Andrew Server
aserver@uwyo.edu
As it currently stands, Recognized Student Organizations (RSOs) at the university of Wyoming must write in a non-discrimination clause into their constitutions in order to become recognized by the university. Being recognized by the university allows for RSOs to receive benefits from the university such as free tabling in the Student Union breezeway, access to room reservations across campus and to the poster run used to better advertise one’s RSO. These benefits are valuable to a RSO’s survival here on campus.
The non-discrimination clause states that in order to remain recognized by the university, a group must allow full voting membership regardless of such traits as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. It is good to be mindful of and not discriminate against the listed modes of identification. That being said, the clause also requires that RSOs allow full voting membership to individuals regardless of their political beliefs/ideologies. This requirement is grossly unnecessary and dissolves those political group’s abilities to define their identities. Religious and gender-based clubs have the opportunity to argue for and secure their clubs as exclusively to their respective groups. The same chance should be offered to political party or candidate specific clubs as well.
To require political party specific clubs to admit individuals of any party as full voting members threatens the integrity of their organization. Why else have a democrat, republican or other party-based club if that club must violate its reason for existing? All of the political RSOs on campus should, at minimum, have the sovereignty to make sure that all their voting members are of the party beliefs that the RSO seeks to exemplify. I am not advocating for the outright barring of those with differing political ideologies or beliefs from the political RSOs on campus. Students of differing political ideologies than the clubs they choose to attend ought to be allowed to honestly and politely sit in at those meetings and become informed about whatever ideology that club champions. The crux of the issue here is this- those political party-specific clubs cannot be assured that the voting assembly of their members would be voting in favor of their club guidelines should there be individuals of the opposite party ideology in their club.
Those RSOs that exist to champion and spread political information and party ideology are jeopardized by that aspect of the non-discrimination clause. We have several party-specific, ideology-specific and candidate-specific organizations here on campus including the College Republicans, Collegiate Democrats, Young Americans for Liberty, Students for Bernie Sanders and a Students for Rand Paul organization that is currently forming. Suppose that a member of Students for Rand Paul decide that they would seek voting membership in the Students for Bernie Sanders organization. Suppose that a member of the Collegiate Democrats should seek voting membership in the College Republicans. With this non-discrimination requirement, those clubs would be forced to oblige those individuals with full voting membership and opportunity to run for an officer position within the organization. While this might be rare to happen and while there may be no recent accounts of it happening here on campus, it is the principle of the issue that should matter here. Why have party-specific clubs if we are required to allow any ideology to be represented in it?
To conclude, the university ought to allow RSOs who desire to be politically cohesive to actually be politically cohesive. An argument against this is that allowing this would make the RSOs apt to discrimination and inclined to close their ears to dialogue. Again, though, the egregious part of the discriminatory clause is that politically specific RSOs have to allow full voting membership and office-campaigning opportunities to those who are contrary to the best interest of their club. Any political RSO ought to be able to ensure that their voting members are of similar- if not same ideology. I would hope that any university administrator responsible for RSO dealings any or board of trustees member reading this would be able to see the risk in the current state of integrity of political RSOs on campus and consider allowing them similar exemptions that gender and religious specific RSOs maintain. It is no doubt an easy fix. After all, why join a political party-specific RSO when that club, under the RSO non-discrimination requirement, might as well be just another political science club?
