Even more unbelievable: Bristol University Christians ban women from speaking

December 4, 2012 • 2:39 pm

I hardly need add anything to this to show how barking mad Christians are—even when they’re the supposedly tame UK Christians. From the Bristol Tab via Damian Thompson’s website at the Telegraph:

Bristol University Christian Union have forbidden women from speaking at their weekly meetings.

The move reflects the recent decision by the Church of England synod to reject the introduction of female bishops, consequently ignoring the last century of the equal rights movement.

Having spent ‘a lot of time exploring this issue, seeking God’s wisdom on it and discussing it together’ the CU executive committee decided that it was no longer appropriate for women to teach alone at weekly meetings, or be the main speaker at the CU weekend away.

Women are now also banned from speaking alone at the group’s mission weeks.

However, it’s not all gloom and doom: women are allowed to speak as a double act with their husbands. Those who are unmarried must remain silent.

The Christian Union is presumably evangelical, but does that matter?

As one commenter at the Tab said, trying to justify this execrable state of affairs, the Union actually voted to allow women to speak, but limited that to certain settings.  Thompson notes:

I must say that, whatever the truth, it sounds as if the CU has some complicated policing to do. What if an unaccompanied woman’s conversation spills over in “teaching”? What if hubby steps out of the room at an “Equip” meeting and the wife carries on talking? Do they keep a gag handy?

Thanks, Church of England!  Why do all of you hate women?

Bristol University is a member of the “Russell Group,” a consortium of Britain’s top 24 public research universities.  This could never happen at an American public university, for it would immediately lose all government funding for sexual discrimination.

h/t: Pyers

117 thoughts on “Even more unbelievable: Bristol University Christians ban women from speaking”

  2. It seems to me that among the laity in any Christian denomination, women are the most active. (But perhaps others’ experience is different? I have admittedly spent little time in any church myself for a long time.) How is the loyality of women to religion explicable as anything other than Stockholm syndrome?

  3. This is just gob-smacking. I moved in fundagelical circles during my high school and college years, and women frequently addressed meetings I was in, whether or not their husbands (assuming they were even married) were present. So it’s amazing to me to see regression like this.

    1. Why are you struggling to believe this? Don’t forget that they arrived at their conclusions after seeking God’s wisdom. Since their god is a complete idiot (not to mention a genocidal maniac), we should not be at all surprised that “he” would give such inane “instructions.” We should never forget George Carlin’s admonition that the Judeo-Christian god is best characterized as an incompetent “office-temp with a bad attitude.”

    3. At York University in the 1980s, the Christian Union didn’t vote on their leader, they prayed as a group and the first person to say ‘God has chosen me’ then became leader. It was always a man.

      The official students union had already kicked them out for sexism; there was no sanction left to stop them behaving like loons.

      1. As somebody who was at York University in the 80’s at the time that was going down, I’m pretty sure the official reason given for kicking them out of the SU was that the CU leadership was not elected democratically from amongst their members.

      2. As the story ends there, I assume they didn’t have any infiltrators. The trolling could have been epic.

    3. I suspect their gods might change Its minds if all the women stopped attending and supporting. It might be worth having a sustained chat with them.

  6. Simply bewildering. Not just the decision, but the fact it’s allowed. I recently left a Russell Group university whose union wouldn’t even allow auditions for its musical societies for fear of not being inclusive.

    It’s worth pointing out that it isn’t the University of Bristol that has done this, but the christian union, which will be part of the student union which is separate from the university itself. I think it would be illegal for the university to make such a decision.

    1. I’m pretty sure that the Student’s Union will be having severe words with them, if the “Christian Union” are indeed a part of the Student’s Union. The university and the Student Union are businesses serving a subset of the general public, using funding largely from the general public. Even without considering the source of the funding, the recent “gays in a B+B” case (discussed here, IIRC) has clearly reinforced the ban on businesses discriminating against people on the basis of their marital status, religion, gender or range of bedtime sports.

  7. There’s a simple solution to this. Women should leave such groups, and refuse to date or marry guys who join them. Guys who wanna get laid and pass on their genes will soon come to their senses.

