the assumption that because he is gay this is a discriminatory act when in fact this is a matter of Psalm 100’s policy. It is standard practice that members of a group adhere to the group’s policy, seen everyday in other groups.
It is a hateful, non-tolerant tangent to describe The Bible an “arbitrary document (that) gives bigots power to use public funds while practicing discrimination”. May I turn the tables and say that this statement is flagrant slander of a particular religious group’s beliefs and respective members, while also a judgment of their adherence to their beliefs as “discrimination”? How is this statement any different from slandering the homosexual community’s belief system, participants, and adherence to a certain policy?
It is unfair to make a belief system “what you want it to be”. If an organization did not hold to its policies, then what would it hold to? Others’ opinion? In respect of parties involved and various viewpoints, whether you deem them true or not, let us step back and consider the issue with less screaming and throwing up of hands.
Facts are never slanderous. The Bible contradicts itself in many places. It is therefore subject to interpretation. It is also therefore meaningless to base a group’s ideology on its ‘tenants.’ Its tenants are either non-existent or obliterated by other samples of its own tenants. You cannot deny that Psalm 100 is picking and choosing when it describes Christians as being of one mind on the issue of homosexuality, and they are justified in judging one for believing otherwise. Yeah, Paul said in Romans that homosexuality is a “vile affectation.” Conveniently, Psalm 100 has not read the rest of Romans in which Paul explains that a human has no place in judging other for their sins, that if you are good in your death under the Law, you have no reason to proselytize or ostracize those that you perceive to be living in sin.
“If an organization did not hold to its policies, then what would it hold to? Others’ opinion? “ Uh yeah, the others being the University that Psalm 100 is asking for money? A University that also has its own policies regarding student groups? Others’ opinion like that of the Supreme Court? The court clearly states in this case, from 2010: A public college does not violate the First Amendment by refusing to officially recognize a student organization unless it allows all students to join the group, even if that “all comers” policy requires a religious organization to admit gay students who do not adhere to the group’s core beliefs.
Plain and simple. If Psalm 100 deigns to to invoke an authority higher than the University it is asking for funds, and higher than the Supreme Court, they ought to go for it. I could care less. Just don’t use public funds to do it.
“How is this statement any different from slandering the homosexual community’s belief system, participants, and adherence to a certain policy?” Uh…. When homosexuals impinge on your civil rights while still using your money, I’ll rail against them too. Honestly, I will. And when they justify it by referring to a book written over 2000 years ago, one that tells us it is a sin to wear two different types of textiles at once, I’ll insult their intelligence as well. Honestly, I will.
And I have no emotion regarding the fact that Will is gay. He could be a heterosexual that believed Christians ought not care whether someone is homosexual. As I’m reading Psalm 100’s position, this also would have disqualified his participation in the group based on its constitution. And I’d still be emotional about that.
I have emotion regarding a group not using educated analysis to interpret a millennia-old document, and instead stand upon it unopened to impinge on a student’s civil rights while they use student funds to do so. I have absolutely no emotion regarding Gary the Pit Preacher, for example. I’m glad he has pulPit. That’s what’s great about America. You know what’s not? Ignorance, intolerance and hate WHILE YOU USE MY MONEY!!!
“How is this statement any different from slandering the homosexual community’s belief system, participants, and adherence to a certain policy?”
Wait, wait… hold on, we (the queer community) have a shared belief system? Is this, I mean, how did you find out about this, because I’m completely in the dark on this one… I feel so, un-queer, all of a sudden.
Belief system, policy… stop talking about us like we’re some kind of sovereign nation; we’re not. We don’t have a constitution or policies we abide by because, and here’s the part that really seems to throw you (and people like you) despite the fact that we may be queer, we’re also individuals. As individuals, we have different belief systems – we don’t all worship the same God, or vote for the same the same candidates.
Loving someone, regardless of gender, isn’t a policy.
I’ll say it again – stop trying to make excuses for your bigoted attitudes; it’s only going to hold for so long.
