Johns Hopkins’ commitment to “diversity” doesn’t include pro-lifers
Johns Hopkins University’s Student Government Association has denied Voice for Life [an anti-abortion student group] status as a recognized student group, for two reasons: VFL’s website links to other organizations that display graphic images of aborted babies. And VFL plans to engage in peaceful, quiet “sidewalk counseling” outside a local abortion clinic, which the SGA considers “harassment.”
Hopkins’ student conduct code enjoins students “to protect the university as a forum for the free expression of ideas.”…
Suppose such SGA-recognized student groups as the Arab Students Organization, the Black Student Union, the Hopkins Feminists or the Diverse Sexuality and Gender Alliance were to link their websites to provocative outside organizations, or were to counsel people not to patronize firms with policies those groups oppose. Would the SGA want to deny them recognition as student groups? Of course not. Obviously, the SGA has acted to express animus against the content of VFL’s speech, and to protect students from the discomfort of disagreement.
… [A]n SGA member says pro-life demonstrations make her feel “personally violated, targeted and attacked at a place where we previously felt safe and free to live our lives.” If encountering ideas she does not share makes her feel this way, she is unsuited to a proper academic setting. She may, however, be suited to Hopkins, which should be embarrassed, if it still can be.
Hopkins’ institutional intolerance would be boring were it simply redundant evidence of academia’s commitment to diversity in everything but thought. It is, however, indicative of the increasingly extreme ambitions and tactics of those operating under the anodyne rubric of “choice.”
~ George Will, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, April 6
Note: The Thomas More Law Center is now helping the pro-life group.
[Photo via Voice for Life]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I am glad to see the term anti-abortion used on this site. It should send a message (to Catholics, and all denominations of Christianity), that it is a term that applies to us. It is a happy term. Since we acknowledge that abortion is in fact murder, it is the same as saying: we are anti-murdering-babies!
Not surprised …we don’t fit in with their pro death scene
Ideas make her feel “personally violated”? Reminds me of women who protested abolitionist meetings and literature being dispersed because they couldn’t bear to deal with the reality that slaveowners were raping the women they owned, selling the biracial children they owned, and beating, sometimes to death, the men they owned.
Reality sucks, for sure.
Every day it is becoming increasingly clear there is little to no difference between “progressive statists” and radical Islamic fundamentalists. While they may appear to have doctrinal differences, their tactics are the same – to stifle any kind of other perspective, and if the backlash is not too severe, to do so violently.
Let’s help the pro-choicers out with their identity crisis and begin to call the pro-choice gang anti-lifers – not only to define them as in opposition to pro-lifers, but as people who don’t like life in the womb. The “anti-lifer” tag is about as accurate as the “anti-choice” tag. The sad thing is the anti-lifers might actually celebrate their new name.
I like this concluding paragraph by Mr. Will:
“Planned Parenthood, which receives more than $500 million in government subsidies, is branching out, expanding its mission beyond the provision of abortions to the defense of consumers’ rights: If you pay for an abortion, you are owed a dead baby.”
“[A]n SGA member says pro-life demonstrations make her feel “personally violated…”
Reminds me of a prior thread where I believe it was Heather who said often people who vehemently oppose pro-life demonstrations have an abortion in their past or someone near to them. Certainly sounds like the case here. Well said Heather.
I really dislike it when people try to stifle free speech and demonstration. Isn’t Hopkins a private university though? If they are, they can stifle as they please, but it’s pretty silly that they are pretending to be diverse when they actively disregard viewpoints they don’t like.
…make her feel “personally violated, targeted and attacked at a place where we previously felt safe and free to live our lives.”
Wow, I’m amazed that a pro-choicer would echo the sentiments of a child, about to be aborted.
JackBorsch, they are ‘private’ but they accept federal program dollars, making them ‘public’ and responsible to the nondiscrimination laws.
“JackBorsch, they are ‘private’ but they accept federal program dollars, making them ‘public’ and responsible to the nondiscrimination laws.”
Where do you come up with this stuff? Seriously? A private institution does not surrender its right to freedom of association upon receiving government money (which is why the federally funded Boy Scouts can still ban gay scoutmasters).
Even the Thomas More Law Center’s letter to JHU (which basically says, in so many words: “awww, come on! Come oooooon! No fair!”) admits as much: “Although Johns Hopkins, as a private university, is not prevented from adopting speech-
restrictive policies that a court would hold unconstitutional if adopted by a public university, it has nevertheless promoted itself as an institution of free expression and thought.”
