Should a University allow anti-gay rights businesses on campus?
An email was sent out to the New York University community, stating the following:
I am writing, on behalf of the Student Senators Council (SSC), to inform you of a decision made at the end of the Fall 2011 semester regarding the presence of the Chick-Fil-A restaurant at NYU.
Last year, a concerned student brought to the attention of the Student Senators Council the alleged link between the Chick-Fil-A franchise and organizations that support marriage solely between heterosexual individuals. Over the course of the fall semester, the Student Senators Council spent considerable time and effort investigating this alleged link and discussing a potential ban of Chick-Fil-A on campus.
As a general rule, the Student Senators Council believes that freedom of expression is the most important virtue of an institute devoted to education. The SSC also believes there is a fundamental difference between personal boycott and institutional prohibition. To ban any entity from campus for ideological reasons is, in most every case, to limit freedom of expression. It is because of this fact that the Council takes the weight of evidence very seriously when considering proposed bans.
After extensive deliberation, the Student Senators Council agreed that there was insufficient evidence at this time to justify a ban of Chick-Fil-A. At this point, there have been no reported acts of discrimination on the part of the restaurant chain, according to the information presented to the council and the additional research undertaken. It is for this reason that the Council voted not to support an institutional ban of Chick-Fil-A.
The Student Senators Council encourages concerned students and other community members to continue investigating the issue and further urges them to exercise their right to personally boycott any entity that offends their moral sensibilities.
Do you think a university should allow such a organization on campus?
Opinions?
I am writing, on behalf of the Student Senators Council (SSC), to inform you of a decision made at the end of the Fall 2011 semester regarding the presence of the Chick-Fil-A restaurant at NYU.
Last year, a concerned student brought to the attention of the Student Senators Council the alleged link between the Chick-Fil-A franchise and organizations that support marriage solely between heterosexual individuals. Over the course of the fall semester, the Student Senators Council spent considerable time and effort investigating this alleged link and discussing a potential ban of Chick-Fil-A on campus.
As a general rule, the Student Senators Council believes that freedom of expression is the most important virtue of an institute devoted to education. The SSC also believes there is a fundamental difference between personal boycott and institutional prohibition. To ban any entity from campus for ideological reasons is, in most every case, to limit freedom of expression. It is because of this fact that the Council takes the weight of evidence very seriously when considering proposed bans.
After extensive deliberation, the Student Senators Council agreed that there was insufficient evidence at this time to justify a ban of Chick-Fil-A. At this point, there have been no reported acts of discrimination on the part of the restaurant chain, according to the information presented to the council and the additional research undertaken. It is for this reason that the Council voted not to support an institutional ban of Chick-Fil-A.
The Student Senators Council encourages concerned students and other community members to continue investigating the issue and further urges them to exercise their right to personally boycott any entity that offends their moral sensibilities.
Do you think a university should allow such a organization on campus?
Opinions?
(edited 3 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
I am torn.
On one hand, I am staunchly pro-same sex marriage and detest the intolerance that such organisations propagate.
However, is this not a slippery slope? If an institution takes a moral-stance on something that the majority agrees with, there's little opposition. However, this is the beginning of an objective organisation suppressing the right to assembly and stifling view points, even if they are unpalatable to the majority. This gives the green light for organisations to take moral stances and could result in an organisation prohibiting pro-gay rights activism and meeting because their CEOs or managers disagree on a moral level.
My heart says: ban them.
My head says: don't risk creating a precedent for businesses to suppress rights on moral grounds.
On one hand, I am staunchly pro-same sex marriage and detest the intolerance that such organisations propagate.
However, is this not a slippery slope? If an institution takes a moral-stance on something that the majority agrees with, there's little opposition. However, this is the beginning of an objective organisation suppressing the right to assembly and stifling view points, even if they are unpalatable to the majority. This gives the green light for organisations to take moral stances and could result in an organisation prohibiting pro-gay rights activism and meeting because their CEOs or managers disagree on a moral level.
My heart says: ban them.
My head says: don't risk creating a precedent for businesses to suppress rights on moral grounds.
Well this seems to be too clear cut to be true.
What are these 'anti-gay lobbying groups' of which you speak, what were the nature of the donations, and what was the nature of the company's presence in the university?
