Ashton Ellis
Staff Writer
Before supporters of an on-campus homosexual club cast another stone at the administration, they should consider the self-defeating effect of their argument. Any club or organization knows well how important it is to uphold its stated mission.
Imagine a group of evangelical Christians joining the local Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) with the purpose of founding a support group for homosexuals wanting to become straight. The support group would seek to educate all GLAAD members about homosexual-to-straight issues through various “awareness” events. Whenever it spoke to the non-GLAAD community, it could technically do so as a representative of GLAAD.
Although not a majority of GLAAD’s membership, these Christians would plan to be uncompromising in their belief that a significant number of homosexuals want to be straight. As friends of homosexuals, these Christians believe that such a support group is consistent with GLAAD’s mission of encouraging diverse viewpoints within the homosexual community.
Now suppose there are members of GLAAD’s homosexual community who do not want to become straight. Some of these folks may think that allowing these Christians to pursue their agenda is inconsistent with GLAAD’s mission. They may assume that GLAAD has the right to bar these Christians from joining. If challenged, they would likely base their argument on the idea that organizations, like individuals, have the right to associate with whomever they wish.
And they would be right. That is, assuming the student supporters of Gay, Lesbian, and Everybody Else (GLEE) weren’t also officers in GLAAD. If that were the case, then it seems GLAAD would be forced to admit these Christians and subsidize their homosexual-to-straight agenda as well.
For all the rhetoric surrounding the debate about whether homosexual students should be able to make Pepperdine University recognize their views, some important issues are still unexamined.
Pepperdine is a private university with a clearly defined mission to uphold orthodox Christian teaching on matters ranging from the divinity of Christ to the inappropriateness of homosexuality.
The university determines its Christian mission and then invites students to abide by it. Those who enroll agree to do so.
While a student’s interpretation of Christian values may vary from Pepperdine’s, a student cannot act in a way contrary to the university’s guidelines. Neither can the student compel the university to charter an organization dedicated to opposing the university’s interpretation of its Christian mission. This is the same relationship that any private organization would expect with its members, including GLAAD.
Perhaps most unfortunately, the coverage of this story seems to confuse two different ideas about the nature of rights.The key to the debate turns on the difference between “positive” and “negative” rights.
According to the late philosopher Isaiah Berlin, a positive right imposes a moral obligation on someone to do something for someone else. A negative right merely obliges someone to refrain from hindering someone else’s attempt to do something.
In this case, GLEE advocates a positive right of validation, while the university asserts a negative right on non-interference Pepperdine allows a student to hold any view the student likes, even a view that opposes the university’s mission. The student’s ability to exercise his freedom of speech is an example of a negative right because it does not compel Pepperdine to encourage his view. This is also an exercise of the university’s negative right not to have its mission impeded.
The case would be different if Pepperdine could be forced to support the student’s view, which is exactly the kind of positive right that GLEE is attempting to assert. When students speak of their desire to make the university validate their view through official recognition and subsidy (access to facilities and student activity funds), they are attempting to create an obligation for Pepperdine to not only allow their view, but to support it.
This is exactly the sort of problem facing GLAAD in the hypothetical above. If private organizations can be forced to subsidize people who oppose the organization’s views, then there is likely to be no incentive to form a private organization.
Negative rights allow the greatest amount of people to enjoy the greatest amount of freedom. Whenever the state allows someone to create an obligation on another there is a net loss in the enjoyment of freedom.
GLEE’s demands cut both ways. If the principle it supports is the right to be validated at the expense of Pepperdine’s point of view, it is only a matter of time before another group of students forces GLEE to support its view.
How interesting it would be if these new students were a bunch of evangelical Christians trying to set up a support group.
03-22-2007