SGB, Students for Life debate over nature of anti-abortion group
By: Erin Block / Staff Writer
Posted on 09. Dec, 2009 in News
A group said it was denied SGB funding because of religious discrimination, but the president-elect defended the decision for other reasons.
In a face-off between former presidential candidates, Justin Romeo and Board President-elect Charlie Shull debated a request that Student Government Board denied to a group of which Romeo is a member.
SGB denied Students for Life, a group that advocates for anti-abortion issues, an allocations request of $1,515 for transportation needs to the March for Life in January on Capitol Hill.
Shull said the Board decided that the group was “proselytizing” for its cause, rather than lobbying. Board member Nila Devanath spoke out against the board’s decision.
Romeo, speaking on behalf of Students for Life, said that the conference was the organization’s most important event of the year.
He said that the Students for Life executive board met with the SGB allocations committee and was asked if its organization was associated with people who preach on street corners. The executive board said they were not.
“I thought it rather insulting that the sole reason provided for the denial of those funds was to say that this event was to proselytize,” Romeo said.
He said a peaceful and fundamental part of the January march is lobbying, and “in no way is that proselytizing.”
“In the past two years SGB had funded this event,” Romeo said.
Shull said he did not agree with the purpose of the allocations request to attend the March for Life.
“The fundamental purpose of this group is to promote an opinion, traditionally that of a religious perspective,” he said. Shull said that promoting an opinion appears to be the group’s angle. “Therefore I would disagree with the fundamental existence of the group, and so therefore, it was my opinion that this group is going to proselytize as a lobbying organization.”
Romeo said he didn’t “understand” Shull’s point because other clubs, like the Pitt Catholic Newman Club, are religious organizations. He said that for Shull to disagree with the main point of the clubs is to disagree that students could organize based on their religious foundations.
“We should not be discriminated against as a club just because we have a religious perspective,” Romeo said.
Romeo said that Students for Life has Muslim members as well as nonreligious members in its group.
“My concern is if students want to voice an opinion based on religious perspectives, and [that] they are representing Pitt,” Shull said.
5 Responses to “SGB, Students for Life debate over nature of anti-abortion group”
Leave a Reply
I am appalled at the thought that any club would be denied funding based on perceived religious beliefs. Whether I am an atheist, Muslim, Protestant, agnostic, Catholic, Buddhist, or Hindu – I should be allowed to hold my particular religious beliefs in communion with my politics. Religion and politics often mix together to form a conglomeration of what we might call “values” or “morals.” Yes, in the case of many of the Students for Life members, they likely hold religious beliefs that influence their politics. But this is not uncommon for any person – including those members of society who are for universal healthcare, helping the impoverished, or against the death penalty. A faith or religious value often dictates what a person will support; so if you find any person in ANY club of a political nature who debates for ANY cause based on their religious values, even loosely, then you should deny funding to that club as well. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if members of your LGBT club, Amnesty International, or even Environment Awareness organizations were members partly due to their religious beliefs (or perhaps lack thereof). The SGB Allocations Committee must realize that if they deny the Pitt Students for Life this crucial funding, they will likely start a firestorm of a lawsuit.
As a pro-life liberal Catholic and the President of the CMU Respect Life Club, I know that I am going to the March for Life to lobby with my representatives. I am going to make my voice heard to our government, hand in hand with many of the Feminists for Life and Democrats for Life. Yes, prayer is a daily part of my life and my religious perspective directly influences my politics. Even if you disagree with me, you have no right to discriminate against me based on my politics or my motives. In the end, what we as students are doing is not proselytizing, but lobbying for a better America.
This is not so much a religious issue or a political issue as it is a basic human rights issue. And whatever angle the members of Pitt Students for Life come from, you cannot deny them funding based on the angle at which they approach the issue. Only the action in itself is culpable.
Because, dear SGB Allocations Committee, can you truly know people’s hearts?
