The Kansas Senate recently passed a bill that allows legal discrimination by student religious organizations at public universities in Kansas.

Senate Bill 175, passed by the Kansas Senate on March 19, would allow religious student organizations to discriminate in their membership based on the following stipulations: members must adhere to the organization’s sincerely held religious beliefs, comply with those beliefs and the associated conduct and be committed to furthering the organization’s religious missions. The bill is now awaiting a vote by the full Kansas House, where it is expected to pass.

Last Wednesday, Wichita State’s Student Senate made its voice heard by passing a resolution in opposition to SB175 after extensive debate.

Wichita State’s notice of nondiscrimination states the university does not discriminate in its programs and activities on the basis of race, religion, color, natural origin, gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, among other identity classifications.

Student Involvement and Student Government observe the same nondiscrimination policy for registered student organizations, of which religious student organizations are classified. Additionally, one of Student Involvement’s core values is inclusion — sustaining a safe environment where all students are welcomed and respected.

The proposed bill concerns me because it contradicts the university’s mission of supporting a diverse and inclusive environment for all students — students who are represented by Student Government regardless of their chosen identity.

Proponents are quick to relate SB175 to the freedom of assembly, which is already a protected right. So why create the new law?

Such a mentality misses the point of the greater issue at hand. This new law, which creates a protected class on college campuses, essentially allows student organizations that exhibit discriminatory membership practices to benefit from the same public funds as every other student organization that complies with the university’s non-discrimination policy.

That does not align with the purpose of public universities.

The roles of student body president and student senator are supposed to embrace that ethos without any discriminatory pretense. Senate Bill 175 does not sit right with me, especially after our efforts this year to create a more inclusive and accepting campus environment for students of all backgrounds.

I hope this letter will serve as the starting point for a wider campus dialogue on the issue. As always, I welcome any feedback or advice on the subject. Feel free to reach me at [email protected], or calling 978-7060.

— Matthew Conklin, Student Body President