“peaceful, quiet “sidewalk counseling” outside a local abortion clinic, which the SGA considers “harassment.” - yes, about this ‘sidewalk counselling’. Counselling is something that people seek out. Providing it in public, unrequested, is tantamount to harassment or at the least public nuisance.
“Would the SGA want to deny them recognition as student groups? Of course not.” – how do you know that?
“personally violated, targeted and attacked at a place where we previously felt safe and free to live our lives.” If encountering ideas she does not share makes her feel this way, she is unsuited to a proper academic setting“- a ‘proper academic setting’ will contain a spectrum of ideas. That’s one thing. Causing someone to feel threatened or unsafe is quite another.
“Hopkins, which should be embarrassed” – yeah yeah. Liberty, Biola etc.
“Causing someone to feel threatened or unsafe is quite another.”
Hence the point — if being exposed to the display of a contrary viewpoint makes you feel threatened or unsafe, you’re not intellectually mature enough for an institution of higher learning.
yes, about this ‘sidewalk counselling’. Counselling is something that people seek out.
No, counselling is simply giving someone advice. That is what sidewalk counselling entails.
Providing it in public, unrequested, is tantamount to harassment
It is not harassment, unless you would also consider telemarketing and handing out flyers in a non-aggressive manner forms of harassment. And the university administration agrees on this point.
or at the least public nuisance.
That’s ridiculous.
how do you know that?
Well, the student government approved a chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, an organization at least as controversial in all respects.
Causing someone to feel threatened or unsafe is quite another.
See Eric’s post. He said it well.
yeah yeah. Liberty, Biola etc.
Still reflects poorly on Hopkins’ part, and the fact that some other universities might have dubious policies does nothing to change this.
“a contrary viewpoint makes you feel threatened or unsafe”
Hence the point – it’s not the viewpoint, it’s the methods by which it’s delivered. Academic debate is one thing, harassment, haranguing and impeding people in the public space is quite another.
“No, counselling is simply giving someone advice. That is what sidewalk counselling entails.” – no, counselling is advice given when it’s asked for. Otherwise it’s intervention, or intrusion. Let’s face it, ‘sidewalk counselling’ is nothing more than unwarranted and unwelcome street preaching.
“the university administration agrees on this point.” – only because it’s identified as ‘off-campus’ activity which won’t create an intimidating, hostile or offensive academic environment.
“That’s ridiculous.” – not at all. Their presence is unwelcome.
“an organization at least as controversial in all respects.” – that’s easy to say but how did they operate compared to the VFL, that’s the point.
“See Eric’s post. He said it well.” – not really. See above.
“Still reflects poorly on Hopkins’ part” – no it doesn’t. It’s all quite clear and equitable.
“and the fact that some other universities might have dubious policies does nothing to change this” – somewhat more than ‘dubious’ I think.
You know, most prestigious schools usually do allow some kind of university-recognized “pro-life” student organization or club. Is JHU vastly less tolerant of the pro-life position than Princeton or Yale, for example? I doubt it. It’s just that Princeton’s pro-life club probably doesn’t embarrass the school by holding up signs outside of local abortion clinics. Why would Johns Hopkins want to put its seal of approval on that?
Academic debate is one thing, harassment, haranguing and impeding people in the public space is quite another.
…which VFL already pledged they aren’t going to do.
no, counselling is advice given when it’s asked for.
That’s simply not the case.
only because it’s identified as ‘off-campus’ activity which won’t create an intimidating, hostile or offensive academic environment.
Then the group’s activities don’t violate the university’s policies, and it should not be denied status as a student organization.
not at all. Their presence is unwelcome.
Unwelcome by whom? As a member of the general public, I certainly welcome it. It’s ridiculous to propose that constitutionally protected free speech is “harassment” or “public nuisance” because some people might not like what they hear on a public sidewalk.
that’s easy to say but how did they operate compared to the VFL, that’s the point.
Their activities include “draw[ing] attention to what is occurring in Palestine” (which is no less controversial than drawing attention to what happens inside abortion clinics). They also encourage boycotts, and have disrupted exams at other universities.
It’s all quite clear and equitable.
Not according to the author of the SGA Constitution, and not according to the relevant documents.
You know, most prestigious schools usually do allow some kind of university-recognized “pro-life” student organization or club. Is JHU vastly less tolerant of the pro-life position than Princeton or Yale, for example? I doubt it. It’s just that Princeton’s pro-life club probably doesn’t embarrass the school by holding up signs outside of local abortion clinics. Why would Johns Hopkins want to put its seal of approval on that?
