Seton Hall vs. Gonzaga: articulating the distinction

Here's an insightful response from Gerald J. Russello to my query as to whether there's a double standard if we insist that Gonzaga recognize the Christian Legal Society chapter, but don't insist that Seton Hall recognize the gay student group:

The difference between Gonzaga and Seton Hall, to my mind, is that between "old fashioned" liberalism and something new. Seton Hall presents the traditional academic freedom dilemma: should a Catholic institution allow students to advocate on an issue in a school-approved group that is not compatible with its self-understanding as a Catholic institution. I believe Seton Hall is right not to permit such groups, because from a Catholic perspective that issue has been discussed and a conclusion reached. The issue can be discussed in a classroom, but not treated as an "expression" equivalent with other approved student groups. (We had similar debates when I was a student at Georgetown over pro-choice student groups).

With Harvard and InterVarsity, the issue is different. The "expansive view of non-discrimination" you rightly identify as the motivating force here conditions the identity of the participants in the debate. The particular issue is, in some sense, irrelevant. In other words, the discrimination against InterVarsity is not because of the point of view (advocating Christian legal principles in law), but because of the internal structure of the group itself (restricting leadership to Christians). Harvard may publicly proclaim that it has no "bias" against Christianity, but it believes all groups should reflect the student body, i.e., Christian groups should be subject internally to non-discrimination as a condition to recognition, even if the self-understanding of the group does not permit such non-discrimination. The secular ideology controls the way groups can understand themselves, even if (as in the case with a secular university) it disclaims any interest in the outcome of the debate. If this analysis is right, I think we can develop a principled distinction between the way we approach these two forms of pluralism.

As to your point on liberalism-as-religion, I disagree, not because it is not true, but primarily because liberals do not see it that way. From the perspective of liberalism, there is no "religious level" truth except tolerance, which cannot press its own truth claims. Crediting liberalism with the conviction of religion imports our own religious values to a system that, while deeply held, cannot come to conclusive answers to ultimate questions.

Gerald J. Russello