Last week Michale Stokes Paulsen wrote a striking defense of Vanderbilt’s right to prevent students from forming religious groups (while vigorously contesting their decision to do so). The idea, in short, is that the same principle that suggests Christian students should be allowed to form groups with particular identities also means that Vanderbilt has a right to corporately discriminate against student groups at odds with its values
Groups , as well as individuals, possess the “freedom of speech.” Just as individuals get to control the content of their own expression, groups of individuals, joining their voices together in some common association, have the right to control their collective message. Thus, a vital principle of the First Amendment as it applies to private groups, associations, and institutions—including private universities—is that such groups have nearly absolute freedom to create and maintain their own distinctive group expressive identities: to decide what they stand for and what views they will express.
This is the freedom that supports the right of private religious colleges to maintain their distinctive religious identities. And the same freedom equally supports the right of Vanderbilt University to maintain a distinctive anti -religious identity. In each case, the institution may embrace the principles that define it as a group and exclude or suppress messages at odds with the values for which the institution wishes to stand.
Before liberals begin to applaud, they should realize that this argument also holds when religious colleges are considering whether or not to allow, say, stagings of the Vagina Monologues . That said, I don’t believe that everything cuts both ways here. Over time, institutions grounded in humane and traditional morality will be more capacious and tolerant than those wedded to an ever more extreme and brittle progressivism. Recognizing the laws of nature and the truth of human dignity will always make one more fully and truly tolerant—-denying them will lead to some variety of totalitarianism, however soft or smiling.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…