Several other elite schools do have pro-life clubs that do protests in front of abortion clinics. To list a few:
MIT
Stanford
University of Pennsylvania
“…which VFL already pledged they aren’t going to do.” – yes, well….they would wouldn’t they. Of course they don’t consider what they do as being harassing, haranguing and impeding, they consider that they are right and everyone else is wrong therefore they are innocent.
“That’s simply not the case.” – the definition you cite doesn’t support your claim.
“Then the group’s activities don’t violate the university’s policies” – there was more to it – remember.
“Unwelcome by whom?” – pro-choice people, people attending the clinics, people trying to use the sidewalk for its intended purpose.
“As a member of the general public, I certainly welcome it.” – that’s because you’d be happy to join them.
“It’s ridiculous to propose that constitutionally protected free speech is “harassment” or “public nuisance” because some people might not like what they hear on a public sidewalk.” – ah but there’s more going on that just that which is heard.
“draw[ing] attention to what is occurring in Palestine” – yes but how do they do so. (are you quoting from somewhere here?)
“which is no less controversial than drawing attention to what happens inside abortion clinics” – says who? And what about bunkum propaganda like ‘which features images of aborted preborn babies, as well as Holocaust victims, and victims of lynching’.
“Not according to the author of the SGA Constitution” – that would be someone not in possession of all the current information on which the matter is being decided then, right?
“and not according to the relevant documents.” – says who?
yes, well….they would wouldn’t they. Of course they don’t consider what they do as being harassing, haranguing and impeding, they consider that they are right and everyone else is wrong therefore they are innocent.
Projection much?
Those words have specific meanings, all of which refer to aggression, yelling at people, or blocking. That’s simply not what VFL does.
the definition you cite doesn’t support your claim.
It doesn’t imply that counselling must be “asked for”. Nor have you provided a source for your claim.
there was more to it – remember.
Yes. Sidewalk counselling and a link on a website.
pro-choice people, people attending the clinics
Why are they more important than pro-life people or opponents of the clinic?
people trying to use the sidewalk for its intended purpose.
Who has been prevented from using a sidewalk by VFL?
that’s because you’d be happy to join them.
Not really, it’s probably not where my talents lie. I do support their work to save babies scheduled for death though.
ah but there’s more going on that just that which is heard.
How?
says who?
64% of Americans are pro-Israel, which is much more than the fraction of Americans that identify as pro-choice. Supporters of Israel could of course be completely wrong, which is all the more reason to allow free speech on campuses.
And what about bunkum propaganda like ‘which features images of aborted preborn babies, as well as Holocaust victims, and victims of lynching’.
It’s on a separate website. And why is that worse than newspapers sold on campus with graphic pictures on them, or comparing the situation in Palestine to the South African apartheid?
that would be someone not in possession of all the current information on which the matter is being decided then, right?
What’s information do you think he’s missing?
says who?
This image speaks for itself.
Looks like democracy won in the end.
https://www.facebook.com/jhuvoiceforlife/posts/159674794194777
“Looks like democracy won in the end.
https://www.facebook.com/jhuvoiceforlife/posts/159674794194777“
I wish I could like this 1000 times!
“That’s simply not what VFL does.” -projection much?
“It doesn’t imply that counselling must be “asked for” – ‘Advice or guidance, especially as solicited from a knowledgeable person’ – ‘a person trained to give guidance on personal or psychological problems’ – “professional guidance of the individual” - that would exclude your bunch then, unless you would also consider telemarketing and handing out flyers to be ‘counselling’ too. I don’t know too many people who would consider unrequested opinion to be ‘counselling’.
“a link on a website” - a number of links, one of which included images of aborted preborn babies, as well as Holocaust victims, and victims of lynching.
“Why are they more important…” – I didn’t say they were. It was my answer to your question “Unwelcome by whom?. But I do think that customers of a legitimate business are a little more important than a bunch of self-appointed pests who want to stop them from seeking the services they are entitled to.
“How?” – you’ve probably seen more evidence of that than I have.
“64% of Americans are pro-Israel, which is much more than the fraction of Americans that identify as pro-choice” – leaving aside the fact that of those who ‘identify’ as ‘pro-life’ many are actually only ‘pro-life’ until it impacts on them and theirs or if it’s you know, really important for someone to have an abortion if they need to; if the Israel/Palestine question is “…no less controversial than drawing attention to what happens inside abortion clinics”, how come there isn’t anything the same level of activity in the public arena?
“What’s(sic) information do you think he’s missing?” – well I don’t know, do you?
“This image speaks for itself” – how is that one of the relevant documents? You claimed “Not according to the author of the SGA Constitution, and not according to the relevant documents.”
that would exclude your bunch then, unless you would also consider telemarketing and handing out flyers to be ‘counselling’ too.