Also, being against gay marriage isn't necessarily 'anti-gay' or homophobic.
What are these 'anti-gay lobbying groups' of which you speak, what were the nature of the donations, and what was the nature of the company's presence in the university?
Also, being against gay marriage isn't necessarily 'anti-gay' or homophobic.
Original post by iSoftie
Listen. If the majority want it there let it stay! As it had stated that freedom of expression is key! And if the majority didn't want this take it off straight away!
John Stuart Mill wrote about the tyranny of the majority.
What about the rights and liberties of the minorities? Why should they be implicated by mob-rule, even when it so contravenes basic moral standards?
I'm not taking any particular side on this, just probing for your view.
If it were up to me, I wouldn't ban the, but I would make them put posters up on the windows telling people where the profits were going.
I like to know what chocolate brands are fair trade so I can purposefully choose them. I like to know where my money is going, If this company has an anti gay marriage stance then they should let people know that thats where their money is going, so that people like me can avoid them.
Im sure people being made aware of where their cash is going would make their meal a lot harder to swallow.
I like to know what chocolate brands are fair trade so I can purposefully choose them. I like to know where my money is going, If this company has an anti gay marriage stance then they should let people know that thats where their money is going, so that people like me can avoid them.
Im sure people being made aware of where their cash is going would make their meal a lot harder to swallow.
They say:
To ban any entity from campus for ideological reasons is, in most every case, to limit freedom of expression.
Surely logically the point is to look at WHAT is expressed. What case would they consider bad enough to cause them to ban an entity? For example would they allow on campus a company that promoted killing people if they have blue eyes or one that gave money to promote anti-American terrorist organisations. If the answer is 'yes' they would allow these on campus then I suppose they are saying that they put 'freedom of expression' above everything else. If the answer were 'no' then they have made a judgement about the anti-gay stance taken by this company and judged it to be somehow appropriate and reasonable. In this sense then they are supporting the stance.
It is very unsettling to discover one's university have taken such a position. However I suppose that in the context of the USA debate on gay marriage they feel justified in considering the company to be discussing/supporting mainstream political issues. I think that they are wrong. If they had been back in the day it sounds like they would have supported a company lobbying to keep slavery in the South on the grounds that this was something dividing people at the time. However slavery is inherently wrong and I believe anti-gay legislation to be inherently wrong too.
In short the company should be banned as should organisations proved to be exploiting child labour in the third world or any other inappropriate position. As a seat of learning and representative of higher level thinking the university should be setting higher than average levels of probity than the norm.
To ban any entity from campus for ideological reasons is, in most every case, to limit freedom of expression.
Surely logically the point is to look at WHAT is expressed. What case would they consider bad enough to cause them to ban an entity? For example would they allow on campus a company that promoted killing people if they have blue eyes or one that gave money to promote anti-American terrorist organisations. If the answer is 'yes' they would allow these on campus then I suppose they are saying that they put 'freedom of expression' above everything else. If the answer were 'no' then they have made a judgement about the anti-gay stance taken by this company and judged it to be somehow appropriate and reasonable. In this sense then they are supporting the stance.
It is very unsettling to discover one's university have taken such a position. However I suppose that in the context of the USA debate on gay marriage they feel justified in considering the company to be discussing/supporting mainstream political issues. I think that they are wrong. If they had been back in the day it sounds like they would have supported a company lobbying to keep slavery in the South on the grounds that this was something dividing people at the time. However slavery is inherently wrong and I believe anti-gay legislation to be inherently wrong too.
In short the company should be banned as should organisations proved to be exploiting child labour in the third world or any other inappropriate position. As a seat of learning and representative of higher level thinking the university should be setting higher than average levels of probity than the norm.
(edited 12 years ago)
well i'd say it isn't exactly in a university's best interest to support discriminatory groups.
besides in the us, people have more free speech...they can literally say whatever they want, hate speeches and everything. like the KKK giving speeches about hating mexicans etc.
here...not so much. speeches and organisations which stir up hate and prejudice are in fact prohibited... there is no complete freedom of expression. (and for good reason, in my opinion!)
besides in the us, people have more free speech...they can literally say whatever they want, hate speeches and everything. like the KKK giving speeches about hating mexicans etc.
here...not so much. speeches and organisations which stir up hate and prejudice are in fact prohibited... there is no complete freedom of expression. (and for good reason, in my opinion!)
