Jooho Lee: Discriminatory funding practices

Throughout history, religious institutions have been the oppressors of individual rights, pluralism, liberal democracy and everything else so many of us hold dear. But times have changed.

Now, it is often the other way around. With the exception of the Lubavitch House and CARP, which the Student Activities Council recognizes but does not fund, many organizations, including Full Measure, New Spirit of Penn, Muslim Students Association and the Hindu Students Council/Young Jains Society are denied both funding and recognition by SAC.

This thanks to a clause in SAC's constitution that states "student activities or programs designed to elicit support for religious ideologies and promote membership in sectarian groups will not be funded," despite another clause that declares "decisions on whether or not an organization or activity is denied funding will not be based on the content of the speech or expression of such organization or activity."

SAC is a major source of funding for most of Penn's student-led organizations, and being denied funding and recognition from SAC for student groups is the equivalent of being stripped of your American citizenship due to your religious affiliations.

Cutting off funding and not recognizing religious groups not only severely hinders their right to freely exercise their beliefs, it also debilitates their attempts to be a part of the University community.

SAC's interesting policy is more of a threat to, rather than a protection of, democracy and pluralism on our campus than all of these religious groups would be with a big fat wallet.

Religion threatens a lot of us. And maintaining the separation of church and state is a gut-instinct for many of us. After all, the First Amendment mandates it. It is a great pillar of our democracy.

Unfortunately, the principles imbued in the First Amendment, if they are applicable to our situation at all, tip the scale in favor of religious student groups via the free speech and free exercise of religion clauses. As for the establishment clause, two out of the three established methods of interpretation also favor student religious groups.

But let's put the Constitutional debate on hold for now. After all, we're not talking about a federal action like faith-based initiatives here. We are talking about a body of an undergraduate student government prohibiting approximately 3,000 undergrads -- a number comparable to those in Greek organizations -- from officially participating in student life at Penn, a private institute of higher learning.

This phenomenon occurs only at the undergraduate level -- neither the Graduate and Professional Student Association nor the Graduate Student Activities Council has any rule about funding for student religious groups.

It also occurs only at the student government level -- the University has no guidelines for recognizing and funding student religious groups. If anything, according to President Rodin's statement in the April 11, 2002, issue of The Daily Pennsylvanian, "universities are places in our society where freedom of expression serves the search for truth and justice. By mission and by tradition, universities are open forums in which competing beliefs, philosophies and values contend." I think President Rodin would agree to providing student religious groups with recognition and funding.

The discrimination occurs only at Penn -- no other Ivy League schools deny student religious groups funding or recognition. Most do not even differentiate religious groups from non-religious groups in terms of recognition and funding, but even when it occurs, a form of remedy is provided. Columbia founded the Student Governing Board of Earl Hall in 1969 to provide religious groups with funding and recognition. Princeton does this through its Office of Religious Life.

Penn has a Chaplain's office, but its influence and financial resources do not measure up when compared to a student organization like SAC. It must rely on the charity of others, like the rare, one-time $5,000 donation from the Office of Vice Provost for University Life last year, to provide any kind of support for student religious groups.

Something must be done to provide student religious groups with the same opportunities to participate in our University community that non-religious groups have. Asking SAC to change its peculiar policy would be the most reasonable solution.

A group called Student Programming for Education Concerning Interfaith Activities and Life on Campus is meeting with SAC's executive committee on Nov. 14 to do just that. The executive committee will then bring up the issue during SAC's general body meeting on Dec. 4.

I highly encourage SAC to revise its policy towards student religious groups. I hope you all do the same.

Jooho Lee is a junior History and Political Science major from Los Angeles, Calif.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.