Cornell Insider Staff
Oliver Renick
Joe Bonica
Lucia Rafanelli
Hannah MacLean
Peter Bouris
lukepolicastro
zjw5
Anthony
Brendan Patrick Devine
Sam Pell
kmccaffrey
Greg Stein
Michael Alan
nkantro
Alfonse Muglia
Cornell_Karim
R. Patrick McCaffrey
dillonhickman
Jonathan Jaffe
Roberto Matos
Kushagra Aniket
L.R. Conrad
Roshni Mehta
I’m not sure if this is overall a good thing, or overall a bad thing.
It seems that the writers over at the Daily Stun have taken to my article ‘Staring into the Sun‘ that I published two weeks ago. (My original article was a response to a ridiculous Sun editorial on Chi Alpha’s ‘discrimination’ case). Since I wrote the article two weeks ago, there have been two editorials, and one letter to the editor, that echo the very same points that I bring up.
What can we conclude from this? 1) The situation is overwhelmingly simple. 2) You should read Cornell Insider more often. 3) Maybe we writers at the Cornell Review aren’t that crazy after all… Here are some examples of the similarities:
The Stun is trying to specify which of a group’s beliefs are compatible with Cornell’s political / social atmosphere
Mike Wacker’s ‘With Us Or…It’s discrimination:’
It is an entirely different argument to say that Cornell should pick and choose a posteriori which religious organizations it will fund based on how socially acceptable their doctrines are. Such discrimination amounts to the state imposing its views on the church, threatening freedom of religion.
Judah Bellin’s ‘Discussing the Multiple Dimensions of Discrimination:’
By forbidding member groups from practicing their beliefs, then, you have precluded their “freedom of expression.” Chi Alpha cannot be said to be privy to this freedom if they cannot make policy consonant with their beliefs.
John Cetta’s ‘Letter to the Editor:’
Freedom of association requires groups be free to limit their leadership to those who belief in the founding tenets of their group, however unsavory those beliefs may be.
My article:
In essence, they oppose a religious group upholding their religious beliefs. What the writers really find objectionable and regressive, then, are the specific beliefs of the religion. They believe student groups acting on such beliefs are contradictory to Cornell’s mission and are deserving of castigation. (follow the jump for more examples.)