    Come on Jerry. This is not just a Christian phenomena, women are marginalised in a number of Pacific island cultures. They are not allowed into the most ritually pure parts of the village (except to do the cleaning), but are confined to more or less ritually polluted parts, especially when bleeding or after childbirth.

    1. Indeed. This is a quite contentious issue in New Zealand where some Maori iwi (tribes) do not allow women formal speaking rights on a marae, a practice sometimes mimicked by more politically correct state services departments and community groups when there is some Maori ceremonial incorporated within their organisational practices (as is often the case).
      Practice however varies from place to place and iwi to iwi and the practice is by no means fixed and is slowly changing.

      One prominent Maori leader, Dame Mira Szászy (one of the outstanding Māori women leaders of the 20th century is quoted as saying (and forgive the length of the quote but is very apposite):

      “It’s a symbol of oppression. Even the Marae itself is a symbol of oppression for me because it is there that I am denied my very basic right of free speech.

      “I don’t think I have been particularly popular with some men. I suspect that some of that resistance is based on insecurity about their own position, and a desire perhaps to retain the last bastion of power that they have. I understand that our men have lost their forums or their power in society. They’re not in industry, they’re not in politics, nowhere do they have power, our people. What do you do when you don’t have power? You oppress those you can oppress.

      “I have been told that to allow women to speak on the Marae would undermine Māori culture and would be its death knell. I said that if that is what Māori culture is hinged on, then I for one wouldn’t regret it dying. Because I don’t believe it you see.

      “I don’t believe that giving women their rights as human beings is a destructive thing. I think it’s a very positive thing and I believe that the liberation of every human being is part of the development of human society as a whole.”

      http://www.business.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/home/about/our-research/bs-research-institutes-and-centres/the-mira-szaszy-research-centre-for-maori-and-pacific-economic-development/about-dame-mira-sz-and-aacuteszy

      1. Practice however varies from place to place and iwi to iwi and the practice is by no means fixed and is slowly changing.

        Indeed, I work with the Whakatohea, and the CEO of the board of trustees is a woman.

        things really are changing, and I think for the better.

        1. that’s just it though, things are changing within the Iwi likely because there is room for it; evidently there IS no room for it within the dogma constructed around many xian sects.

  8. Sorry…how is this unbelievable? It’s a direct application of what’s written in the Bible. It’s harder to believe that fundegelical churches and the RCC don’t do the same.

  9. Better still, quote a few approving words from St. Paul on the role of women in the early Church (and they are there). That’d really set the catechism amongst the religions.

  11. It’s not like they are being unbiblical.

    1 Corinthians 14:34-35 ESV The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

    But Paul disagrees with himself as earlier in the letter he thinks it’s OK if she wears a hat or a burka or something:

    1 Corinthians 11:5 ESV But every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.

      1. Paul didn’t write 1 Timothy. It was written much later by somebody pretending to be him. In fact, in Romans 16, he seems pretty comfortable with women, numbering Junia amongst the apostles. I know this is at odds with the quotes already provided from 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, but it isn’t as if anybody believes the Bible is inerrant…

        … oh, wait..

    3. This of course raises the question of exactly why it is wrong for women to shave their heads. Oh yes of course, Paul was a crinomaniac: “A woman’s hair is her crowning glory.”

  12. “This could never happen at an American public university, for it would immediately lose all government funding for sexual discrimination.”

    Of course it could happen in the US, and almost certainly has but I’m too lazy to research it. It’s not the university that’s imposing the rule it’s the BUCU, a totally seperate organisation.

    Mike.

    1. In this case it’s the student union – and they have already said they are taking this very seriously indeed. The list of nondiscrimination rules the typical student union has for funding is remarkable.

    2. IME, student religious groups are clubs which come under the purview of student government. Whether these shenanigans could be forbidden probably depends on the details of that relationship, and the further connection of the student government to the university. Where I did my undergrad, clubs could book university rooms (for free) to hold meetings, and even got a grant from the student activity fees pool. It’s just possible that officially-recognized clubs therefore fall under the local human rights code, and might potentially be subject to sanctions.

