Johns Hopkins rejection

A quixotic quest for acceptance. There was a fair amount of buzz yesterday in conservative media (and predictably, just about none from the MSM), about the decision of the Student Government Association at Johns Hopkins University to reject Voice for Life - a pro-life student group - as an official student organization of the university.

Such recognition typically comes with some degree of funding and the university's official imprimatur, not necessarily approval of everything you do but at least the recognition that it's within acceptable bounds for a student group. So the same university that has no trouble recognizing pro-Palestinian liberation groups and any number of other controversial organizations rejects Voice for Life. Their reasoning? Although there was some mumbling about Voice for Life being like white supremacists or something, the stated reason basically comes down to the practice of "sidewalk counseling," in which members stand outside abortion clinics and try to convince women to carry their babies to term. The Johns Hopkins student newspaper reports:

---

SGA rejected the application due to two issues primarily. It asserted that a link on the club’s website was offensive to some viewers because of the content it contained concerning the issue of abortion, which was not in conformity with University policy, according to (Voice for Life President Andrew) Guernsey. Furthermore, SGA deemed one of the club’s proposed activities, sidewalk counseling, to be in conflict with the University’s policies on harassment. Guernsey commented on what Voice For Life’s proposed sidewalk counseling would entail. “In the case of Voice for Life’s involvement in the practice of sidewalk counseling, our members frequently stand on the public sidewalk outside the abortion clinic on N. Calvert Street, and speak to women in a peaceful, non-aggressive manner, hand out literature, provide information about life issues and the abortion clinic itself — in an effort to persuade the individual (it may be the parent, boyfriend or the woman herself) not to have an abortion, and to choose life for the child in the womb,” Guernsey wrote in an email to The News-Letter. He said that his organization would not allow any shouting or physical obstruction of women seeking to obtain an abortion. It also pledged to comply with all civil laws concerning harassment and the non-obstruction of clinic-access. Despite these assertions, the Executive Board ruled against the club. “The SGA Executive Board found that the proposed group (Voice For Life) intended actions as a club that clearly violates the JHU Harassment and Code of Conduct policies as enforced by Dean Boswell and Rob Turning. We have asked them to resubmit their group proposal without sidewalk counseling. We look forward to reading their updated proposal,” Executive Vice President Alex Schupper said.

So yes, this is quite unfair, and yes, it surely reflects a very secular and left-wing bias that is present on most campuses. There is no reason to think Johns Hopkins is an exception. But I continue to believe that the pro-life movement in general is picking the wrong battles with stuff like this. Johns Hopkins University is a private, secular institution. It has no anti-abortion inclinations and is poorly suited to serve as a support mechanism for a pro-life group. That makes it a poor choice to serve as a supporting institution for Voice for Life. Is that unfair? Yes. The world is biased against God and against His righteousness. The idea is not to accept this, but to shine the light of the truth into the darkness. No one should be surprised when the darkness doesn't want to pay to have the light shined. Unfair as it is, pro-life organizations are better off cultivating support from pro-life sources, rather than constantly fighting the battle to be treated "fairly" by people who fundamentally disagree with them and oppose their agenda. Yes, I know these decisions are supposed to be made in an unbiased fashion. But you know just as well as I do that this is never going to happen. Sometimes it seems like pro-life groups pick these fights just so they can prove how against them everyone is. And what does that accomplish, exactly? Why do you need university funding to go stand outside an abortion clinic? Why do you need official student organization status to meet and advocate for what you believe? Just do it. Cutting the umbilical cord to a secular university may be the best thing that ever happened to some of these groups. It would bring independence and far greater self-determination. If sidewalk counseling is part of your mission, and Johns Hopkins demands you eliminate it to get what you want from them, then stop trying to get it. It's not worth it.