Not necessarily, but I don’t know too many people would consider them ‘harassment’.
I don’t know too many people who would consider unrequested opinion to be ‘counselling’.
It isn’t too much of a stretch if you think about what it actually entails (ie getting someone to stop and talk to you, asking open questions, listening to their concerns and offering free information and guidance, directing them to more extensive resources, etc). It’s certainly closer to counselling than it is to harassment.
a number of links, one of which included images of aborted preborn babies, as well as Holocaust victims, and victims of lynching.
And only the one link was in question.
But I do think that customers of a legitimate business are a little more important than a bunch of self-appointed pests who want to stop them from seeking the services they are entitled to.
Then your issue is with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, not any pro-life group.
you’ve probably seen more evidence of that than I have.
I’ll leave that to you then…
leaving aside the fact that of those who ‘identify’ as ‘pro-life’ many are actually only ‘pro-life’ until it impacts on them and theirs or if it’s you know, really important for someone to have an abortion if they need to
And the data does show that people tend to practice what they preach.
if the Israel/Palestine question is “…no less controversial than drawing attention to what happens inside abortion clinics”, how come there isn’t anything the same level of activity in the public arena?
Come again?
well I don’t know, do you?
Hey, you brought it up. I never tried to deny that he knows what he’s talking about.
how is that one of the relevant documents?
It explains the rationale for the decision, and it sheds light on the question of whether or not it was “clear and equitable”.
leaving aside the fact that of those who ‘identify’ as ‘pro-life’ many are actually only ‘pro-life’ until it impacts on them and theirs or if it’s you know, really important for someone to have an abortion if they need to
I find this personally insulting. Sorry to burst your bubble, Irony, but been there, done that, got the t-shirt and the 10 year old.
@Joan, didn’t have time to respond last night. To be eligible to receive federal funding private organizations must follow a list of requirements, one being a ‘nondiscrimination’ clause (among many others). This is why there have been several college campus groups (of course all Christian, no one is objecting to other religions) which have lost their position recently because these private-but-government-funded institutions have decided that having it in your bylaws that your members must abide by the faith of the group is discriminatory. It’s why hospitals which receive federal dollars must be nondiscriminatory and must abide by federal consciencious objection laws. We’ve even specifically discussed that issue on these boards in the past with the pro-abort side overwelmingly saying they think if ‘private’ hospitals want to object to refering for abortion/abortion/prescribing contraceptives, etc they should just stop accepting federal money, because they know it comes with strings attatched and it’s not fair calling ‘religious objection’ after they’ve accepted the money. The reason why the Boy Scouts famously won the right to be exclusively when so many other groups have lost is because they do not accept federal funding earmarked with nondiscrimination requirements. Since federal monies are highly vauled by colleges almost all of them accept federal funds, and the strings that comes with them. Most recently there has been a bit of a comotion regarding the new ‘string’ requiring all federall funded colleges to use the lesser ‘preponderance of evidence’ in their on-campus sexual assault court cases, instead of the long-standing legal requirement of ‘beyond a resonable doubt’ or even the long-used ‘clear and convincing’.
“Most recently there has been a bit of a comotion regarding the new ‘string’ requiring all federall funded colleges to use the lesser ‘preponderance of evidence’ in their on-campus sexual assault court cases, instead of the long-standing legal requirement of ‘beyond a resonable doubt’ or even the long-used ‘clear and convincing’.”
What is “on-campus sexual assault” cases? Are these alleged rapes or sexual assaults that aren’t reporting to the proper authorities, just campus? Or is it the process for expelling someone accused of these crimes?
Jack, it’s and/or/both depending upon the college actually. In some colleges it’s ‘merely’ a disciplinary commity that rules on what, if any, disciplinary action should be taken given an alleged crime. The problem exists where many campuses ‘strongly urge’ or even require that both the victim and accused consider this biding arbitration for the alleged assault and agree *not* to contact the police. Students have been disciplined by colleges for filing police charges after agreeing to the college’s courts (even at least one case where the accused, found innocent by the college was found guilty by the police but his victim was brought before the discipline council for ‘slander’ and found guilty because, as far as the college was concerned, her attacker had already been found innocent). It’s a mess of a thing. Heavily pushed by colleges as the ‘prefered’ way for victims to seek justice it’s strongly pushed on victims of on-campus assaults so the college can keep it’s reported rapes/assaults low since then the crimes won’t be turned over to police. it’s now weighed in favor of alleged victims (by preponderance of the evidence standards) but are, of course, unable to do more than expell a ‘guilty’ rapist, so even if a guilty party is guilty, the victim receives no real justice. But likewise a falsely accused person is also allowed no legal counsel, may have to defend himself against the same charge repeatedly (because federal requirements state there must be a way to appeal on behalf of the victim a ‘not guilty’ verdict), and, if the victim breaks the agreement and does go to the police the transcripts are admissible in court. So they 1) don’t give any meaningful justice for real victims and 2) keep real victims from seeking police/legal involvement and, for alleged perpetrators ignore 3) miranda 4) self incrimination (if you are accused you must appear and answer questions or be summarily expelled) 5) right to counsel and 6) double jeopardy. It helps neither real victims nor falsely accused assalients, but has a great deal to offer the false victim making false accusations as well as the true assalient who gets to avoid a criminal record and colleges who get to artificially keep their crime rates low. And everything is sealed baring supeona (sp?) so there is very little way to know what, if any, disciplinary measures are being taken unless one side or another breaks the ‘rules’ and informs an outsider.