      1. Armondikov on RW has noted tha Christian Unions generally aren’t ratified student union societies – but centrally funded and run by the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (UCCF). So they’re used to deciding this by prayer rather than a vote. In this case, the student union has stated they’re very concerned and looking into the issue, suggesting this CU has accepted money (or, at the very least, meeting space) from them.

  13. “I hardly need add anything to this to show how barking mad Christians are”

    You do. You need to justify your projection from this sample onto the whole population.

    Your universal generalization is in trouble right from the start, as “Catholic” Damian Thompson represents the single counter-example necessary to defeat it.

    1. They are barking mad and are sounding more like barking mad Muslims every day. If it’s a projection on my part, take it up with Freud. And, oh, I love generalizations and blanket statements also. Religion deserves all the ridicule we can spew, fair or not.

    2. Kevin,

      You do. You need to justify your projection from this sample onto the whole population.

      Easy. *All* Christians act in crazy ways after cherry picking a more or less random selection of bits of paper that happen to have been bound together in a book. Surely this is not in dispute?

      Jerry gives one example.

    3. If this were an isolated example, and if there were no scriptural support for banning women from being in positions of authority over men, you would have a point.

      But it’s not and there is.

      1. No. There is scriptural support banning women from positions of power in the church. I realise that (duh).

        What we atheists are saying is that scripture is stupid, inconsistent, laughable and childish.

    1. Exactly! They know they are lying, as they might say “in their hearts” but, they might not admit it even to themselves. I suspect that most of them do admit it only to themselves. In their private meetings though, at some point there was likely a discussion about how the announcement of the decision should be framed, it would be nice to have that discussion recorded.

      Gutless wonders is what christians are.

      1. White smoke. The opposite of transparency both literally and figuratively. A decision has been made, that’s all you need to know.

        1. Apparently all that the fearful need to know. But I don’t fear them or their gods, and we all need to know if we are to move beyond the muck of early civilization.

  16. I think you need to get your facts straight. The CU did not ban women. They actually allowed women to speak at certain meetings with their husbands present. This mean that for the last 7 years women have been banned.
    While this means the move is a step forward, they missed out on an opportunity to stop appearing irrelevant misogynists.

    Also seeing as the CU is not a part of the university but actually affiliated to the student union I don’t see how the university would have funding removed from it due to the actions of some stupid students. This was not a decision buy the university.

    Before getting on your high horse please make sure the horse is on sure footing. This will help make us atheists seem less douche like in our criticism of religion where it is appropriate.

    1. Harman,

      Surely you’re not saying that criticism of this behaviour by the Christian Union is not appropriate? I don’t care at all whether it’s a step forward, it is still an absolute disgrace. Besides, if the CU is affiliated with the SU, it will still have to abide by rules agreed with the university.

      It is simply not the case that the university is not partly responsible.

    2. “How can you be so mean? – They’ve publicly stated they won’t be beating their wives quite as much as before, isn’t that progress?”

    3. Unless posted as snark (in which case: fail):

      “Before getting on your high horse please make sure the horse is on sure footing. This will help make us atheists seem less douche like in our criticism of religion where it is appropriate.”

      if it’s “less douche” you’re looking for in your taste in atheists, you can start by not being a good example of the very thing you’re criticizing.

  17. Even more unbelievable still – from today’s Daily Mail:

    “A construction crew was forced to remove their ‘Men Working’ sign at a community college in Ohio after it was described as ‘sexist and non-inclusive.'”

    It gets better:
    “The builders were also made to stop working until the sign was removed.”

    I guess this shows how “barking mad” people opposed to sexual discrimination are?

      1. Kevin, if your source is from Dacre’s fakers, it must be pretty half-baked and wrinkled, old bean.

        I think the point that a lot of commenters are making is that it is barking mad to base your praxis on the inconsistent exhortations of a 2,000 year-old text. Early Christians say women are churchable; the same early Christian says women are burkable. And I presume that is behind JAC’s “barking mad” citation.

        I sometimes think that it is immaterial to me, an anti-theist, how the Church organises its internal affairs; but on balance, I don’t think so . Denying women equal rights is, I assume, a contravention of human rights legislation. And if, like the C of E, you are happy to receive privileges from the state, tax relief, guaranteed seats in the House of Lords, and the rest, then you have to submit to the laws, social mores of that state. Otherwise, you are free to do what you want, moreover, anything illegal. Even the Irish state wants (or says it wants) to prosecute paedophile (and criminal) priests.

