Have you ever wondered to yourself, “Why doesn’t Ohio University have a theology department?” I doubt many of you have. Apparently Morgan Chaney has.
In his search for a holistic curriculum it seems he should have also searched for a class in argumentation. You see, the basis of any good argument is a factually composed statement in which your opponent is rendered mum and left with an inability to rebut.
This is not the case in Mr. Chaney’s April 26th letter, in which he condemns the Gospel Rap event held by OU’s student organization Divine Covering as “unconstitutional.” In his opening rhetoric he quotes the Bill of Rights of the Ohio Constitution, which does in fact state:
“No person shall be compelled to . . . maintain any form of worship, against his [or her] consent; and no preference shall be given, by law, to any religious society.”
He goes on to suggest that because OU receives funding from the state of Ohio and because the event was paid for by funds from the Student Activities Commission (SAC), it was “in violation of the State Constitution” and “ought never to have taken place.”
He states by this allocation of funding to the organization that every OU student was “compelled to ... maintain [the Christian] form of worship against his [or her] consent.” Mr. Morgan’s argument, analysis and subsequent findings are flawed at best.
SAC is responsible for the dispersion of funding to registered student organizations for programs that are beneficial to the entire university community. Students must submit necessary paperwork and provide all necessary documents. At that point, students who we elect make funding allocations based on what they consider to be programs that meet the objectives of the commission.
According to my research, SAC funded $49,964.99 worth of student activities for Spring Quarter. Of that, four “religious/spiritual” organizations (Anointed Ministries, Divine Covering, Conscious Ohio & Hillel) were given a total of $4,613.76 or a little more than 9 percent of Spring Quarter combined allocations — hardly preferential.
In a poll featured in a winter 2011 Backdrop Magazine article by Stephanie Stark, in which she polled 500 OU students, states that 87 percent “claim to be religious and categorize themselves as a follower of a religion.”
These statistics only further justify the funding of religious programming of any kind. If SAC is charged with providing programs that meet the needs of the student body a 9 percent distribution falls horribly short.
The unconstitutionality argument that Mr. Chaney suggests would be better suited to a situation in which the university sponsored a Passover seder in Shively Dinning Hall or a regularly held mass in Galbreath Chapel. It should be made clear that the university does not endorse programming funded by SAC.
The gospel rap concert was free and open to the public. There was no requirement made or stipulation placed on anyone that attended.
As a student who attended the event, I can state that there was no attempt to proselytize or convert anyone in attendance — only to share a form of music that is seldom heard and to enjoy fellowship with other students.
As an alumnus of our great university, Mr. Chaney should be proud that students are engaging in issues and exposing themselves to other forms of entertainment and music instead of wasting his time attacking well intentioned, constitutionally allowable, student organized events.
Sheldon J. Andruss III is a senior studying African American studies.
