Bowdoin College recently made headlines for severing official ties with one of its student organizations, the Bowdoin Christian Fellowship, over its advisors’ unwillingness to sign a campus-wide nondiscrimination policy that would prohibit the group from discriminating against potential members and leaders based on gender, race, sexuality ?and religion.
Two narratives have emerged as to why the BCF was required to either sign this policy or disaffiliate. The first narrative, reported by The Bowdoin Orient, is that the advisors refused to sign the policy because of its reference to sexual orientation and feared the possibility of having LGBTQIA leaders, and the students followed suit and disaffiliated. The Orient reported in February that this group has a history of making LGBTQIA students who otherwise identify with BCF’s religious beliefs feel uncomfortable.
If this story is true, I say good riddance to BCF. A campus religious fellowship should be open to learning and interacting with all brothers and sisters in their faith, regardless of sexual orientation. How else would these members fulfill their evangelical obligations and grow spiritually if they would not accept others who seek to worship with them? (Note: Bowdoin’s Muslim, Jewish and Catholic student organizations signed the policy without complaint.)
The other narrative, reported by The New York Times, is that the leaders of BCF refused to sign because of the possibility of having non-Christian leaders. This story has already played out at colleges across the U.S., including the Cal State system and Vanderbilt University. If this is the case, the right course of ?action is murkier.
On one hand, religious nondiscrimination is an admirable goal for society and a standard in nondiscrimination policies everywhere. On the other hand, what would Baptist Campus Ministries look like with a Catholic Bible study leader? What nonreligious student would want to be a member of the Secular Student Alliance if a Hindu led it? An even more perplexing question: How would Presbyterian Church of America student groups react to an influx of Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) – a similar sounding, but ideologically different, branch of the denomination – members attempting to lead it?
While these scenarios are unlikely to arise, which is probably why many campus religious groups have signed similar policies, I understand why some groups would not take the risk of either accepting a leader who does not align with their religion or falling into disciplinary and possibly even legal trouble with their university. I, for one, would be scared to lead or advise a religious group if I could be disciplined for violating university policy by voting against a practitioner of a different faith to succeed me.
I think within these two extremes is a compromise to be made. Require religious groups to sign nondiscrimination policies that include sexual orientation but do not include religion. Thus, the members of these groups would have to learn tolerance and acceptance of their fellow man, but could continue to choose leaders who align with their beliefs, maintain their raison d’etre and will continue moving them in their desired theological direction.
Leigh Terry is a junior majoring in economics. Her column ?runs biweekly.
