Introduction

Many of you have faced discrimination in one form or another, but it can give some perspective to look at how others have experienced and handled it. Whether it's a recent Supreme Court case on a club's right to discriminate, a profile of someone who faced discrimination years ago, or the current challenge of vandalized flyers, you can read about it in this issue of the eMpirical!

Revamped Service: Secular Student Alliance Flyer Exchange

The Secular Student Alliance is proud to host the Flyer Exchange, a library of flyers used by campus groups around the country. The SSA has always felt that the most valuable resource within the student movement is the ingenuity and creativity of our grassroots activists. Drawing on this, the SSA hosts an online library filled with flyers, posters, tabling supplies and other materials that student freethought groups across the country have successfully utilized on their campuses.

You can view the current collection of flyers below. They are sorted into categories based on their function. Of course, you can feel free to download and tweak flyers from any category to meet your group's needs.

Share and share alike! We hope that you will not only gain ideas from the flyers in the gallery, but also offer your group's flyers to be posted so that other affiliates can benefit from your ideas! If you would like to submit one or more of your flyers to the Exchange, feel free to use our flyer submission form or e-mail your design to flyers@secularstudents.org. Please remember that while a PDF is lovely to look at, it is difficult to edit - please send us the original file format whenever possible so that borrowers may make the most of it!

Flyers to Advertise Meetings
Click here to view flyer ideas and examples for your group's meetings

Special Events Flyers
Click here to view flyers that have been used to advertise special events

Group Advertising Flyers
Click here to view flyers to advertise your group

Printable Tabling Supplies
Click here to view tabling supplies that your group can print and use

Back to top

Clever Response: Open Letter to Vandals

After seeing his group's banner torn down and display vandalized, SFU Skeptics Vice President Jakob Liljenwall wrote this tongue-in-cheek open letter to those responsible:

Dear Vandal(s),

We, the SFU Skeptics, could not help but notice that our banner was once again affected by your handiwork last week. While your first work directly recontextualized the banner itself (from the context of hanging up to the context of being crumpled up on the floor), this latest piece seems to consist of an abstract expressionist addendum to the glass display case in which the banner was kept, obscuring part of the message only as long as it remained mounted. Now that the banner has been removed, your painted addition is more curiosity than commentary.

Obviously, the SFU Skeptics recognize your work for the well-considered art that it is, though others might mistake it for a cowardly and infantile act of aggression against some rather mundane ideas. Ideas are of course the key here, and so we cordially offer you an opportunity to express your own. So far the medium of vandalism appears to have served you well; we are acutely aware that you disagree with the text on our banner. Unfortunately, your own ideas have not been clearly articulated by acts of simple contrarianism, and we believe that an experiment in another medium might rectify this.

Specifically, we would like to invite you to stage a piece of performance art with us. In particular, we had in mind the sort often referred to as a "discussion" and engaged in by those who identify as "adults". You need bring only yourself and your ideas; the club will provide finger paints so long you express an understanding that they are not to be eaten. We are eagerly looking forward to this collaboration. You may RSVP either by email or prank phone call.

Sincerely,
The SFU Skeptics

Jakob Liljenwall is a founding member and current Vice President of the Simon Fraser University Skeptics in Vancouver BC. He is also a volunteer for CFI, Vancouver.

Back to top

In Defense of Discrimination: A Criticism of the CLS v. Martinez Ruling

Justice Stevens concludes one of his last concurring opinions with the observation that "the ... argument [the Christian Legal Society chapter at Hastings College of Law] presses, however, is hardly limited to these facts. Other groups may exclude or mistreat Jews, blacks and women �“ or those who do not share their contempt for Jews, blacks, and women. A free society must tolerate such groups. It need not subsidize them, give them its official imprimatur, or grant them equal access to law school facilities." I agree that society need not give its support to such groups. What strikes me about this case, however, is that there is no indication that the Christian Legal Society (CLS) has mistreated, shown contempt for, or in any significant sense excluded non-christians or homosexuals.

The other party in this case is not a law student who feels that he has been excluded by CLS, it is the dean of the law school who seeks to enforce his school's nondiscrimination policy. CLS members, in violation of the policy, wish to restrict voting rights and leadership positions to students who share the organization's religious beliefs (including as it regards sexual morality). Hastings College of Law (Hastings), by its own terms, "is committed to a policy against legally impermissible, arbitrary or unreasonable discriminatory practices." What this suggests, of course, is that there are some discriminatory practices which are not legally impermissible, arbitrary, or unreasonable.