“And I have no emotion regarding the fact that Will is gay. He could be a heterosexual that believed Christians ought not care whether someone is homosexual. As I’m reading Psalm 100’s position, this also would have disqualified his participation in the group based on its constitution. And I’d still be emotional about that.”
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You made plenty of valid points in the first half of your response, so why on earth would you make this claim? I understand your view, but we cannot take away the funding of a group on the basis of their beliefs. If their actions are non-exclusive or discriminatory, then we are more than welcome to cut their funding, but we cross the line from “halting discrimination” into “silencing of opinion” when we start down the slippery slope of ending groups based on just their beliefs. We allow groups to exist on the basis of their beliefs, so long as they obey the student code in their actions. Our University places a certain amount of trust in our ability to have our own personal views, while respecting the views of others such that we are allowed to express and share our beliefs (even point out the weakness of other views), but never act to restrict or limit the capacity of others on the basis of their personal characteristics. That is the compromise that has to be made to ensure that all views, despite their intolerant or inflammatory tone, are accepted.
Re: Still Heeeere
“The Bible contradicts itself in many places…It is also therefore meaningless to base a group’s ideology on its ‘tenants”
Glad to see you have based your entire opinion of Chrstianity on what you learned at UNC. No need to look at what people who actually believe the Bible to be true say about it. Who needs both sides of a story?
The group isn’t using the bible as an excuse for discrimination. As the group was set up, the constitution was written based on the bible. Thomason, who had been a member since freshman year, agreed to follow this constitution established by the group. So when his personal views changed, they conflicted with what was established by the constitution from the beginning of the group. This is not discriminating against anyone. Like the article says, Thomason remains good friends with the members of the group. The group is tolerant of Thomason and respects his decision as they remain to be friends with him. But they also have a strong belief that their constitution, which happens to be based on biblical standards, must be upheld. If there is something against upholding the constitution of a group, then punish the group. But if this is the case, punish our whole country for upholding our own constitution.
As I recall, last semester the group confronted Will and encouraged him to leave the group because THEY HEARD HE WAS GAY. NOT because “they heard about his BELIEFS.” They allowed him to stay because he denied it.
So this semester, they oust him early in the year, before auditions, because they are afraid he holds some contrary beliefs to them?
This group is lying to protect themselves from the University. It’s disgusting.
Just out of curiosity, has anyone heard anything about protesting their performances? Would love to get in on that.
In the past, Biblical passages were used to justify slavery, segregation, and mistreatment of women. Christianity does have a powerful message of compassion-it’s time that we stop trying to make ancient, convoluted messages fit contemporary knowledge and instead take the themes of the Bible that we all recognize-love, friendship, tolerance- into our lives.
Recognize the Gay Rights movement for what it is-the most important and needed civil rights movement of our era. I have faith, yes-faith, that the Christian community will reflect with shame on these situations in 10-20 years just as it has apologized for decades of sponsoring discrimination.
I don’t want to protest their concerts, I just wanna show up dressed like the gayest gay that ever gayed.
To Mystic: I would have a problem with that bc they seem to be saying you can’t be Christian and support homosexuality at the same time, which is frankly insulting to all Christians. If Psalm 100 says they base their constitution on the tenants of the Bible, well that’s a farce, there are no tenants. They ought to outline which tenants they’re talking about instead of saying just the teachings of the Bible. Just the teachings of the Bible?That’s almost meaningless. We all know the Bible is open to many interpretations. If Psalm 100 had outlined their particular dogma, including that homosexuality is wrong, I have no problem with that. They still couldn’t keep a homosexual from joining, but in the case that they explicitly stated their belief, they could indeed kick someone out for not having the same beliefs. Otherwise what’s the point of the group? Had they outlined their particular interpretation that homosexuality is a sin, Will may have never joined and gone through this demeaning ordeal. Or maybe he would have joined and tried to make a change. He may have been met with failure, but he could still be satisfied that he tried. But as it stands, his civil liberties were trampled on.
