For the Advancement of Post-Modern Tolerance. I've seen several stories on this, and keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. It always seems as though there is something missing, something that makes the story seem less inflamed than headlines and cable news reports suggest. But so far? Nope.
It looks as if Vanderbilt - perhaps from stupidity, perhaps self-righteousness, perhaps because of a deep hatred of non-Secular Leftist religious belief, perhaps because of all three - has basically said Christian groups must disband or eliminate the provision in their constitutions that say leaders in their [Christian] groups are expected to lead prayers and Bible studies. Supposedly this is to protect all those atheists, non-Christians, and others who want to be officers in those groups but who don't want to be forced to pray or lead Bible studies.
I know. That's idiocy. Well, it takes idiocy for political correctness or any censorship to gain a foothold. It also takes prejudice and bigotry. Given the state of our higher educational systems today, I'm not against allowing for any of those possibilities.
Nevertheless, so far Vanderbilt has been slow on taking to the microphones and explaining just what it going on here. It answers in typical, shallow talking points, a few mantras of PC era group think, and that's about it. If all Vanderbilt has to say is what I've read and heard, it's clearly a case of singling out a lone religious tradition and invoking censorship in the harshest and most flagrant manner imaginable.
Of course smart 21st century enlightened information highway thinkers should rise up in one voice and condemn such flagrant oppression and Marxist (heh) style punishment of wrong think. But I'm not optimistic about that. Given the tenor of today's debate, I fear there are many who will cheer such maneuvers. Either they don't care and are happy to see such heavy handed oppression of not-them type people, or they've bought into the LIE that the First Amendment says 'Congress shall establish a secular leftists state of conformity to good think by brutally oppressing and censoring any religious thought or practice that fails to conform to the Glorious Dogmas thereof.'
My real hope is that there is something in the details we haven't heard that will explain it better. Either it was a mistake on Vanderbilt's side, or there is some trivia not yet heard. But Vanderbilt's own silence and sparse responses make that less and less likely with each telling of the tale.