        Where I disagree with JAC is that I see a split between (a large proportion of) the laity, who appear more “conservative”, for want of a better word, and the clergy, who in this case, stand for a more liberal view. At Bristol University we’re seeing the sigh of the (not very) oppressed.

        But “barking mad”? Yes. Because the kinetic laity slavishly cherry-pick the contradictory paraeneses of a delusional apocalyptic theologian, who wasn’t sure what his own name was; and because their far too urbane Oxbridge leadership, who probably don’t believe in God anyway, and who in all likelihood are acutely conscious of the legal Damoclean sword dangling above them, wish, in ignoring 1,900 years of Christian tradition, to assert women’s rights. And thereby to avoid damages and costs, awarded by m’learnèd friends.

        Cheers.

        1. for want of a better word, and the clergy, who in this case, stand for a more liberal view.

          strangely, with southern baptists this is often reversed.

          it is the clergy that drive what the parishioners “should” think.

          hence why it has become inextricably linked with the republican party, who rely on “aligned” clergy to use hotbutton issues like homosexuality and abortion to whip the parishioners into a voting frenzy.

          it was a great strategy that worked well for the last 30 years or so… until now.

          1. Interesting, Ichthyic.

            I suspect the relative liberality of the upper echelons of the C of E might have something to do with them frightening the bejasus out of themselves in the English revolution – killing the King, immiserating Puritanism under Cromwell, huge death rates in the English civil war, as well as in the near-contemporary Thirty Years’ War; which, I think, Pinker comments on in “Better Angels…”. Hence the relative liberalism of the English ruling classes since the Enlightenment. I ain’t an expert, but it must go some way to explaining the sickly, golden rule pallour of official English Christianity.

            I’ve read a bit recently about the change in US demographics being bad for the Republican Southern strategy, and therefore how it undermines the influence of your Baptist clergy on laity voting patterns. It seems encouraging, but I fear it might be a case of post-Obama victory euphoria. If I were a Republican, I’d be thinking about how to attract the Catholic Hispanic vote to “family-oriented-defend-against-secular-state-intrusion” ideology/nonsense. And I’d think it was worth a punt.

          2. I suspect the relative liberality of the upper echelons of the C of E might have something to do with them frightening the bejasus out of themselves in the English revolution –

            could be.

            I think it could also be that while authoritarians can be manipulated by the pulpit without attracting undue attention in the states, since they don’t have a “state religion”, you clearly can’t get away with doing the same in the UK; it would just be too obvious.

            I’ve read a bit recently about the change in US demographics being bad for the Republican Southern strategy, and therefore how it undermines the influence of your Baptist clergy on laity voting patterns.

            yup. on the nosey. Do you recall where you read that? I’d like to add relevant articles to my portfolio.

          3. London Review of Books, I think; it’s online. Always something in it worth reading. £20.00 in the UK as a Christmas yearly subscription, and no, I’m not related to the editor..

          5. Will get home in 6 hours; give me till just after then to dig around my references and reply. Sorry!

          7. Here you go, Ichthyic. LRB, 22-11-12. Christian Lorentzen, “In the Land of the Free”.

            “http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n22/christian-lorentzen/in-the-land-of-the-free”

            Apologies re: the placement; ran out of reply buttons.

    1. J/K mode on

      Women should not only not speak in church, they should be chained to the kitchen and not work outside the home. That way we can cut down on global warming (they don’t need a car), they wake up in the morning only a few yards from their workplace… 🙂

      1. You forgot the bit about keeping them barefoot (so it hurts to run), pregnant, and chained to their children too.
        when the boy children get old enough, they can drive their female relatives around, while keeping an eye on them.
        Any guesses about when the fundamentalist Xtians are going to follow the Arab Muslim lead on female genital mutilation?

  19. And I suppose this committee was all-male?

    It must be nice to be a theist, being able to label your prejudices as “God’s wisdom”.

    1. Interesting how they always seem to be able to “seek g-d’s wisdom” when it serves their prejudices, while hiding under “no one can know g-d’s mind” whenever something really nasty comes around. The 1st law of theistic compartmentalization.

