The Government of the Student Body passed a resolution proposed by Sen. Jacob Johnston to retain religious symbols in the Memorial Union Chapel, which includes an 8-foot-high Christian cross situated in front of the space, carved Christian crosses on two sides of each pew, a small Star of David and menorah on the stained-glass windows and a small Islamic prayer shawl.

Some critical questions remain: What are officially sanctioned and maintained religious symbols doing in a publicly supported, land grant university? Do these symbols not violate the separation of religion and government clause of the U.S. Constitution by promoting primarily one and, to a lesser extent, two other forms of religion over all others?

Some senators in favor of retaining the symbols invoked tradition as their justification, insisting it is a part of our past and should not be changed. Looking over the history of the United States, people appealed to tradition to maintain the institution of slavery and anti-miscegenation and segregation statutes, to deny women the vote, to lock out same-sex couples from the institution of marriage, to preserve the waving of the Confederate flag atop the South Carolina state capitol building and many other examples.

Senator Johnston added, “The [MU] library symbolizes education, and the chapel, religion, which are the roots of patriotism.” Using his argument, then, would atheists and agnostics not be considered patriotic? What about followers of faiths not included in religious representations within the chapel? Would they not be considered patriotic? Would, on the other hand, Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, who professed a deep Christian faith, be considered patriotic? As we can see, linking religiosity with patriotism is problematic at best.

Rather than remove religious symbols, the GSB resolution proposed “that all students [are] welcome to add their own religious items into the Memorial Union Chapel in a respectful and conscientious manner.” Since there are more than 5,000 world religions, which symbols do we include? All? If so, no space would remain for people. Some? Then which ones? Do we place the holy Hindu Swastika next to the Star of David and the Islamic Crescent next to the Cross? A few of my students believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Who is to tell them they cannot add their symbols to the chapel walls?

By officially promoting religion, in very real ways we are marginalizing members of the university community who do not adhere to these faith backgrounds. While these religious symbols may be comforting to some, for others they can trigger negative emotions and collective memory of the long history of religious conflict and persecution, for history is rife with religious clashes and wars. What some people may consider neutral religious symbols, to others represent symbols of repression and terror. How welcoming is a space, then, which displays objects that potentially evoke past emotional wounds?

If students want to reflect in the presence of their religious objects, why not simply bring into the space a symbol of their choice and take it with them as they exit, rather than having the university officially sponsoring such symbols? This presents a reasonable and appropriate option, which, if accepted, could continue to provide a space for individuals who wish to behold their religious symbols of choice, while providing a place of respite for those who prefer the freedom to enter the room without the imposition of university-endorsed religious icons. This option I base on the presumption that religion and a connection to the divine, as well as the choice not to believe, involve a personal relationship and belief system and a choice that should be left to the individual.

GSB Sen. Jacob Wilson submitted an alternative resolution, one that would have contributed to the goal of inclusion and the promotion of real diversity on our campus. He supported the renovation of the current chapel into a religiously neutral, non-denominational space for students and staff to enter for reflection and respite.

The GSB, however, by passing Senator Johnston’s resolution, lost a valuable opportunity to create a truly welcoming and inclusive space for all members of the ISU community.

– Warren Blumenfeld is an associate professor of multicultural and international curriculum studies