Original post by iSoftie
Listen. If the majority want it there let it stay! As it had stated that freedom of expression is key! And if the majority didn't want this take it off straight away!
Hi,
At different time in History the 'majority' have supported things that we would now consider abhorrent.
The majority is not always right.
There are basic principles that exist and should not be violated whether the majority support them or not. For example a majority of people may want a person who holds information about a bomb to be tortured to release the information. However the principle that torture is morally wrong would over-ride the majority view in law as well as in practice.
Therefore, as human beings, we can make judgements as to what is lawful and morally right precisely in order to over-ride the 'majority' if need be.
In this case the law says discrimination is unlawful and the company's stance is being seen as supporting discriminatory practices by many. Again, many people would judge the company's position to be morally reprehensible and consider that they should be banned on these grounds. Therefore the strength of the principle that discrimination is inherently wrong would trump 'majority apathy'.
Original post by Friar Chris
Also, being against gay marriage isn't necessarily 'anti-gay' or homophobic.
Also, being against gay marriage isn't necessarily 'anti-gay' or homophobic.
how so? i fail to see how refusing to allow gay people to get married on the grounds of their sexuality is not 'necessarily' anti-gay. it is depriving them of a right which is given to heterosexual couples without questions. sounds like discrimination to me.
i think that whilst one may not like said companies views it is their prerogative in a democracy to make their voice heard [considering its america with the 1st amendment and all] what right does one have to lecture anybody or any company on their views without being guilty of the same crimes as them? hypocrisy.
), I'd ban that company from coming onto the Uni's grounds.yes it is. Are you suggesting people should not be able to pursue their beliefs within a legal framework?
You cant have both. your view is very very subjective, and no way to make laws.
What if the anti-gay lot can bring out a convincing counter arguement about how they believe gay marriage errodes their intrinsic rights or freedoms?
Do you believe people should not be able to petition for military intervention in foreign countries, animal testing, supporting or ostracising foreign regimes?
Look at both sides, the anti gay lot will have their reasons, whether you agree with them, understand or credit them.
You seem to say freedom of speech is only applicable on topics which certain groups may deem suitable. you cant punish and censor some for their views, while campaigning for the right to express your freely.
You cant have both. your view is very very subjective, and no way to make laws.
What if the anti-gay lot can bring out a convincing counter arguement about how they believe gay marriage errodes their intrinsic rights or freedoms?
Do you believe people should not be able to petition for military intervention in foreign countries, animal testing, supporting or ostracising foreign regimes?
Look at both sides, the anti gay lot will have their reasons, whether you agree with them, understand or credit them.
You seem to say freedom of speech is only applicable on topics which certain groups may deem suitable. you cant punish and censor some for their views, while campaigning for the right to express your freely.
I am not anti gay at all, but typically people go against it because it is at its root a religious event. Typically these people are religious, and so take the bible, at its word that being gay is not permitted. ergo they oppose them taking part in religious events.
While i am neither religious nor homophobic, I can see that these people draw objections as they feel the government is dictating their religion to change, which to an extent I believe should not be the case.
obviously marriage is now also a legal and civil proceeding, however I think that the big issue is not the fact they are classed married in law, but rather the significance of the marriage ceremony itself.
While i am neither religious nor homophobic, I can see that these people draw objections as they feel the government is dictating their religion to change, which to an extent I believe should not be the case.
obviously marriage is now also a legal and civil proceeding, however I think that the big issue is not the fact they are classed married in law, but rather the significance of the marriage ceremony itself.
whilst personally i am ambivalent on the matter you do make a good point, however relating to my original point i do stand behind it and they should be allowed to campaign for whatever their hearts desire, it may be morally questionable sure but again, as i said, its their right to do it and they wish to use that right for something like this unfortunately i still believe they should be allowed or to be honest depriving them of this makes one no better than them in the first place.
although i do have a question for you, just out of curiosity, you said theyre depriving gays of their rights, what rights are these in particular? are you reffering to right to be gay perhaps, marriage? etc.
although i do have a question for you, just out of curiosity, you said theyre depriving gays of their rights, what rights are these in particular? are you reffering to right to be gay perhaps, marriage? etc.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