As 21st-century Americans, we have become so obsessed with equality and diversity that we have turned "discrimination" into an identifier of pure evil. When we hear "discrimination" our minds shut down, our blood boils, and we experience an uncontrollable urge to denounce the heretic who dares to stand against our liberal values. But as atheists, freethinkers, and intelligent people in general, we should take a step back, turn our minds back on, and remember that there is a difference between discrimination in the purely procedural sense and discrimination in the morally wrong sense. To discriminate in the procedural sense is simply to make a distinction. To discriminate in the morally wrong sense is to make distinctions based on prejudice rather than individual merit. Only the latter ought to be prohibited.

The notion of merit, central to the morally wrong sense of discrimination, is unavoidably dependent on context. It is a good thing that fire departments discriminate in hiring on the basis of physical ability. It is a good thing that the federal government discriminates by taxing on the basis of gradual income. It is a good thing that university admissions offices discriminate on the basis of academic ability. But I would not want the fire departments discriminating on the basis of income, the federal government to tax on the basis of academic ability, or university admissions offices to base admissions on the basis of physical ability.

CLS undeniably discriminates in the procedural sense. Members do give voting rights and leadership positions to people who hold certain beliefs, and deny them to others. But the relevant question is whether CLS discriminates in the arbitrary, unreasonable, morally wrong sense. Is belief in the specific religious tenants an appropriate qualification to lead or vote in an organization dedicated to loving and serving Jesus Christ? Does it seem more appropriate once we learn that CLS's most frequent activity is christian bible studies? It is difficult to imagine what could be a more appropriate qualification of leadership or voting rights in CLS than belief in its religious platform.

Some supporters of the Supreme Court's decision have argued that students who do not agree with CLS's beliefs will not actually seek leadership positions in CLS. This argument undermines their own case. Either students who don't share CLS's beliefs but still would seek to become CLS leaders were it not for the CLS policy exist, or they don't. If such students do exist, then CLS members are justified in being concerned about these nonbelieving members' potential influence on their group. If such students do not exist, then CLS is discriminating against ghosts, and there is no one for Hastings to protect from discrimination. This is one reason this case is unique: It alleged discrimination without a person claiming to have been discriminated against.

Hastings also clearly discriminates, at least in the procedural sense: the college grants recognition and specific benefits to all student organizations except one. The same questions asked of CLS must also be asked of Hastings: does the college discriminate in the morally wrong sense? Is the distinction between groups which limit voting rights and leadership positions based on beliefs and those which do not reasonable? Is it relevant to the college's purpose in supporting student groups?

The Supreme Court considered these questions and concluded that the distinction was relevant based on several unsound points. One of the purposes of a university in supporting student groups is to provide leadership opportunities to students. CLS's policies would prevent some students from gaining leadership experience in CLS. However, Hastings, like most universities, supports a large number of student groups representing a wide array of beliefs, interests, and activities. Every student, whatever his or her beliefs or sexual orientation, will be eligible to be a leader in many of them. A lesbian christian at Hastings, for example, may not be able to be a leader in CLS, but she could be a leader in the LGBT student group, and could found a Christian group supporting gay rights if she chose. Thus, allowing CLS to limit its leadership does not interfere with Hastings purpose here.

Another purpose of a college is to promote an exchange of ideas amongst students with very different worldviews, to allow students to learn from each other outside the classroom. If CLS members were trying to prevent non-christians from attending their bible studies or other events, such actions would interfere with Hastings' purpose in supporting student groups. But CLS members aren't. CLS members welcome non-christians and LGTB christians to attend their events and participate in discussion. Why, after all, would evangelical christians pass up such an easy opportunity to expose their peers to Jesus Christ, and to address their peers' questions about christianity? CLS members only wish to restrict voting rights and leadership positions, and those have little to do with the interactions of students of different worldviews�”which a university ought to promote.

Hastings has no reasonable basis for denying recognition to CLS, as recognizing and funding CLS would serve Hastings' purposes in supporting student groups as much as recognizing and funding any other group does. Whether Hastings is acting out of prejudice against a certain kind of christianity or out of a blind faith in a liberal ideal of equality, it is discriminating in the morally wrong sense. If we truly value a diversity of ideas and beliefs, then universities ought to support a variety of groups each promoting different beliefs, and each led by students holding the beliefs they are promoting. That is how we achieve the tolerance, learning, cooperation, and friendship between individuals of different worldviews that are often the best products of a university education.

Frank Bellamy is the founder and former president of the Secular Student Alliance at RPI, a former president of the Secular Student Alliance at UD, and the content manager of the eMpirical.