  20. The next thing you know, they will be bringing a panel of “experts” before Parliament, to pontificate on women’s health care issues, and they’ll all be men.

  21. Bristol University is going to be waking up to a truly unholy fucking firestorm in the morning.

    To be fair to Bristol Uni’s Student’s Union, which the CU seems to be tied with, they’ve already issued a statement about how they are investigating this matter. Given the CU’s ties to the main Union, they’re likely bound by the equality policies that Bristol Uni has in place.

    Such a move in regards to female speakers is a major violation of equality policies.

    Which means they’re going to be up shit creek very soon, and the paddle will be noticeably absent.

  22. Even for xians this is fruitbat crazy.

    1. My old Protestant sect would be in huge trouble if they prevented women from speaking in church. Roughly half of the ministers…are women.

    2. The head of the US Anglican equivalent, the Episcopal church is a female bishop with a Ph.D. in oceanography.

    Even among the fundies, it varies. Some don’t allow women to speak or even vote on church matters, i.e. WELS, Michele Bachmann’s church. Others have had women clergy for a long time.

    1. Even among the fundies, it varies. Some don’t allow women to speak or even vote on church matters, i.e. WELS, Michele Bachmann’s church.

      Now if we could just get this policy applied to Michele everywhere else.

  23. I would be interested in how they justify this action. Is it by referencing Paul? If they are going to take their religion seriously, they certainly can point to the bible for support. So all they have to do is come up with some rationale for why a bronze-age practice is still relevant today. They could correctly criticize “liberal” Christians for not taking the bible literally, but then do they themselves advocate stoning to death their teenage kids who mouth off, and other barbaric commandments? You don’t have to go to the Old Testament even. Jesus told his followers to sell what they had and give to the poor, and hate their parents. Do these people do those things? I don’t think so. But if you’re serious about obeying what’s in the bible, you should.

    1. “I would be interested in how they justify this action”

      Didn’t you read? They sought God’s wisdom!

      And, of course, mentally masturbated among themselves.

      Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

    2. They just made it up and blamed an imaginary Sky Fairy. The usual.

      FWIW, the NT is contradictory on this point.

      Some passages say women can’t speak in church, usually the later forged Epistles.

      Some passages say the exact opposite.

      There isn’t any agreement on the issue among xian sects. Then again they have never agreed on anything.

  24. This is outrageous and surely against the law? Can you imagine the outcry if this discrimination was on the grounds of race or sexual orientation.
    My daughter is currently studying at Bristol University and she is going to complain vehemently that she does not feel comfortable studying at a university that bans female students from speaking at a society meeting. It certainly isn’t a Christian ‘Union’ if half its members are not full participants.

    1. wantingthe truth:

      Your daughter is admirable.

      I’m not at Bristol, but I’ll see if I can rally some people at Leeds to help pile on some pressure.

  25. “This could never happen at an American public university, for it would immediately lose all government funding for sexual discrimination.”

    I.e., federal funding, right? There may not be any STATE-funded universities which have forgone federal money but, were there at least one, would there be any federal remedy?

    On what basis do U.S. private universities (assuming they receive no federal money) justify what The Reasonable Person – observing the same at a public university – would consider shabby, third-rate treatment of, e.g., women? Religious “principles”? The “master-servant” general principle of U.S. labor law? If students aren’t “servants,” they’re still subordinates, eh? Human “resources” and “capital”? As a navy chum from Philly put it, “a hoitin’ piece o’ meat”?

    As a matter of principle, why should a private university be exempt from standards of decency and fair treatment obtaining at public universities? I heard some gentleman say that private universities could be sued for “breach of promise.” (Assuming promises had been made.) That’s fine if one has the discretionary income to invest in attorney fees.

  27. I don’t understand why all the outrage. As if this is a government or something…
    Of course it is not very fair and definitely not progressive, but if their make-believe club rules say they can’t speak then that’s the way it is.

    I’m glad I’m not in it, and I feel sorry for the brain washed women who are.

    1. I feel sorry for the brain washed women who are.

      But not *very* sorry, obviously. That doesn’t *have* to be the way it is. We don’t have to let it be the way it is. And we shouldn’t.