Well, honestly I think it should be illegal for a college to fail to report a felony that they have knowledge about, even if it’s just an accusation. I realize a lot of victims are reluctant to report that stuff, and sometimes for good reasons, but the police and courts exist for a reason. And punishing a rape victim for reporting an attacker to the police is just horrendous.
For their own personal campus rules on how to deal with a student accused of such crimes I think there can be more lee-way, but honestly I think it’s best to handle that stuff through the proper channels. Get everything on record so everyone has their civil rights protected and there is a chance for real justice.
Holy smokes, Jespren! That’s messed up.
It’s ok xalisae. I’m not insulted. You were able to make your choice and that’s great. It has no bearing on what I said however.
The stats this site has provided previously tell us that while a large number of people ‘identify’ as ‘pro-life’ the percentage who believe that abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances is much smaller. And we know that even some of those do actually have abortions.
So I guess my bubble isn’t burst.
Reality, the data from the Guttmacher Institute does show that evangelical Christians (the most pro-life religious demographic) are the least likely to abort when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. They also have the lowest abortion rate per capita. Women without a religious affiliation (the most pro-choice religious demographic) have the highest abortion rates and are the most likely to abort an unplanned pregnancy.
http://liveaction.org/blog/abortion-demographics/
http://liveaction.org/blog/chart-u-s-abortion-rate-highest-among-non-religious-lowest-with-evangelicals/
There are, of course, evangelicals that aren’t pro-life as well as atheists that are pro-life. But as part of the big picture, religion is strongly correlated with position on abortion. And looking at the big picture, pro-lifers do forego abortion.
I pretty much have no argument with what you are saying there Navi. The evangelical people also display regressive positions on other social and personal factors. It goes with the territory.
“And looking at the big picture, pro-lifers do forego abortion.” – mostly yes. But as I said ‘some of those do actually have abortions.’, and as you say “They also have the lowest abortion rate per capita.”
I guess I’m just not getting your point then. I don’t see how the fact that a few pro-lifers are hypocrites is supposed to be relevant in light of the data.
You said the Israel/Palestine question was no less controversial than the abortion issue. I pointed out that there is a whole lot more activity across the US in regards to abortion than the Israel/Palestine question.
You stated that 64% of Americans are pro-Israel. I think that whatever the number would happen to be it would be fairly unequivocal. Answers on pro and anti choice questions somewhat less so.
“I don’t see how the fact that a few pro-lifers are hypocrites is supposed to be relevant in light of the data.” – are you kidding? The fact that some ‘pro-lifers’ aren’t really is very relevant to the data.
You said the Israel/Palestine question was no less controversial than the abortion issue.
No, I said that a certain group related to the Israel/Palestine issue was no less controversial than a certain group related to the abortion issue.
You stated that 64% of Americans are pro-Israel. I think that whatever the number would happen to be it would be fairly unequivocal. Answers on pro and anti choice questions somewhat less so.
How so? There are many positions one could take on Israel besides generally supporting the Israelites or the Palestinians (ie whether the two-state solution is a good thing, what to do with nuclear weapons, etc). Just as there are many possible positions on legalized abortion aside from generally supporting or opposing it (restrictions on late-term abortions, parental involvement for minors, etc).
are you kidding? The fact that some ‘pro-lifers’ aren’t really is very relevant to the data.
It isn’t when the pro-lifers that have abortions are the exception (not the rule), and because lots of people violate their basic moral principles when placed in psychologically complex situations. For example, Stanley Milgram’s studies showed that two thirds of people would be willing to give an innocent person a lethal electric shock if they think they are helping an authority figure do a scientific experiment. I don’t think it follows that the test subjects are for electrocuting people (morally or legally).