Students' union bans Christian Union

The mermaid in the fountain of the 1920s Guild of Students building at Birmingham university, the country's first purpose-built students' union, could be forgiven if she is weeping this week.  As reported exclusively in The Times this week, The Guild council has suspended one of its societies, the Evangelical Christian Union, and frozen its the CU funds in its bank account after the CU refused to open its membership to people of all religions. After the CU instructed lawyers and threatened court proceedings, the Guild has agreed to return the money. Several thousand pounds are at stake. But the CU is continuing with its legal action because of the Guild's refusal to reverse its decision to derecognise, or in effect abolish, the Christian Union at Birmingham University.

I wanted to call this post 'Acronym acrimony: SU bans CU in LGBT row', but resisted because that would baffle even the search engines. But the story generated wide coverage internationally. It came out at number two in The Times daily list of most-read articles online, and is the subject of an interesting blog at The Daily Ablution. It is also being discussed at length on Coin.  Bizarrely, it is even being discussed at length on this cycling forum as well as here and here.

Writing this story was so nostalgic for me. It reminded me heartrendingly of my own misbegotten days as a Leeds university student, when I withdrew after 18 months. Nearly every weekend, I got on a train to visit and party with schoolfriends at Birmingham Guild of Students. I then went off to London College of Printing to study journalism and worked incredibly hard, but also got involved with the students' union there, and wrote for London Student on sport. Throughout this time, I resisted the lure of Birmingham. But it seems little has changed. It remains, as it was then, a hotbed of puritanical passion, a peculiar mix that cannot be urelated to the local Quaker influence. Only now it is made more explosive by the addition of political correctness to the mix.

Interviewing Guild President Richard Angell was a dream. Mr Angell said that the Guild had frozen the Christian Union funds because it “no longer exists” as a society and was “nothing more than a group of friends.” If the Christian Union could produce evidence of where the funds came from originally, the cash would be returned to the original donors, he said. Any debts incurred before the Christian Union was abolished would also be honoured.“Essentially the Christian Union does not exist any more at Birmingham university,” he said. “All they are now is a group of friends. We cannot just give that money to a group of friends. Legally it is our money. We have an obligation to ensure that it is used for the purpose it was raised.”

Angell, who has already graduated with a 2.1 in public policy, said the Christian Union had been derecognised as a society of the Guild because its officers had refused to change the constitution in line with the Education Act. He said Muslim, Jewish and other religious societies all had open membership criteria, and allowed any student to join, whatever their beliefs.

Following derecognition, the Guild is preventing the CU from holding a regular event due to take place on Monday called "Grill A Christian".  At these events, a panel of Christians from the CU simply sit and answer any questions thrown at them by other students at the Uni.  The Guild is refusing to sign a risk assessment form for the event on the basis that it may cause offence to other stduents.

The Birmingham Christian Union has more than 100 members who attend meetings regularly and has been functioning at the university for 76 years. Members claim the actions have been taken against them after they refused on religious grounds to make “politically correct” changes to their charitable constitution, to include people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered.
The Christian Union was advised that the use of the words “men” and “women” in the constitution were causing concern because they could be seen as excluding transsexual and transgendered people.

Difficulties arose after the organisation Christians in Sport, whose supporters include Jonathan Edwards, the Olympic gold medallist, attempted to book a room in the name of the Christian Union. After checking the CU constitution, the Guild of Students objected to a number of clauses.

Andy Weatherley, Christian Union staff worker in Birmingham, said: “The guild insists the Christian Union constitution must be amended to include mandatory clauses, insisting on more control and more intrusion by the guild and open membership to those who would not call themselves Christians. Christian Unions should be permitted to restrict membership to only those people who profess faith in Jesus Christ. It is a fundamental right of any organisation to be able to include in its membership only those who abide by the ethos and focus of the organisation. We believe this to be true for all organisations within the Student Union, not just religious or ethnic ones. We are not a special interest group there to attract people with similar interest but a union of Christians. While our meetings are open to all people, believers and unbelievers, when it come to being a voting member or leader of the Christian Union we feel it is perfectly respectable to restrict access to people who call themselves Christians.”

At a recent Guild meeting Matthew Crouch, of the Christian Union, appealed against derecognition. He said: “The Guild have a problem with our constitution as we wish to restrict membership of our group to only Christians. All guild members can attend our meeting but only members can vote,” but Stuart Mathers, a guild vice-president, said that all student groups have to follow guild council policy. He said: “This only allows two groups to limit members one is Niteline and the other is Student Advice and that is due to the limits on the numbers that can be trained. All groups must follow Guild policy.”