Back to top

No Discrimination Allowed: A Campus Organizer's Defense of the CLS v. Martinez Ruling

I suppose I should first point out that I am not a lawyer; I am a campus organizer, and I'm applying a strictly common-sense reading of the issues at stake in this case. The issue in the recent U.S. Supreme Court case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez was whether a public, state-funded institution may deny recognition to a religious student organization because the group requires its officers and voting members to agree with its core religious viewpoints. The court's decision was in favor of Martinez and Hastings Law School, declaring that Hastings had the right to equally apply its non-discrimination policy to all student groups.

The court's decision was ultimately based on some examinations of lower-court findings and assorted other legalese and semantics (Check out ScotusWiki). That said, the big question that surrounded the case is whether CLS should have been allowed to discriminate. At first glance, there are some reasons to think that this might be acceptable: after all, a small minority group might worry that it could be taken over by those who don't share its core values, or have its message diluted by a large membership of varying viewpoints.

I call bullshit. As a campus organizer who works with small minority groups (most hated minority in America, wouldn't vote for President, yadda yadda, you've all heard the statistics), CLS's claim comes across as, at worst, a group of wannabe victims craving the legal protection to do whatever they want, at best suffering from overactive paranoia of those they want to exclude.

CLS appears to be bringing a legal suit against ghosts. If students were prone to placing moles in other organizations with the intent of taking over, one would think that in the ten-year history of the SSA, with hundreds of groups coming and going, we would have seen at least one case of a group being taken over by hostile Christians in order to crush the atheists. After all, we are the most hated minority in the U.S. (see above). Right? Well, it hasn't happened, and to be honest I've seen some groups that were pretty ripe for takeover.

When it comes right down to it, students have better things to do than to hang out with people that don't want anything to do with them in order to try to take over their student groups. And if CLS is really worried about it, they should adopt policy of charging a $20/year membership fee, which most universities allow. No one in their right mind is going to pay money to waste their time taking over a student group they don't agree with.

Detractors of the court's decision have argued that Hastings Law School was discriminatory in disallowing CLS official status on campus, as it was the only group to be denied official status because of its membership requirements. This view appears to be ignoring the other key element at play: CLS is also the only group applying for recognition that has a discriminatory clause in its membership requirements. Were Hastings to allow CLS an exemption from that policy, it would actually be favoring this one group above all others: the fringe Christian group would be allowed to block certain individuals from membership, but the atheist group, the Muslim group, the philosophy club and others would not. It's difficult to argue that Hastings was applying its nondiscrimination policy unequally simply because it said "no" to the group that wanted an exemption from the policy.

If Hastings had chosen to grant a "religious views" exemption to CLS, it creates a problematic precedent. Of course, at that point, any other religious group who wanted an exemption ought to be able to get one (else Hastings would be discriminating against them, right?). What about the atheist group on campus? Technically not "religious" in the traditional sense of the word - so does Hastings say that the religious students can discriminate but atheists and other nontheists cannot? Or do they allow the atheists to disallow religious students? How about the neo-Nazi group that doesn't want to allow Jewish students? Should Hastings offer exemptions from the racial clause for KKK groups? It's easy to maintain a policy that's equally applied, but once you start handing out exemptions, the measure of what group is eligible for an exemption becomes considerably more subjective, and can lead to real discrimination.

One of the benefits CLS would have gained with official recognition is access to the pool of funds available to student organizations. Those funds are distributed in a viewpoint-neutral manner (see Wisconsin v. Southworth), so CLS would have been able to use its funds for anything from bible studies to hosting anti-gay, anti-atheist speakers and the like. This is the right of every recognized student group at a public institution. However, the funds for those activities are drawn from a pool that every student is required to pay into as an "activities fee" or similar fee paid alongside tuition. Currently, students' funds may end up supporting events they don't approve of, but they are not barred from participation. CLS would have set a precedent in which they could use those funds from the entire student body, including those students barred from membership in the organization, to pay for events that certain students would be barred from. A gay student, for example, might be forced to pay for an anti-gay event where he would not be allowed to attend even to defend himself.

That exchange of ideas is another valuable commodity that would be lost were CLS to be given permission to discriminate. Sure, they could theoretically still have events that were open to the public and welcome non-Christians to challenge their views…but I find it unlikely, given that they've just pushed a lawsuit to the Supreme Court in an attempt to ensure that they don't have to.

