Recently, the Young Americans for Freedom chapter at the University received an exception to the nondiscrimination statement that all campus student organizations were required to include in their organization’s constitution. At the heart of the issue was a requirement to include terms like “gender identity,” which YAF holds to be part of a gender ideology it fundamentally disagrees with and refused to include in its constitution.
When refusing to include the terms, YAF brought in outside pressure, including the attorney general of Alabama. The University gave in to the group’s pushback, allowing the organization to use an alternate version of the statement that omitted the terms.
What was somewhat more surprising was the University’s decision to later change the required clause itself. The new nondiscrimination clause states, “Membership in registered student organizations shall be open to all students of The University of Alabama, without regard to any federally protected class,” except for fraternities and sororities.
I believe we should be able to find common ground on the fact that students and student organizations should not be told what to think. Forcing YAF to include terms it considers to be part of a vocabulary of an ideology with which it disagrees in the constitution of its organization is not congruent with the free thought of the organization. This is part of a broader statewide and nationwide trend regarding the slow erosion of DEI, which I believe is a major reason why many campus groups opposed the exemption.
In August, the University closed dedicated spaces for Black and LGBTQ+ student organizations on campus following a crackdown on DEI in Alabama. Alex House, UA associate director of communications, said that the University will not discriminate against any group based on “race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation or gender identity.”
The movement toward equality has been corrupted by seemingly innocuous policies that slowly push out conservative thought. While the terms that YAF opposed may seem small to some, it forces a conservative organization to use coded, left-wing ideological terms that it does not support. By opposing these terms, YAF exposes itself to negative media attention as a result of groups on campus misconstruing the YAF’s opposition to these terms as part of a right-wing, hate-fueled agenda that neither the YAF nor any true conservative would ever support.
To YAF’s credit, it is remarkably consistent in this regard. Trenton Buffenbarger, president of UA YAF, made it clear that the organization will not seek to bar anyone from attending any of its events or meetings. This should come as no surprise. YAF is not seeking to bar anyone; it is simply seeking to regain control of the language it uses and oppose the forced use of gender-related terms with which it disagrees.
The new changes to the inclusion statement change essentially nothing. YAF will not suddenly start discriminating against anyone who wants to join the organization or attend its events. The group will not necessarily welcome everyone’s ideas with open arms, but that is unsurprising for ideology-based organizations. Does one think a vocal conservative is going to have their ideas and beliefs positively received at the UA College Democrats’ meetings?
However, in the case of YAF and UACD, both organizations are allowed to exist, exhibiting true equality. All YAF sought to achieve in removing specific terms from their diversity statement was to remove what they viewed as the imposition of views they do not hold and should not be required to hold in their student organization.
The group’s policies haven’t changed, nor has the new nondiscrimination clause’s protections for students. What has changed is the language, and we need to accept that real diversity means allowing different beliefs to coexist, even when they challenge the status quo.
