Club leadership legally protected to be exclusive

Things going on in the world only come to my attention on Sundays when I watch Fareed Zakaria’s GPS on CNN with my cup of tea and apple pie.

However, it was my friend who had brought to my attention a certain statement that exists in the leadership application of Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

This application, which is used by the official organization and schools all over the U.S., includes the “FCA Sexual Purity Statement,” worded as one of the “FCA Statements of Morality” in Marshall’s organization. Applicants are asked to conform to the idea that “neither heterosexual sex outside of marriage nor any homosexual act constitute an alternative lifestyle acceptable to God.” Furthermore it says that an applicant who is “found being involved in a lifestyle that does not conform to the FCA’s Statements of morality” is required “to step down from [his or her] leadership position.”

My friend had inititally expressed his discontent with the statement. I myself was surprised by it, because my understanding is that FCA is a multi-denominational organization and that different sects of Christianity view the issue of sexual orientation differently.

In a conversation I had with the Marshall FCA chapter, including the adult leadership of FCA, a representative from the national FCA organization and several student leaders, they emphasized that they are not an anti-gay organization. They explained that a leader— someone who is an “example of Jesus Christ”—needs to represent the “highest level of behavior” and must be held to “Christ’s standards.” FCA described the sexual purity statement as supporting those standards.

This explained the reason for the rule, but my question was still not cleared up as to why heterosexuality could be a core tenet of a model citizen leader of a scholastic club in particular.

Can a religious organization operating on school grounds make a policy specifically reffering to sexual orientation?

Legally, yes. In Hsu v. Roslyn Union Free School District No. 3, an appeals court argued that religious organizations “have an interest in autonomy in ordering their internal affairs, so that they may be free to: ‘select their own leaders, define their own doctrines, resolve their own disputes, and run their own institutions.’” The court made it clear that it does not matter whether the organization is school-based, community-based or nationally based; these guidelines apply to all of them.

So, FCA does have the right to selectively choose leaders based on their core religious beliefs. My objective is not to question or argue against FCA’s religious beliefs, so I will leave it at that. However, the opportunity still exists to consider how else FCA or any organization could define a model student leader.

A school is an institution that supports its ability to give students the optimal freedom to explore all areas of knowledge, and for that optimal freedom students should not be restricted from it. Thus, when a school organization formally disapproves of a student’s belief, such as his or her view on sexual orientation, they are restricting his or her opportunity to exercise their freedom in exploring the leadership of a club. Even in an organization with religious ties, I believe that a model student leader should be distinguished by how he or she acts, what he or she does, and how he or she contributes to the specific school community. I propose that school organizations should not be allowed to consider characteristics of a student’s lifestyle unless they affect his or her presence in school in some way or another.

An organization should really make sure a student does not cheat, lie or do anything illegal on school grounds. The evidence considered by school organizations should be limited to students’ actions that come to the school’s attention if and when it is actually affecting the school.