      You know very well that clubs without a religious affiliation would not be allowed to do this, but as usual religion gets a free pass.

      1. I tend to agree with Johnny. It’s batshit insane, but do we really care about the speaking rights of Xtian women at their Xtian meetings? It’s their silly club, they can make any rules they like. Anyone stupid enough to put up with rules like that probably… deserves to be a member 😉 (Yeah I know about thin-edge-of-the-wedge slippery-slope arguments, and I regard them as usually spurious).

        Now if they showed the slightest inclination to try and apply that sort of nonsense _outside_ their private meetings, then they should be promptly sat on. But as it is, aside from marvelling at their idiocy, I can’t rouse any great indignation at it.

        1. The issue isn’t about clubs though, is it? It’s about how institutions treat women. And how their members think about women. Women are not second class citizens. It is *never* under *any circumstance* OK to treat women as though they are second class citizens. I don’t understand how you can argue that it’s OK, especially since your argument is that you personally don’t really happen to care much about it. Don’t you see why… nah, you don’t, there’s not much point in my carrying on, is there?

          Do I *really* need to point out that you probably wouldn’t think it was all right if a university club said that black people couldn’t speak without a special license? Or jews? Or asians? Chinese people can’t talk at my club unless they have a tattoo of my face on their arse. What’s the difference?

  28. I have to applaud them for actually listening to what their holy book says about women teaching. And then point and laugh at how absurd the mandates of their holy book are.

    If they keep it up their membership could well drop by 50%. I would consider that a good thing. They are doing an excellent job of showing how opposed to modern standards of decent behavior the Bible is.

    1. If they keep it up their membership could well drop by 50%.

      You’re making the assumption that the XU are an gender balanced group ; I’d doubt that was the case before this decision, and certainly not in the future. It certainly wasn’t the case when I was at Uni (though we had the complicating factor of significant numbers of Islanders from the hysterically-afraid-of-women sects out there).

    1. TBH, I suspect that’s the case. Making it a cack-handed attempt at a religious reductio ad absurdum.
      That doesn’t sound terribly effective, does it?

  30. There is only one solution. Organized groups of women need to wear masks, stalk the leaders of this group and find them alone in the dark, beat the shit out them in a four to one beatdown, and then disappear into the darkness.

    Yep, I’m advocating violence. The same violence I experienced for being an atheist.

    1. Kindly explain what that would achieve and why. We’re all skeptics here, right? So let’s discuss your learned doctrine of how pretend violence will certainly engender peace.

  31. The BU student’s union already reacted:

    A statement regarding the University of Bristol Christian Union

    We have been made aware of a communication from the University of Bristol Christian Union, and we would like to assure our members and the general public that UBU and the full-time elected officers are investigating the issue further in consultation with the groups involved. In particular we will be making certain that our Equality Policy is properly adhered to in all cases.

    The University of Bristol Students’ Union takes allegations of discrimination very seriously. UBU has an Equality Policy which explains that we prohibit discrimination on grounds of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief (including lack of belief), sex and sexual orientation in line with The Equality Act 2010 and as one of our key values of equality and diversity.

    Vice President Welfare and Equality

    Alessandra Berti

    2. I note that they are careful to separate gender, sexual activity, reproduction and religious belief. Which are indeed, separate matters (or at least, have been since the invention of the turkey baster).

  33. I wonder if the Cambridge University New Testament Society is still extant? Sadly, I doubt it ….

    1. My father told me (and who am I to disbelieve me old man?) that when he was at Cambridge before the war, nobody had the heart to tell them ……

    2. I know it isn’t quite the same, but Durham Inter-Collegiate Christian Union is still going strong…

    3. If they are, it is probably under a different name, as Cambridge University New Testament Society was not easily acronymed! It was, apparently (and, perhaps, appropriately) quite some time before someone pointed that out to them.

      Oxford Intercollegiate Christian Union is still going strong, albeit with diminishing numbers, as is the Graduate Christian Union.

  34. “…seeking god’s wisdom on it….” If anyone amongst that lot heard voices in his head telling him what they should do, then we can be pretty sure there is schizophrenia involved – just like the so-called “prophets” who claimed to have a direct link to “god” back in the days when mental disease was often seen as being possessed of a devil!

