This is a response to the Nov. 12 article (“Gays to be banned from legal society.”) First, are there a large number of gay law students clamoring to become officers of the Christian Legal Society? I hardly conceive that this is possible. But the inevitable reply to this line of questioning will be “But it is about principle. They violate the university’s nondiscrimination statement.”
But do they? The statement reads, “All educational programs and activities conducted by Ohio State University Extension are available to all potential clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, sex, age, or Vietnam-era veteran status.” The Christian Legal Society did not vote to exclude gay students from their organization (as your misleading headline implies), it only barred them from becoming leaders or officers. This raises the question of what it means for an organization to allow others to “fully participate.”
Your editorial said that the “investigation into the constitutions of all student groups is in order, to make sure the university is not sponsoring other organizations that close membership to certain groups.” Never mind the fact that gays are not banned from membership – only leadership. Does this mean that men should be able to join sororities and women to join fraternities? Should a college Republican have an equal opportunity to become an officer of the college Democrats? Should the Muslim Students Organization be infiltrated by Jehovah’s Witnesses? Should the Jewish Queers be required to allow Nazis to join and manage their club? This is absolutely absurd. The problem with these sorts of blanket nondiscrimination statements is they lead to crazy results.
If the Christian Legal Society wants to exclude gays from their leadership because it offends their sense of righteousness – I say let them. I do not agree with them, and I find their attempt distinctly un-Christian in character. But I also believe that enforcing the ambiguous nondiscrimination statement leads to worse, even more bizarre results. The idea that by excluding those who engage in homosexual conduct from leadership roles they will then conform to “the highest standards of morality as set forth in Scripture” seems at least a little odd. People should remember when someone called Jesus “Good Master” he replied, “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.” (Mark 10: 18). Perhaps the Christian Legal Society should take some advice from their namesake.
Chris PlanerGraduate Student in the Department of History