Christian Union members are also upset that they were not allowed to book rooms for a week-long Christian awareness event at the end of January named "Truth".

Birmingham University Christian Union is affiliated to the University and Colleges’ Christian Fellowship which has more than 77 years experience of working with Christians at universities and colleges of higher and further education. About £4,000 was frozen and students had been paying bills out of their own money. The fellowship has stepped in with an interest-free loan until funds are released.

Pod Bhogal, its communications director, said: "In all our years of working with hundreds of higher education establishments, this action by Birmingham’s Guild is unique. We support the Birmingham Christian Union 100 per cent and will back them in standing up for their rights, and the democratic rights of every student grouping in the university to be able to constitute themselves and to pursue any lawful aims and objectives in a free society. We would not dream of telling a Muslim group or a political society how to elect their leaders or who could or could not become a member, that’s entirely a matter to them, based on their own faith principles.The same applies to a Christian Union.”

A university spokesman said the Guild did a review of all the 157 societies affiliated to it to bring its activities in line with the 1994 Education Act. As a result of the review, the Christian Union was asked to change its constitution to make it open to everyone, regardless of faith, sexual orientation or gender. The Christian Union was also told that its committee should be elected rather than appointed. The spokesman said: “This is entirely due to the requirements of the law, it has nothing to do with religion.”

Comments

[Phil Craig]

To describe a society of over 100 students as "nothing more than a group of friends" is odd...it sounds like the head of the Guild believes the funding for the CU was being misused. In what way?

In general, though, it sounds like the Guild is cobbling together some insignificant reasons to justify banning the CU that, presumably, it found offensive. Is anyone on the Guild board have religious beliefs? Are they unanimous on this action? What exactly were the Guild objecting to in the CU's constitution?

[Phil Craig]

PS. Ruth, "interviewing Guild President Richard Angell was a dream"...why??

rg responds: 'I was not meaning to imply that I agreed with him I should have said journalist's dream. Normally, the people we interview are used to hedging their bets, to equivocating and being cautious for fear of the headlines that will result. Richard had no such fears, and as result gave me some great quotes. They just came too late for the paper edition.'

[James]

The relationship between Christian Unions and Student Unions has been complex for a very long time, and there are very rarely people in office in either who have the necessary grasp of all the issues or the motivation to make any headway in clearing them up.

When I was a sabbatical in my SU we gave it a try. We drafted a few papers and did manage to clarify the situation somewhat, but weren't able to get to a point where we could admit the CU as one of our societies. The perceived reason for that had been an assumed CU policy against homosexuals, but as there was no such written policy we were able to move past that.

What it eventually came down to was the Student Union's requirements regarding the openness of elections (that particular CU didn't hold open elections and UCCF policy at the time advised against them, the outgoing committee appointed their successors) and issues relating to charities law and financial oversight.

Perhaps the key agreement we came to was that it wasn't essential for the CU to be a society for there to be a strong relationship between the two organisations.

The situation in Birmingham is regrettable, but from what I've been able to find out it doesn't seem as if either party had been particularly proactive about seeking out the core issues and explaining them articulately. Hopefully it'll be resolved soon, but both sides are going to have to be willing to listen carefully and consider compromise.

[Martin Joss]

I think this story is very sad. I know that CU's often get a bad reputation (sometimes they don't do themselves favours!). However I fondly remember my time as a memeber of Lampeter CU 1979-1982. The relations between the CU and chapel crowd used to be good. I became a Christian through the CU (in their regular weekly service in the chapel!) and while some were a bit intense most were generous and gentle. The exec was even chosen by election (which I believe was not common). While Catholics could not be fully paid up members (the UCCF doctrinal basis included things that they could not accept) we had several who where associate members.

It may be should be pointed out that every year the rumour went round that the CU were out to close the bar down. Never figured out where that started
- many of us used to use it regularly.

Ah well, when I was a lad.....

Martin

Revd. M. Joss
Curate
St. Paul Town Centre, Harlow
with St. Mary, Little Parndon

[Kester]

The question is, on their principles, should we all be able to become members of the NUS? Of course not.

I'm afraid it's once again a question of boundaries. The way a society constructs and polices its boundaries says an awful lot about that society (ref. Mary Douglas' 'Purity and Danger'). It is nonsense that boundaries should be totally eliminated; this will not lead to the fair and open society I expect they are trying to promote. Rather, they should be visible and non-abusive: people should not be hurt by them, and they should be clearly set out, but they ought to be allowed.