To Tar Heel: “No need to look at what people who actually believe the Bible to be true say about it. Who needs both sides of a story?” Uh… I didn’t learn a single thing about the Bible at UNC. I really didn’t. Like I said above, there’s plenty of fully Christian interpretations of the Bible that don’t view homosexuality as a sin. So which side of the story am I missing? And which side are you missing?
To Mystic: I would have a problem with that bc they seem to be saying you can’t be Christian and support homosexuality at the same time, which is frankly insulting to all Christians. If Psalm 100 says they base their constitution on the tenants of the Bible, well that’s a farce, there are no tenants. They ought to outline which tenants they’re talking about instead of saying just the teachings of the Bible. Just the teachings of the Bible?That’s almost meaningless. We all know the Bible is open to many interpretations. If Psalm 100 had outlined their particular dogma, including that homosexuality is wrong, I have no problem with that. They still couldn’t keep a homosexual from joining, but in the case that they explicitly stated their belief, they could indeed kick someone out for not having the same beliefs. Otherwise what’s the point of the group? Had they outlined their particular interpretation that homosexuality is a sin, Will may have never joined and gone through this demeaning ordeal. Or maybe he would have joined and tried to make a change. He may have been met with failure, but he could still be satisfied that he tried. But as it stands, his civil liberties were trampled on.
To Tar Heel: “No need to look at what people who actually believe the Bible to be true say about it. Who needs both sides of a story?” Uh… I didn’t learn a single thing about the Bible at UNC. I really didn’t. Like I said above, there’s plenty of fully Christian interpretations of the Bible that don’t view homosexuality as a sin. So which side of the story am I missing? And which side are you missing?
RE Old 22
Great move! Bring gossip into the discusion…that is sure to win the argument!
Sick and Tired: I tolerate your ignorance, i just don’t want to give you any money for it. Start a privately funded Christian choir if you want to banish people that state they may think Christians can be okay with homosexuality. It’s really that simple.
@Sick and Tired of All of It
I see your point, but you are mixing up the toleration of beliefs and the toleration of actions. I will limit the scope of my argument to the school because this case only deals with the school’s rules and policies. The school asks that its students tolerate the beliefs of all other people, whether we agree with them or not. However, the school also asks that its students only act upon their beliefs to the degree that they are not limiting the capacity of other students to express their beliefs. The school has no problem with a group that espouses the view that homosexuality is wrong. While not their principal message, Psalm 100 is perfectly entitled to have this view. They may even act upon such a view by singing about their beliefs. However, they cross the line when they act upon their beliefs in such a way that they do not allow a young man in their group on the basis of the personal characteristic of his homosexuality, a personal characteristic that is not his choice. Our school terms such action as discrimination. You contend that our school is, in turn, discriminating against Psalm 100, and this would be true, if we dissolved the group last week for having the potential to act upon their beliefs in a way that discriminates against homosexuals. However, the group has never been under threat until they made that crucial step from having a discriminatory belief (which is accepted) to acting on that discriminatory belief (which is not accepted). You may ask, what is the purpose of having a belief if one does not act upon it or allow it to guide their actions? Well, again, our school sets the limit at exactly the point where your actions limit the actions of others. Again, Psalm 100 is not accused of having the wrong beliefs; they are accused of performing the wrong action. I recognize that to call into question the morality of an action also calls into question the morality of the belief that motivates it, but the school will not seek to answer the question of whether this belief is right or wrong. The school will seek to answer the question of whether discrimination occurred when Psalm 100 acted upon its constitution, meaning the school will decide if a student group can give their beliefs the force of law if those beliefs threaten the beliefs and actions of others.
Join the discussion
You Should Know
The Daily Tar Heel reserves the right to remove any comment deemed racially derogatory, inflammatory, or spammatory. Repeat offenders may have their IP address banned from posting future comments. Please be nice.
If this is the first time you've commented, your comment won't appear until you've verified your email address.
Formatting Options:
- Links: "my link":http://my.url.com
- Bold: *something!*
- Italic: _OMG!_
Serving UNC students and the community since 1893
© 2012 DTH Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.
Flag this comment