Protection against discrimination is essential at any institution of higher learning. It provides a welcoming environment that promotes a quality educational experience and diverse exchange of ideas.

Iowa State has consistently stood by this belief. Its nondiscrimination policy prohibits discrimination “that adversely affects employment or education” toward individuals or groups of individuals on the basis of race, sexual orientation, religion and other protected classes.

Additionally, a Government of the Student Body commission drafted the Principles of Community in response to derogatory graffiti found on campus in July 2005. The proposal reinforces ISU policy by calling for an “atmosphere free from discrimination.” It will be formally adopted this fall and has been endorsed by the GSB, Director of ISU Public Safety Jerry Stewart, Ames Police Chief Loras Jaeger and a number of committees and organizations.

Recently, however, another proposal – the Student Organization Recognition Policy – has generated controversy by insisting that religious organizations on campus be allowed varying degrees of exemption from ISU policy. If approved, the SORP would allow these organizations to exclude individuals who fail to subscribe to the organizations’ religious beliefs from membership, contradicting current ISU policy and the Principles of Community.

The SORP proposal has concerned many students and groups on campus who fear it would reflect poorly on Iowa State’s commitment to nondiscrimination. The Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Ally Alliance is leading a charge through outreach, letter writing and a petition drive to prevent its approval.

Unfortunately, the campaign has been mischaracterized as one of gays versus religion, in part because of a statement in an early version of the petition that specifically referenced the SORP proposal. The LGBTAA has repeatedly stressed that it is opposed to any violation of Iowa State’s nondiscrimination policy, a clarification present in the petition’s newest revision.

The problem with the SORP proposal is not that it permits religious groups to discriminate based on sincerely held religious beliefs. On the contrary, Iowa State would be in direct violation of these groups’ constitutional right to freedom of speech were it to prohibit the expression of their views.

Instead, a problem arises because recognized student organizations are registered affiliates of iowa State. Their use of discriminatory membership practices, therefore, would in effect be endorsed by the university – a direct contradiction to its desired image of inclusiveness reflected in its policy.

Just as the Black Student Alliance cannot prevent white students from joining its organization on the basis of race, an ISU-sanctioned religious organization should not be allowed to deny membership to a gay student.

Not only that, but nonpartisan student organizations are eligible for GSB funding provided they comply with ISU policy. Should the SORP be approved, Iowa State could find itself providing money to groups with practices antithetical to its stated beliefs.

This concern was addressed in a GSB Senate bylaw recently passed in an attempt to prevent funding of discriminatory organizations.

One argument among proponents of the SORP proposal is that all student organizations already practice discrimination due to inherent necessity. The Salt Company, for example, denies leadership roles to Jewish and Muslim students, which could easily be interpreted as an unenforced violation of ISU policy.

However, student organizations have the right to deny membership to those who do not have a sincere interest in their cause, as sincerity is not a protected class under ISU nondiscrimination policy. Even if a non-Christian Salt Company member did profess a sincere leadership interest, it is unlikely that he or she would be voted into a leadership position.

If the prior court cases proponents of the SORP proposal have presented are any indication, Iowa State may soon find itself in the middle of a legal battle. Christian Legal Society v. Walker (2006) ruled that “[r]evocation of recognition would impermissibly infringe on the organization’s right of expressive association, and the action may itself discriminate on the basis of religious viewpoint” at Southern Illinois University.

This ruling demands appeal. If religious organizations are allowed to practice selective membership, why should other organizations be denied the privilege on the basis of race, religion or any other protected class? It sets an unhealthy precedent based on the weak argument that discriminatory practices should be recognized, while discrimination of these discriminatory practices should not.

It is important to mention that each individual in the ISU community can provide input on this issue by contacting their GSB senators – the GSB has a significant impact through its recommendations on policy proposals.

It is in the greater interest of the ISU community that the SORP proposal not be approved. Now is the time to act.

– Gavin Aronsen is a junior in pre-journalism and mass communication from Ankeny.