PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE

Commissioners’ Statements
91
abstain from sex outside of heterosexual marriage. 236 In some cases, university administrators
have taken issue with the requirement that full members and officers abstain from sex outside of
heterosexual marriage, arguing that it discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and
therefore violates the school’s nondiscrimination policy (which is sometimes presented as an
“accept all comers” policy). 237 Universities have taken this position even though the requirement
to abstain from sex outside of heterosexual marriage is directed at conduct, not sexual orientation
per se, and applies to people of all sexual orientations. 238 Oddly, according to public comments,
universities have often taken these adverse actions against Christian student groups even though
there is no aggrieved student who has been denied a leadership role in the group based on these
criteria. 239
The leaders of student organizations were required to sign an affirmation of the non-discrimination policy. The
student leaders of Vanderbilt Catholic could not in conscience sign the affirmation since religious criteria are the most
important ones for leadership in the organization. … The result is there is no registered Catholic student organization
at Vanderbilt.
See, e.g., InterVarsity Christian Fellowship at Grinnell College, Comment to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (2013)
(on file with the Commission); InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, formerly at Rollins College, Comment to U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights (2013) (on file with the Commission)..
236
See CLS v. Martinez, 130 S.Ct. 2971, 2980-81 (2010).
237
Id. at 2979-81; see also Vanderbilt University, Comment to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (2013) (on file
with the Commission) (“Those [religious] groups have determined that they want to be able to discriminate against
other students on the basis of students’ protected status by restricting students’ eligibility for membership and to run
for leadership positions.”); Carol M. Swain, Comment to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights at 1 (Feb. 27, 2013) (on file
with the Commission). (“After months of framing the issue around its “non-discrimination” policy, the university
made a sudden switch and began referring to the new policy as an “all-comers.””).
238
Jessica Laporte, Why I am a leader in TCF, TUFTS DAILY, Dec. 10, 2012 (submitted as part of InterVarsity at Tufts
University Comment to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights) (on file with the Commission).
I am a woman who is attracted to both men and women, which is something I finally had the courage to accept and
see in my life. Before understanding my unconditional acceptance by God, I was unwilling to admit that I was
attracted to women because I was afraid of what that would mean for my life.
I believe that God intended sex between one man and one woman in the context of marriage, and therefore, I will
remain sexually chaste for the rest of my life or until I get married. This means that I will not date a woman….
Although my orientation is not strictly “heterosexual,” I am a leader in TCF because of my beliefs about what God
intended for relationships. I am not a leader in TCF because I “chose to be straight” but because I have chosen to deny
myself in all things and take up my cross daily in order to follow Christ.
It is difficult to hear people speaking out against TCF as an unsafe space for LGBT students, because it’s actually one
of the only places that I feel comfortable discussing my sexuality.
239
American Center for Law and Justice and Alliance Defending Freedom, Comment to the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, at 2 (2013) (on file with the Commission).
The universities will typically claim that religious organizations are discriminating on the basis of religion—if the
group requires its leaders to be Christians—and/or sexual orientation if the group requires that its leaders abide by a
code of conduct that includes Biblical sexual ethics. Crucially, this claim will be made generally without any
complaint of discrimination against the group. In other words, the group will be deemed “discriminatory” in the
absence of a single identifiable victim of the group’s alleged discrimination.