Introduction

The last weeks of 2006 saw increasing media interest in tensions between Student Unions/Guilds and Christian Unions affiliated to the UCCF. In fact, these tensions have existed for some time now, and have represented an ongoing, and growing, cause of concern.

The polarisation and hostility which can be generated is unhelpful and a drain on students, whether within the Christian Unions affected, on the Student Union Executives or more generally. Yet Christian Unions have been free to exist and operate on broadly their current basis without difficulty for decades, and in some cases for over a century. It is the surrounding social and ethical environment which has changed. To some extent the change is simply one of prejudice: Christianity is less socially acceptable now than a generation ago. It is undeniable that some of the tension has been caused by personal hostility to Christians, or to the type of Christianity represented by the Christian Union movement. But this does not explain all the difficulties. Rather, some of the changes have been brought about by a growing commitment to render discrimination socially unacceptable and indeed unlawful. Here, tension is regrettable and avoidable. There is no necessary conflict between a properly articulated equal opportunities policy and the freedom of groups of people to express their religious faith under conditions of liberty and non-discrimination. Many Students Unions and Christian Unions enjoy positive working relationships and have been able to agree excellent solutions to issues which have generated difficulties elsewhere. This paper attempts to set out what the UCCF considers to be the key precepts which need to be taken into account by both Christian Unions and Student Unions in drafting a mutually acceptable Equal Opportunities Policy.

General Considerations

Students’ Unions fulfil valuable social and educational functions in regulating and supporting a wide range of student societies. They facilitate a relatively sheltered environment which, at best, is a diverse microcosm of society generally, giving students opportunities to learn essential personal and social skills and to advance their knowledge beyond the boundaries of their particular programme of academic study. It is incontrovertible that these valuable opportunities should be available to all regardless of sex, age, race, religion, political views, sexual orientation or any other distinguishing personal characteristic.

Many student societies have objects and purposes which require differentiation on grounds which in other contexts would be deeply objectionable. The women’s football team refuses to admit men and the Conservative Association members of the Labour Party. This is entirely normal. Yet were the women’s football team to draw political distinctions, or the Conservative Association a gender distinction, there would be a clear breach of any plausible equal opportunities policy.

Furthermore, although certain personal characteristics have historically been used to justify exclusion and oppression, and are particularly problematic in this context, it is in fact irrational to use any irrelevant characteristic to distinguish between people. Musical ability is a rational criterion for an orchestra, but not a debating society.

It follows that the aim of any equal opportunities policy must not simply be to require all clubs and societies to make no distinctions at all in their membership and participation. Instead, it must be to ensure that student clubs and societies do not draw distinctions which are irrelevant to their object and purpose. If non-discrimination requirements, which are in general applicable to all clubs and societies, are imposed unthinkingly without reference to the underlying object and purpose of those clubs and societies, the very pluralism the Student Union exists to facilitate will be destroyed.

At the same time, one can envisage a situation in which clubs and societies become closed cliques for small groups of individuals who have signed up at the start of their time at university, and which are thereafter closed off to other interested students. Clearly this runs contrary to the basic aim of giving students as wide-ranging an experience as possible of a large number of interests and pursuits. The diversity of clubs and societies should be respected, but they are to be as accessible as possible to all students.The model that should underlie any equal opportunities policy is therefore one of open pluralism.

Once again, the idea of ‘as accessible as possible’ will vary from context to context. In the context of many musical and sporting groups it will require open competitive entry and public ‘performance’. In the context of political groups there might be a mixture of members-only meetings and public events. The point is that there must be opportunities for interested but uncommitted students to find out, experience and experiment with the particular pursuit in question without undermining the activity itself. 

These considerations apply with no less force to faith-based societies. One can envisage a faith-based society which is essentially cultural in purpose, for anyone with an interest in the relevant faith. Such groups are unlikely to give rise to equal opportunities problems, so long as the Student Union is open to any group of students to establish a new religious/cultural interest-group. However, a faith-based society may also be doctrinal, in that its object may be to promote a particular religious viewpoint. This will inevitably be more or less controversial, but it is entirely lawful and indeed desirable. The general good of the student body is served not merely by the possibility of joining such a society and engaging in its activities, but by being exposed to a diversity of views and opinions. Freedom of speech is served by the existence of a market-place of ideas in which each person or group is free to make the best case for their own commitments.

In fact, the model of open pluralism is particularly appropriate in the case of faith-based student societies, since it is the model which underlies the general law governing churches and religious associations. The identity of the association is determined by its doctrinal stance, which is typically preserved in trust deeds controlling the use of property and by ensuring that some religious test is satisfied by those in control of the association. For this very reason anti-discrimination law recognises the existence of ‘genuine occupational requirements’ for those in positions of leadership. However, in order to benefit from certain key legal rights, the worship and other activities of the association must be open to the general public. Equality and diversity are served by allowing the same basic legal form to be accessed by people of all faiths, not by requiring each association to be religiously homogeneous.

In the case of faith-based student societies there can thus be no objection in principle to a leadership test which serves to preserve the particular religious viewpoint which forms the society’s object. Although a distinction is drawn on religious grounds, it is a distinction which serves the object and purpose of the society. To require such a society to abandon its essential religious identity is to discriminate on religious grounds. At the same time, there must be a suitable degree of openness about the society’s activities. It is this openness which is the price – if it is a price at all – to be paid for the privileges of Student Union recognition.

Eight Key Precepts

In the light of these general considerations, it is suggested that the following precepts may be helpful in developing and reviewing equal opportunities policies in respect of doctrinal faith-based student societies.

1. Students should be free to establish faith-based student societies with an object and purpose related to any specified doctrinal basis.
2. The leadership (executive committee) of any such society may be restricted to those who can affirm its doctrinal basis.
3. Faith-based societies may affiliate to external bodies whose objects are compatible with their own, but such affiliation must (a) be capable of being withdrawn at any time, and (b) must not compromise the autonomy of the student society.
4. The power to amend the object and purpose of the society, the power to elect leaders, and the decision to affiliate or disaffiliate with any external body may also be restricted to those in sympathy with the objects of the society.
5. Any member must be free to leave the society at any time.
6. Meetings and events (other than those of the executive committee) should be open to all well-disposed students.
7. The privileges of recognition by the Student Union, such as access to publicity, premises and financial support, should be available according to formal and neutral criteria (such as proper constitution and accountable leadership, number of members etc.).
8. Any allegation of discrimination or harassment made against the society must be properly substantiated and not based merely on the expression of unpopular or controversial opinions.