But - even given all these reasons - the most important reason I feel that the Supreme Court is correct in upholding the lower courts' rulings on this case is that they maintain the right of the individual over the right of the group. Given that CLS has not (and very likely will not) suffer harm by not barring gays and non-Christians from their group, granting them a legal exemption to a policy that isn't hurting them sets up a very dangerous precedent wherein a group's right - to determine its membership, to receive school funding, even to maintain its core values - is given precedence over the right of any one individual. Much as most of us would agree that corporations' interests shouldn't take precedence over individuals, no group should have rights that overshadow those of an individual.

Lyz Liddell is the director of campus organizing at the Secular Student Alliance, where she supports over 200 freethinking campus groups (somehow without exploding). She has watched the CLS v. Martinez case since before it rose to the Supreme Court, well aware that its rulings would have direct impact on the student groups she supports, and spent a long time considering the implications of the case before siding with Martinez.

Back to top

Letter from Joe Foley, New Secular Student Alliance Board Chair

Back to top

Featured Speaker: Ellery Schempp

[Ellery Schempp is a member of the Secular Student Alliance Speakers Bureau and can come to your campus to speak!]

By Coltara Cody

The word physicist might suggest involvement in a deep and heady field of academia, one that may bring to mind scientists so preoccupied by their work that they rarely venture into the social world. Or it may conjure up academics who are so brilliant that the average person may have trouble conversing with them. That is, at least, what the popular media would suggest to us.

However, the physicist Ellery Schempp is hardly aloof. Along with several other Secular Student Alliance members, I had the privilege of sitting down to breakfast with him, an experience well worth getting drenched in the morning rain. Ellery didn't seem to mind our soggy conditions, which cemented my fondness for him, if his speech the evening before hadn't already.

His evening presentation had made clear where his favored topics of discussion resided: He enjoyed conversing about democracy and the separation of church and state. His knowledge about these topics was backed up by a strong understanding of the U.S. Constitution as a secular document and a better comprehension of the Bible than many Christians I know.

Ellery appeals to many of my aspirations. He is full of passion and reminds me of my grandfather, Frank. He is full of life and respect for others to where age becomes irrelevent. The youthful vigor of his words takes center stage and showcases a determination for secular causes that has belies his decades of experience.

Ellery first influenced separation of church and state activism when he was in high school, where his actions eventually led to the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case, Abington School District v. Schempp. In 1956, at Abington High School in Pennsylvania, Ellery protested against school-mandated Bible readings by reading silently from a Qur'an. When he was sent to the principal's office, his father and the ACLU stood beside him in challenging the constitutionality of the school district's policy. While it took five years for the case to be decided, it was an 8-1 decision and a victory for the First Amendment.

The stories Ellery shared spoke volumes about secularism's importance in our society. In his case, standing up for the Constitution led to his principal sending letters of "disrecommendation" about Ellery to colleges, floods of angry letters, and outright ostricism. As a freethinker, I am grateful to the Schempps for what they went through for the rest of us. A sixteen-year-old boy in the 1950s was strong enough to stand up and do the right thing. In the face of adversity, he prevailed and grew up to have a successful career in science and technology-pioneering work on the MRI-and continuing to fight for the rights of nontheists.

A true champion of freedom, Ellery was an inspiration as a confident man brimming with wit and a diversity of knowledge, beyond even the realms of religion, politics, and science. I learned much in the short span of devouring my strawberry French toast and appreciated how willing he was to converse with us. His respectful and humanistic nature was a reminder of why we support the things we do.

Ellery has received multiple awards from various secular institutions, including the "Champion of the First Amendment Award" from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the "Religious Liberty Award" from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and most recently, the "Freethought Backbone Award" from our very own Secular Student Alliance. He is intensely deserving of all of these accolades.

Ellery now lives in Boston, Massachusetts, and he serves on the advisory board for the Secular Student Alliance, and is a member of the American Humanist Association and the ACLU. He continues to be a popular speaker and teacher for the secular movement-someone who has been active in the struggle for civil liberties throughout his life.

Coltara Cady is the soon-to-be president of the forming Legion of Logic secular group at Northwest Arkansas Community College. A nefarious pirate and video game addict, she is also a passionate journalism major devoted to knowledge and the promotion of rational thought. Currently she works for the Barnes and Noble College Booksellers on her campus, a fitting job she couldn't love more. Her favorite color remains a mystery.