I am disturbed by Mr Charlie Shull’s comment that “[...] I would disagree with the fundamental existence of the group”. On first glance, Mr Shull seems to be saying that he disagrees with the right to free exercise of religion, which seems unamerican to me. More to the point, his support of a denial of funds to this group appears to be censorious. His words, as included in this article, betray a disturbing lack of faith in democracy.
As a woman who volunteers as an escort for Pittsburgh’s Planned Parenthood (where pro-life students regularly protest) I believe all people have a right to voice their opinions publicly, whether this expression is termed “protesting”, “lobbying”, or “proselytizing”.
As an escort, I have been prayed at and preached to, have heard women my age call me a baby-killer. And if anyone ever tried to stop them from doing so, stop the protesters from exercising their first amendment right to express their opinion, I would call the cops.
I take it as an article of faith in the democratic process that all people may enter into the sloppy, messy conversation that is American politics. I believe that it is only through passionate conversation we as a nation can reach a better future. Censorship has no role to play in our democracy, even censorship cloaked as political correctness.
Mr Shull does pro-choice students no favors by denying pro-life students their voice. By hobbling Student’s for Life’s expression, Mr Shull is implying that pro-choice students are so ill-equiped to make their case that the Student Government Board must silence their opposition for them, rather than allow the two communities to debate freely.
This conference is a professional development opportunity, an opportunity for Students for Life to make its case heard in our nation’s capital, and a trip which has historically been supported by the Student Government Board.
It is a show of bad faith that this group has been denied travel funds, and speaks against the Student Government Board’s commitment to democratic debate.
Board Member Greenwald’s comment at the meeting last night seemed to make sense. I don’t know what the board members used to make their decision, but it seems that it had to do with more than simply religion. I think they had an issue with how it was a coach bus, too. Pretty large expenditure, and I don’t think they fund for those a lot….just saying…
Charlie Shull, President-elect of the Student Government Board, has determined that Pitt Students for Life, a group not listed as religious, a group which professes no religious beliefs and aims to convert no one to any religious belief system, does not deserve funding on the basis that it promotes an opinion “traditionally” associated with religion.
I could rant on and on about the multifarious logical problems with this declaration, but I do not think I need to do so. I think most people understand that denying someone else the right to voice their opinion based on one’s own opinion is hypocritical at best. What I think is less obvious is the incredibly discriminatory nature of this action. I do not mean that it is discriminatory to religion and religious believers (though it is). I mean it discriminates in the worst way against non-believers.
If I were not to sign this letter, no one would have any idea who I was. I could be an atheist, an agnostic, an alien; take your pick. I could believe in no god, profess no faith, and yet still believe that abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research are wrong. And I could be denied funding to attend a political rally which my student group would logically desire to attend, solely because Charlie Shull believes that I might possibly be religious.
So I have only one question for you, Mr. Shull:
What do you have against atheists?
In my long tenure in academia at several institutions, I have never seen a dangerous precedent as this. Denying a group funds based on the assumption that the group’s beliefs are fueled by faith is a very bad precedent – not to mention that the assumption in the first place is wrong. The pro-life cause is not simply a “religious” cause. There are many of those who have no religion who are pro-life.
But even if the above mentioned assumption was correct, it would still be a bad precedent. A campus community is one in which people should have the right to voice their opinions – whether you agree with it or not and regardless of where the opinion come from (including religion). A wide array of things can influence someone’s politics – not just religion. If Charlie Shull’s precendent stands, then groups like College Republicans, College Democrats, LGBT, Concerned Women’s group, whatever should never be able to receive SGB funds, because indeed, there are many in those groups who hold their group’s opinions based on religious beliefs. And trust me, they “prostelyze” far more than Students For Life. I have gone on several trips with Students For Life, and there is nothing of the aggressive nature when the group tries to voice their opinions.
I just hope that this article was poorly written, and that the allocation was denied based on some other reason that the author did not mention such as financial reasons.
I can’t believe I go to a school with a campus leader who just made those remarks.