Pseudo Tolerance

Our culture today has become overtly focused on tolerance. In a way tolerance has become king, in the sense that if we do anything whether in action or deed that is viewed as intolerant we are encouraged, or even forced to abandon that belief or action in the name of tolerance. The odd thing missing from all of this, is how intolerant such a forced tolerance has become.

In Colorado Springs a Ratio Christi Chapter has been told by the University of Colorado that they cannot force their officers to have a profession of religious faith in the name of tolerance or ‘non-discrimination’. Similarly, Intervarsity has been told a similar thing by Vanderbilt University[1]. In essence Universities are now telling religious organizations that they are allowed the benefits of being a recognized student organization so long as they have they accept all students even if a students goal is diametrically opposed to the organization. Keep in mind these organizations are not limiting students attending their organization if they have different views but simply does not allow them to be members or perhaps just not hold positions of leadership.

If these policies are applied equally across the board a group representing Black Lives matter, could not limit a member of the KKK to become their president. Muslim groups which believe Women should wear a Hijab could not limit a woman wearing a bikini to the meetings to become a member or officer. LGBT groups could not limit a someone of homophobic view from becoming an active or leading member of the group.

If Christian organizations like Intervarsity or Christian challenge can’t limit it’s leadership to the goals and beliefs of it’s organization neither can these organizations limit its leadership by the same merit. But this is absurd. Of course a group should be able to limit the leadership of it’s organization to fit the vision and mission that it has. I would not expect to be allowed to lead the Muslim organization on campus, and I shouldn’t. It isn’t intolerant to limit me in that. If the group limits me from attending meetings this may be another issue, but this isn’t what these issues are.

In the end tolerance is not tolerance outright but intolerance of those who believe differently. Even Colorado State University recently limited the Students for Life group from bringing in a pro-life speaker because the speaker did not agree with the majority of students views. Ironically, funds that are set aside for registered student organizations like Students for Life come from a diversity grant. If it is a diversity grant shouldn’t a speaker who is bringing a diverse rather than majority view on an issue be exactly the type of speaker that money is used for? Instead it seems the diversity grant isn’t to encourage and diversity of views but rather a support of the majority view and not the diverse.

Oddly enough this is what universities are saying ‘we are tolerant of everyone so long as they are tolerant of everyone, in that case we aren’t tolerant of them’. Sound like a double standard much?


Info on Intervarsity at Vanderbilt:  https://intervarsityatvanderbilt.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/an-open-letter/
Also: http://vanderbilt.edu/about/nondiscrimination/intervarsity-letter.php

Info on Students for Life at CSU:
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/18/pro-life-student-group-sues-csu-campus-speaker-grant/

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s