Perhaps it's because the Christian group is Asian and not a bunch of white folks...LOL!
On a serious note, I think the idiotic school officials walked themselves into a possible lawsuit and they back peddled real quick. However, we should not ignore the fact that this took place.
Nice to see Left cave for a change....it needs to be contagious.
They knew the backlash was coming, and this shouldn't stop it. U of M should come under full scale attack, alone with any known investors/partners.
they also got tons of Calls, Letters and Emails, from the Vast many of us willing Drop our Season Tickets to the many sporting Events we hold.
I hold Football. Pricey little things that would help them lose money. it was my Pleasure to join the Alumni Association and do my part - also on their wall we chose to say they didn't want anymore of our Donations to the Countless other programs we give to, Like the Marching Band, which operates strictly on the Donations of others.
You see i pay a nice little premium donation to the School, then on top of that I chose to donate to other programs, which then gives me nice little emails and invites to many events in the Sporting World at U OF M. when this happened, Ms Mary Sue Coleman, that progressive liberal manic depressive Socialist president of the University didn't know what hit her behind, it was called Affirmative Action in reverse. :) :)
God Bless these kids, keep them in your prayers, my daughter was a part of their group, not the Asian group, but their other associated Christian groups on Campus. May Jesus just live on and on through these kids. they do good work.
I never heard if Thomas Moore Law Center got involved, the are right in Ann Arbor. I know several people from the alumni association said they were going to contact them.
This is good news, but I don't celebrate pretending that a wrong was not done. The university (and others likewise engaged in exclusionary persecution) only give in because of the bad publicity.
They would never have changed their policy if there had not been potential legal and/or public displeasure. It's exactly like catching a thief with stolen goods, but allowing him to go free because he's willing to return the stolen items.
A 'win' would involve punishment or sanctions of some kind for having committed the violation of human rights in the first place.
Well, if the University did NOT do this, they would have been facing a big law suit. Since the University of Michigan is a state-run institution and not a private university (at least I'm assuming it is), then denying the rights of the students to practice their religious beliefs probably would have been seen as unconstitutional. Undoubtedly, the university did not want a long and expensive law suit on their hands and "saw the light." Good for them.
U of M is a Public University that gets Federal Dollars, and in the case Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez, the court ruled that a public college may enforce an "all-comers" policy on a religious group without violating the First Amendment, as long as it applies the policy to all campus groups. (this was taken from the article)
so that Means She would have had to make that Policy stick to the Muslims on Campus. Our Tax Dollars paid for Footbaths a the U of M dearborn campus for Muslims.
so a big lawsuit would have been against her, and she is still fighting in the courts on we the people voting to ban affirmative action in our Constitution.
Gee, I wonder if a lawyer was involved? Nothing like the threat of a good old old fashioned lawsuit ass-whooping to make Indoctrination U do its due dilligence.
Somewhat OT, but very important:
Today was the second reading in Parliament, of a Bill legalising 'gay marriage', which goes beyond the rights established in 2004, in 'Civil Partnership'.
It was hugely ideological, conservative members have been leaving the local associations in droves, while the gay activists were literally drooling all over conservative sites and on twitter.
PM Cameron pushed this through against counsel, against his inner party opposition. The votes are now in, and he 'won' thanks to Labour and the rest of the left MPs, 400 to 175.
The very important point here is that he did not get 50% of his own Party MPs to vote for this. The name roll call isn't in yet, but 139 voted against his Bill, and only 132 for it - 152 would have been 50%.
This may well mean that Cameron will not be PM for the 2015 elections.
Interesting. Cameron seems to me to be in the wrong party. He should be in Labour Party.
The sun has set on the empire.
Oh, the Empire went a long time ago. Cameron, who proclaimed himself to be the 'heir to Blair', and who won his leadership election because he's a smooth PR man, became a Tory because he reckoned he'd climb the greasy pole to power better in that party - just as Blair decided to join Labour for exactly the same reason: gaining power - and then money.
The roll call has now gone out, and those who voted against are not just the big beasts, the older conservatives, but a lot of the young intake from 2010 as well.
I don't think he'll survive this. He was not present at all in the House during the debate - a sure sign of contempt for his party.
Moreover, conservatives have been leaving the local associations in droves because of this bill. If the Tory Party wants to survive, they must -and will- get rid of him. Much will be forgiven a PM who gets the votes. One who is set to lose the next election will be for the chop. The Tory grandees are very handy at wielding the knife.
Michigan is coming around. Nice moonwalk there U of M.
Our state legislature and Governor also exempted Michigan Citizens from the NDAA and made us a right to work state this past year.
Yay Michigan! We're coming back.
Hmmm... sticking with your beliefs, standing fast, praying, having faith in God... wow, it REALLY does work! Of course it does. :)
In other words they were discriminating/selective enforcing and got caught. Other groups most likely were not being forced to comply and when this was pointed out they open themselves up to massive litigation. Just a guess...