OPINION & EDITORIAL
He who troubleth his own house…
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
- Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
- $$FC (December 6, 2007)
- In a bind (December 5, 2007)
- Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Knockin' on heaven's door (March 2, 2006)
- Herald editorial board mischaracterizes UC position (November 8, 2001)
- Bad timing, bad politics (February 5, 2002)
- New bill will undermine UW System (October 7, 2003)
- Direct election wrong for Board of Regents (February 20, 2006)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Is it reasonable for a public university in Wisconsin to require that its resident assistants abandon certain religious practices during the scholastic year? A committee commissioned by the UW Board of Regents seems to think so.
Recently, an assembly of 14 student life experts — including one from each of Wisconsin's four-year, public colleges — was called upon by UW System President Kevin Reilly. The committee, called the "Resident Assistant Working Group," was to recommend a policy concerning the liberties a UW school can take in restricting the rights of its RAs to practice ideology in their rooms. The committee adjourned Jan. 11, offering five principles that any future policy should follow. Unfortunately, the fourth principle offered — a principle stating that UW schools have "the right to establish reasonable restrictions on RA activities" — essentially calls for the UW System to allow its universities to continue prohibiting RAs from leading Bible studies and other ideologically-based discussions in their rooms.
This board feels that RAs within the UW System have the right to lead ideological discussions in their own dorm rooms so long as such sessions remain strictly voluntary. To ban an RA from observing a belief is to ban an RA from being human. That the committee appointed by the UW System would advocate guidelines allowing each school to make its own policy regarding the matter is ludicrous and misguided. Equally troubling is the lack of student participation on the committee.
Since the UW Bible-study debacle began last year in Eau Claire, the UW Board of Regents has proven incompetent in handling the issue of an RA's right to practice ideology. The results of its most recent action have proven disappointing, yielding only the conclusion that any system-wide policy should essentially go no further in regulating UW schools than the current non-policy. The Board of Regents must assert its power in guaranteeing the basic liberties of an RA. If this means ignoring the recently convened committee's advice, then so be it.
Anonymous (January 19, 2006 @ 10:05am):
Would it be ok for an RA to hold a party in his room? Even if everyone there was of age and it would technically be legal there are just so things that RAs can't do in their state owned room. How left out would you feel if you are a new freshman in a dorm and all of your buddies are going to the "voluntary" Bible meeting and you miss out on much more than just prayer. How many kids start smoking just because all of their friends bond outside in the smokers circle?
Anonymous (January 19, 2006 @ 10:57am):
Since when is _leading_ a bible study necessary for "observing a belief"? Note that the regents are not trying to ban RA's from attending bible studies or religious events, praying in their dorms or identifying themselves as observants of a particular religion, but simply from hosting activities that have obvious religious overtones.
When a student becomes an RA they become representatives of the university and thereby forfeit some of their autonomy. If they plan an activity which they advertise on their floor, it can't help but be perceived as an official activity. An activity that promotes a particular ideology or religion is bound to make some students feel excluded, which not in line with an RA's job responsibility to promote inclusion in campus life.
Let's separate what the regents are actually trying to ban (RA's planning and advertising religious activities) from what people keep erronously asserting they are trying to ban (RA's having or practicing religion). It's a restriction of on-the-job behaviour, not religion.
Anonymous (January 19, 2006 @ 12:56pm):
I hope this is not a sign of things to come for this semester's editorial board. "To ban an RA from observing a belief is to ban an RA from being human." I agree with you, but you lose me when you go over the top. The Bible-study ban is an unnecessary restriction of RAs' rights, but let's get our rhetoric in check. Christians are hardly being fed to lions here. Asking RAs to hold meetings in another location is not "denying their humanity."
Anonymous (January 19, 2006 @ 2:57pm):
Based on comments posted, we are to belief that RAs are on duty 24 hours per day and therefore they forfeit their individual liberties? Fear that some students might feel excluded means that the RAs should forfeit their individual liberties? Seems to be an overreaction. Should an RA leading the study of a secular or an anti-religious book be banned as well because somebody might feel excluded? I hope not. It seems like our campuses are becoming more intellectually timid with each day that passes.
Have a good semester. May you be forever included, never offended, and always happy. And please, don't start smoking.
Anonymous (January 21, 2006 @ 3:05am):
People need to stop talking about the whole "state-owned RA room" thing. Unless the practice of holding a Bible study in an RA room is judged as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, this argument cannot be made.