Back to top

Iacoviello Wins $1,000 American Atheists Scholarship

by Leslie A. Zukor

Congratulations to David Iacoviello, the 2010 American Atheists scholarship runner-up. Each year, American Atheists gives three prizes to nontheists who have distinguished themselves via their activism. In the past, the organization has given out a $2,000 Founders' Scholarship first prize, a $1,000 runner-up award, and a $1,000 Chinn Scholarship to an outstanding gay/lesbian atheist activist. However, there were no LGBT entrants this year, so they gave out two second prizes instead. The Secular Student Alliance has a history of producing scholarship winners, including current SSA board members, Hemant Mehta and Andrew Cederdahl, and former board member, Becky Robinson. The 2010 Founders' Scholarship went to Leslie A. Zukor. David Iacoviello and Andrew Choufrine were the runners-up. Zukor and Choufrine will be profiled in upcoming editions of the eMpirical.

As for David Iacoviello, he is a natural freethinker and has been inquisitive about religion since he was five. As a child, when a dear friend went to a Christian camp, David decided to tag along. Impressed by Iacoviello's questioning, the Pastor called home to praise the young attendee. However, David had his doubts about Christianity even at such a young age. "I saw straight through this belief system," he recalls. "[I] asked the questions a Pastor does not want to answer." Even though Iacoviello didn't believe in Jesus and never attended Bible camp again, he was still engaged in a search for the "right" religion. The next faith he tried - and ultimately discarded - was Judaism. Since David had maternal Jewish ancestors, he read the Old Testament to see if he identified with the faith. While he liked that the religion had no sSavior, he could not accept God's vengeance. "In the Old Testament," Iacoviello explained, "the stories depict God very negatively, and I didn't think a God would possess those characteristics." By high school, he was an agnostic, though he didn't know the word at the time.

For all of his questions about religion, David Iacoviello didn't identify as a non-believer until college. When he met his girlfriend, an atheist, David began to consider nontheism as a viable option. "I thought [atheism to be] silly at the time," he admits, but then he read The God Delusion. In his words, "that book set off the research." Iacoviello then read Sam Harris, took courses in the philosophy of religion, and read articles on StumbleUpon, all of which bolstered his new found non-belief. As a result of the hostility toward atheism and to "spread the good news," David started an atheist club, the Society of American Youth Secularists, at his school, William Paterson University in New Jersey. His group's best attended event was a Darwin Day panel, where a biology professor, along with experts in fields such as anthropology, geology, and philosophy, discussed the impact and evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution. Iacoviello's panel drew 100 people and is now an annual event. In addition, preacher turned atheist Dan Barker came to speak, along with atheist comedian, Keith Lowell Jensen. David also spearheaded an event where people had to give secular reasons for making gay marriage illegal. This event drew widespread attention at his college.

While the club activism is impressive, it was through David Iacoviello's church-state separation advocacy that he ultimately distinguished himself. In the fall of 2009, he received an anonymous letter from a science teacher in Montville, New Jersey, a twenty-minute drive from William Paterson. The letter explained that the town's $796.72 publicly-funded nativity scene, along with its holiday decorations and menorah, violated the establishment clause of the Constitution. Wanting to fight against the entanglement of church and state and the endorsement of religion over non-religion, David entered into a dialogue with the Montville Board. The end result was that he was invited to a Montville Board meeting, where he stressed the unconstitutionality of the displays. While the looks of derision from the audience spoke volumes, he received a personal thank you from the science teacher who wrote the anonymous letter. After the Board Meeting, Iacoviello thought that the story was over. However, the next day, TV stations were interested in airing the controversy. In all, several articles were written on the issue, and David made four TV appearances, including a segment on CBS New York.

In addition to David's past activism, Iacoviello continues to make an impact for secularism. Not satisfied with the Montville Board's inaction, he contacted the ACLU about the city's actions. While the ACLU wouldn't take up the case about religious symbols on public property, since there were secular holiday displays - reindeers and wreaths - as well, it was very interested in challenging another of the city's violations of the Constitution. Through contacting the civil liberties organization, Iacoviello spearheaded ACLU action about Montville Board meetings, which open with a public prayer. The case is ongoing and is proof that he continues to dedicate himself to atheist activism, even after winning the award. As he says, "I plan to be…ready to stand up for the rights of the nonreligious wherever they are threatened, in or out of school." For all David's advocacy, the Secular Student Alliance is proud to congratulate Iacoviello for winning the American Atheists $1,000 scholarship.

Leslie A. Zukor is Secretary of the Secular Student Alliance's Board of Directors. Currently earning an Anthropology degree from Reed College in Portland, Oregon, Zukor aspires to a career in investigative journalism or wildlife photography.

Back to top