Senate Chair Darwinson Valdez, who could not be present at the final hearing, emailed his letter to the Student-Wide Judiciary to The Spectrum. All words are his own, edited only for grammar and clarity.
Good afternoon,
The undergraduates at the University at Buffalo expect that they will have the rights that are protected by the Student Association constitution. First we will like to start our defense by making clear that all the allegations made by IVCF cannot be heard during today's hearing. The reason being that some of them are allegations that have to be brought against a different body in a different case. That being the one that the Senate had them suspended without due process or proper investigation. Their first suspension came from the executive board of SA, which was totally out of the control of the Senate.
We must not forget that once the issue was brought to the Senate, we created an investigative committee that was headed by the club coordinator, and had members that consisted of the SA Vice President, an on-campus senator and another SA club coordinator. The finding of this committee was that the club had a "basis of faith" that indeed limited membership to the students at the University at Buffalo (please refer to document in evidence title; Finding Of The Senate Investigative Committee On Intervarsity Christian Fellowship).
Leadership and membership have been what IVCF wants to categorize as separate and different when yes, we must agree that they are two different words but in this case we must also take into consideration that what they are arguing could only be looked at two ways.
One being, let's consider the notion that they are separate, the members and leaders will be different. Why should one member have the right to be part of the executive board of the club while other members can't?IVCF's full function should be open to all students. Each and every member should have the right to participate to full extension in all functions of the organization. IVCF has claimed on repeated occasions that you cannot have a democrat leading the republican club. We must know there is a reason for the election and that is for the members of an organization to elect who they believe best fits to follow what the organization wants, believes and needs at that moment.
The second way being that IVCF does not in any part of its constitution explains the difference between members and leaders. This is a way to escape the wording of all constitutions that IVCF has to follow. If this court decides to consider that it must take into account that in the future most clubs will just start using a ranking order of members in which one will be call a different name that could be determine by their "belief, ability to play sport/do an activity, language skill, or academic knowledge." It will only be putting a limit on our nearly 19,000 undergraduates who pay the mandatory student fee. We must not forget that they are the ones who should have the privilege and opportunity to have an open membership in all clubs.
The plaintiffs have made it clear that the reason they want to have a "basis of faith" is because they must stick to the original reason the club was created. In the application submitted in 1957, (please refer to the document in evidence titled Student Activity Registration Form Office of Student Personnel Services University at Buffalo), there arise questions such as: "What criteria do you use in selecting your members? All who wish to participate in any function are free to do so. There are no written standards of membership." All being the absence of none, meaning that a member should be able to be part of the executive board as it is one function of the club itself.
IVCF wants to use the January 11, 2012 ruling of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC. This case in no way applies to IVCF. First this is about the unemployment of a minister who the church is trying to get rid of and the question in this case is, "Does the ministerial exception, which prohibits most employment-related lawsuits against religious organizations by employees performing religious functions, apply to a teacher at a religious elementary school who teaches the full secular curriculum, but also teaches daily religion classes, is a commissioned minister, and regularly leads students in prayer and worship?" (Oyez.org) The answer was yes, it does apply.
Referring to the part that IVCF is trying to use, even if this court decides that yes, this case applies to IVCF, we must read Supreme Court Opinion: "The members of a religious group put their faith in the hands of their ministers. Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group's right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions." We the Senate under no circumstances have tried to make any unwanted student be the officer of the former recognized club. On the contrary, by eliminating their "basis of faith" IVCF will allow for its members to have the ability to elect the member they feel could best be in the executive role to make the decision for the club.
We the senate choose to not comment in terms of the Greek organizations as again those organizations do not get funding from students' mandatory fee. In regards to the limiting, no one wanted to limit IVCF in any shape or way. Looking at the evidence, we gave the club more than eight weeks to eliminate their "basis of faith," which in no way would be limiting them as no club in the Student Association should have a "basis of faith." To limit them would be to target and to say that only IVCF is not allowed to do something.
Yes, we financially froze them while they removed their basis of faith, but the SA constitution gives us the power to give sanction and that was what we decided was the sanction for the violation until they removed it. Once the club decided to not remove its "base of faith," we properly saw it fit to derecognize the club for not complying with the rules and regulations of the Student Association.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
