Respecting religious student groups

Last semester, the Duke Student Government Senate discussed an amendment to the Student Organization Finance Committee (SOFC) bylaw that proposed exempting religious organizations from holding democratic elections to decide their executive leadership. The amendment was tabled at that time, but has recently been brought back to the attention of the Senate. The proposed amendment should be opposed not only because the given justifications don’t make sense, but also because it reinforces dangerous ideas about the role of religion in civil society, namely that religious groups are exempt from standards that we uphold for our general society.

First off, framing this as a debate on the role of democratic processes within religious groups is a red herring. This amendment was proposed as a reaction to more stringent requirements imposed by the SOFC on student organizations following the Duke College Republicans (DCR) scandal last year. These requirements, such as requiring every organization to have a president and a treasurer and specifying election procedures in their constitution, were not out of some high-minded dedication to democratic ideals but for increased accountability for student groups that receive funding from SOFC. For example, though it has been argued that current bylaws somehow impose democracy on otherwise unwilling religious groups, a student group committed to horizontal participatory democracy could much more reasonably oppose current bylaws because the required hierarchy is in fact anti-democratic. What the bylaws do set out to do is standardize the structure of student groups in a way that makes it easier to hold student leaders and entire groups accountable for their behaviors.

The real issue at stake here isn’t so much democratic elections as it is special treatment of religious groups. By not proposing changes applicable to all student groups, the amendment would in effect hold religious groups to a different standard of accountability. Some reasons have been put forth as to why religious groups deserve exceptional treatment, but none are convincing.

Simply saying that religious groups are special is not significant. Every recognized or chartered group is checked for redundancy before being approved, so in a way every group is special. The question is what’s special about religious groups that afford them special treatment with regards to election procedures?

One could try to make an argument based on religious tolerance... that current bylaws are offensive to some religious sensibilities. It has been argued that they are insensitive to “Eastern” religions that may have a different view on democracy. This could maybe start to be a convincing argument except for the fact that the only religious groups found not acting in accordance with current bylaws were associated with Christian traditions. Not to mention it also completely generalizes and otherizes all non-Christian religions. OK, so it’s offensive to certain Christian groups that hold a particular view on how religious hierarchies are supposed to be structured. The problem with that argument is that SOFC bylaws won’t affect how someone’s church is structured, only a student group; so no one’s religion is being discriminated against.

Even if one were to still construe this as religious discrimination, it doesn’t matter. Student groups are all held to a certain standard, whether that is non-discrimination or standards of accountability. For example, just as I would be uncomfortable on a campus where a group, citing religious values, could decide to expel someone based on their sexual orientation, I would not want a campus where certain groups are held to different standards of accountability based on their affiliation with a religion.

Another argument put forth is that, de facto, religious groups are already structured differently, especially in regards to the role of their advisers. This argument is barely valid since all groups were possibly structured differently before the DCR scandal, and it’s this fact that necessitated the bylaws in the first place. The observation that advisers often play a larger role in religious groups doesn’t help the case either. If we want to foster healthy student groups, encouraging advisers to continue to play larger roles—to the point of possibly allowing them to appoint officers instead of having them elected by their peers—diminishes the role of students in organizing themselves.

One of the most rewarding aspects of religious life groups on campus—having served on the executive board of one during my time here—is the ability for students to independently explore what faith traditions and spirituality mean for themselves. There’s nothing wrong if advisers happen to play a larger role in certain groups, as long as their role stays as one of an adviser.