Students' union bans Christian Union

Actually this is not such a big deal. I've worked in a UK university as a chaplain and at a UK national level with chaplaincy as a member of the Anglican chaplains' national exec. It's old hat is this issue -for more than 30 years Christian Unions in UK uni's have not been able to comply with the Student Union rules on affiliation and funding of student societies. It's just that Aston have only just caught up with what is probably the majority position.
For USA readers, it's a bit like the issue of separation of church and state. CUs to be able to be part of the UCCF national network [to be part of the franchise so to speak] have to, among other things, select leaders by prayer from a list submitted by the membership. These leaders have to be in agreement with the doctrinal basis [the "DB"] in order to hold office. The SU's require proper elections where the candidates do not have any other test for office other than they are members of the club or society concerned.

To be an affiliated society, NUS policy for ages has been that a club or society has to be open to every student and that leaders are elected by ballot from the membership. Since Margaret Thatcher's days and arguments about ultra vires funding, student unions (if I have understood aright) have to be sure that the funds held by them to the account of 'their' clubs and societies are disbursed and used within strictly defined limits amongst which is adherance to the proper constitutional form. I suspect that it is arguable, in fact, that the Birmingham guild of students have been illegally funding the CU for some time.

On the CU side, we should remember that CU's have a history in the UK which makes them sensitive to 'entryist' mechanisms which could undermine their evangelical identity. CU's are the break away from the Student Christian Movement of the early 20th Century, which became more and more liberal and alienated evangelical supporters. Naturally, these supporters wanted to preserve evangelical emphasese and so formed the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship [later the Universities' and Colleges' Christian Fellowship] with a national council to protect what we might now think of as 'the brand' and to promote the CU 'franchises' in universities and colleges. To prevent a further take over by liberals, constitutional measures were put in place to maintain an evangelical ethos. These have normally conflicted with Student Union principles and so CU's have usually been independent of SU society status, I think.

The real surprise is that it has taken Brum's student guild so long to twig that one of their affiliated societies was operating in breach of their [legally binding] policies. This is being sold as a bit of political correctness, but in reality that's only a part and probably relatively recent issue. The long-standing issue as that of democratic proceedures and how openness is conceived and the CU's need to retain a particular ethos over time.

Whether CU's really need to go to such extremes is a moot point, Islamic societies for example don't seem to have too much trouble keeping their ethos, though I speak as an outsider and it may be that some Muslims would make criticisms similar to an evangelical CU member alert to CU history.

I actually think that there is a riposte worth exploring with this and I was beginning to talk with some people about it just before I left chaplaincy ministry. It's possible, perhaps, to argue under anti-religious discrimination law in the EU and recognising cultural diversity that religious and other societies should have the right to order certain affairs in ways that are consonant with the beliefs they propound. Now there should probably be some kinds of checks on that so that money doesn't go to fund the promotion of racism, for example. But there should be ways to allow for different ways of decision making other than certain kinds of western democracy, provided there are ways to make sure that it is open, fair and honest. There is a real issue to be faced, I think, about how open societies guard an ethos and yet remain open. It is surely right, in principle that a public society should be open to everyone of the institution[s] it draws support from. But how far should it be made to conform when the point of its existence is in certain distinctives -even disagreements- with regard to membership of the institution[s]?

It's ironic to me that it is a Christian society being penalised for attempting to be theocratic rather than an Islamic society.

PS A comment here claims that
"The last time this sort of thing happened in the UK the courts found against the Student Union."
I am not aware of this having happened. If any reader more info on this, preferably in the form of a link to a news report or other solid evidence, I'd be very interested in the precedent...
Weblog - Ruth Gledhill - Times Online: Students' union bans Christian Union
Filed in: Christian, CU, UCCF, students, SU