It appears - on the face of it at least - that having open meetings where only those who are members can vote meets these criteria. Are there people who are seriously interested in the Christian Union, but aren't Christians, clammering to become members? Looking back on the group I witnessed at Bristol in the early 90's, I seriously doubt it.

[Richard Lawson]

Following your story regarding the Birmingham University Guild Of Students decision to derecognise their Ecumenical Christian Union I would like to
bring to light another similar story. In Freshers week (September 2005) the National Blood Service asked to have a stall at the advertising fair. Guild
President Mr Angell and his executive committee denied the National Blood
>Service a place as they do not allow homosexuals to donate. Many students were appalled that such a valuable service was turned away. It is another example of the Guild's political correctness gone mad.

[Unity]

I've just read the provisions for Student Unions in the 1994 Education Act and frankly cannot see it's relevance to this specific matter.

What I did see, however, is a specific reference which makes it clear that the general provisions of Charity Law apply to SUs, and by inference, these principles would apply to societies.

By coincidence I've spent the last few years working in the charity sector dealing specifically with matters of charity law and constitutions - as BCU's appeal appears to have been remitted back to a committee, if one of its officers would care to e-mail me a copy of their constitution I would be more than happy both check it for any possible problems with accepted practice in Charity law - which I probably wouldn't expect to find having had the electoral process explained to me in full since writing on this originally - and to prepare a submission for them covering the basis in Charity Law for applying legitimate restrictions on membership in addition to how this relates to EA 1992 and HRA 1998 as it is clear that Birmingham SU have no understanding of these subjects at all.

My email address is on my blog, Talk Politics, which is referenced in this piece.

[leaf files]

In response to the fiasco concerning the Evangelical Christian Union’s suspension from the Guild of Students: Look at this unfortunate incident as a blessing in disguise.

Now that the fundamental right--for all but two groups--to organize and form a union with like-minded people has been shelved and, according to Stuart Mathers, a guild vice-president, “All groups must follow guild policy”, the ECU should comply with the 1994 Education Act (no way of getting around the law of the land), regain your status and get to work--evangelizing.

Infiltration of the GLBTTIM communities (that is--gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, intersexual and metrosexual; also mixed into this homosexual alphabet soup at times is a Q for questioning) is becoming quite common in every society around the world. Hence the strict PC adherences. What the GLBTTIM groups seek, or rather demand, is they be portrayed and accepted as average, run-of-the-mill, regular persons.

One remaining group that generally denies the GLBTTIM this essential demand is evangelical Christians--hence, their relentless bashing.

[Mike Homfray]

What I find curious is that in my two much-regretted years within evangelicalism, I recall distinctly that the CU deliberaltely had a policy of NOT wishing to belong to the SU and to remain separate because the SU's principles contradicted theirs.

[Chris]

I'm not sure this is a new development.
When I was a member of the CU at Warwick in the early 80s the situation was the same. The Student Union required that all affiliated societies must be open to membership to all students. The CU could not agree to that, so accepted the consequences which were that it received no grant or use of Union facilities.
Not a big deal really and we booked rooms in the Uni or chaplaincy.

[Roger Pearse]

Looking at the Guild website I find no mention of the fact that the Guild is facing legal action by some of its own members, which is curious. What is present, centre top is a large banner for "Jerry Springer - the Opera"; but no sign of cartoons about Mohammed.

It's easy for us to dismiss student politics; until you realise that those involved in them go on to national politics. The intolerance that screamed "No platform for racists or fascists" in the 1970's (to exclude speakers other than those of the left) blossomed into endless laws criminalising as 'hate' the free expression of this opinion or that. Those who in their youth try to initiate persecution of their fellow man do not become more liberal when they acquire greater power.

What it comes down to is that an innocuous, long-established, but unpopular group of students cannot use the state-provided facilities because they refuse to abandon their religion at the demand of others; or, what amounts to the same thing, give up the regulatory measures that every unpopular non-violent minority finds necessary to preserve their own identity against harassment and infiltration and subversion. However did we get to a situation where students were obliged to conform to a set of religious and political opinions or be denied access to the facilities that their parents pay for? The legal stuff alleged against them is just excuses, of course, of the sort that every persecutor in history has hoked up. The website itself makes clear the eagerness of those who control the Guild to give offence to Christians.

Am I alone in feeling very depressed that our society is now so intolerant of any views other than those of the liberal establishment that anyone wishing to use state-sector facilities must all conform or be abused? This applies to all of us, not just students! Whatever happened to freedom? It is similarly depressing that not one of the national 'civil liberties' bodies has taken an interest. It is not the powerful that require legal protection, but the marginalised and unpopular.