  35. “This could never happen at an American public university, for it would immediately lose all government funding for sexual discrimination.”

    This is a society within the university presumably run by students. As shocking as I find the story, why should the university do anything about it? No one is forced to go to these meetings.

    I certainly wouldn’t want the government stepping in to restrict funding to one of our top universities over something a minority of students do in their spare time. A tad on the totalitarian side for me…

    1. The Bristol University Christian Union is affiliated with the Bristol University Student Union.

      The Bristol University Student Union has policies on equal opportunities that it requires affiliated clubs to abide by.

      Further, the Student Union is given funds and access to University facilities by the University. The University will be legally required to ensure that the Student Union has equal opportunities in place, and that it follows them.

      Can you explain why you think the Bristol University Christian Union should be exempt from following the rules ?

  36. I would be very surprised if the student union at Bristol did not stop them using university premises… Bristol, we are watching your reaction.

    1. I’m a Bristol student and needless to say there’s a whole lot of uproar about it. The Union hasn’t yet said much more than “we’re looking into it” but given the backlash I’d expect something to be done. Just need to make sure we keep the pressure on and don’t let this just blow over.

  38. Just a note; the CU at the University is not part of the University, it’s a club which may or may not be associated with the Student Union at the University.

    As such, the University’s receipt of funds is in no way influenced by the activity of what is a third party, nor should it.

    That aside, CUs in the UK are generally peopled by what I believe Americans call milksops.

  41. I am an American but have taught in the UK for, now, nineteen years. Far worse discrimination goes in universities, which, with the exception of one or two new universities, are state funded. There are professorships of divinity or theology at Oxford and Cambridge, whether or not elsewhere, for which one must be an ordained Anglican minister. (The result is often the appointment of persons so mediocre that they would have trouble getting jobs at US community colleges.)

    Religious education is mandatory in the UK, where it is of course prohibited in public schools in the US. And much of the teaching is of Christianity.

    At the same time the UK as a whole seems far more committed to multiculturalism than does the US.

    Bristol attracts undergrads who get rejected by Oxford and Cambridge.

    Robert Segal
    Prof. of Religious Studies
    University of Aberdeen

    1. My wife is a Head of Humanities in a Secondary School and she tells me this.

      Yes, indeed, RE is mandatory from primary school up to the age of 16 in England and Wales (don’t know about Scotland, which has a different educational system). However, what is taught is determined by bodies (SACREs) whose influence extends no further than the Local Authorities; so content will differ (within certain parameters) from one county to another.

      RE is often called PEARS, Philosophical, Ethical and Religious Studies, so the idea is that this is an early introduction to comparative religion, ideas etc.

      RE is the only subject which a parent can withdraw their child from (Jehovah’s Witnesses often do that). It is also the sole lesson which a teacher can refuse to teach.

      1. I have dim memories of RE. I don’t think there were exams in it, and IIRC it enjoyed about the same status as PE (physical education) – i.e. about as low as it could get.

        On the whole, R.E. probably did more to persuade us that religion was boring, old-fashioned and stupid than it ever achieved in indoctrinating us. As an atheist, I’d say RE was the least danger – a bit like cowpox to religion’s smallpox.

      2. It’s definitely not mandatory up until 16 – we chose our GCSE options at 14 and I stopped there. I can’t remember anything of RE apart from the amount that I pissed off the rather Christian teacher. A Douglas Adams-reading teenager isn’t really the target audience!

        As for the Bristol kerfuffle, I think that it is absolutely hilarious. The club may have access to university resources via the local Student Union, and if my old SU (Salford, early 90s) were anything to go by then they were so politically correct it hurt*. If the club were affiliated with the SU then they could lose that and access to the university, if not then there isn’t really much that the SU or NUS as a whole can do apart from make noises, and maybe the university could ban them from it’s property completely.

        * Not sure what they made of Muslim clubs, fwiw…

  42. But, are they allowed to bring sammiches to the meetings? I hear xian wimmin make the best sammiches….

    This sarcasm brought to you by the letters F and U. 😀

Comments are closed.