Every year, Drake University hosts the Christmas Wish Tree Program in December. The program is designed to collect both money and other gifts for needy families in the Des Moines community surrounding the Drake area. Recently, two students representing an organization called the Unity Round Table brought concerns to Drake's Student Senate about the Christmas Wish Tree Program. Specifically, they were concerned about the name of the program having "Christmas" in it, as well as the presence of an actual Christmas tree in one of the student lounges of one of Drake's buildings. The two students asserted that Student Senate's sponsoring of such an event constituted an endorsement of a religious symbol, in this case, the Christmas tree. One of the Senator's defended the program by asserting that the program was not meant to offend anybody, but rather to offer much needed charity to the families that benefit from the program.
This article raises two important questions, in my mind. First, is it possible for the Student Senate to sponsor the program and the benefits that result from the program without endorsing the symbol of the Christmas tree itself? Second, even if Student Senate does endorse the Christmas tree, is that endorsement problematic? I will make an effort to answer both of these questions.
I bring up the first question because this seems to me to be the crux of the Senator's defense of the program. Basically, he says that Senate is not endorsing the Christmas tree as a religious symbol, but rather that they're endorsing the benefits that come from the Christmas Wish Tree Program. The question that naturally arises from this assertion then, is the question I posed: is such an endorsement possible? Can Senate really endorse those benefits without inherently endorsing the Christmas tree as a religious symbol? My answer to this question is no, they cannot. My reasons behind this is that the Senate cannot control how people interpret their sponsorship of the program. Some people will see the Senate sponsoring the program as an endorsement of that religious symbol, and quite frankly, there's nothing that Senate can do to change that perception. Even if Senate were to publicly explain their reasons for endorsing the program, some people would still it as a tacit endorsement of the religious symbol, and this is a perception that Senate has no control over. Therefore, I don't think it's possible to only endorse the benefits of the program without inherently endorsing every aspect of the program. As such, I think that Student Senate does, to an extent, endorse the Christmas Tree as a religious symbol.
This brings me to my next question: Is the Senate's endorsement of the Christmas Tree problematic? My answer is once again no, I don't think it is problematic. Drake University is a private institution, and as such Drake Student Senate is a private organization. Quite frankly, because it is a private institution, they can endorse whatever religious symbol they want to endorse. The Establishment Clause does not apply here, because the Establishment Clause only applies to actions taken by the government of the United States of America, not to the government of Drake University. Since Drake is not a state actor, they can feel free to endorse whatever religious symbols they see fit. If the Senate does not feel inclined to change its endorsement, then the two students who initially brought the complaint to the Senate have no further recourse. There is no legal standard they can appeal to, because from a legal standpoint, this endorsement is entirely appropriate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
I agree with Van's well-written post. He makes a number of good points, including the bottom line: Drake is a private institution and can endorse whatever it wants.
I think the post brings up a larger issue. There are countless organizations that use "Christmas" specifically as part of their various charitable drives throughout the month of December. Several of these drives have found their way into public high schools. In this case, I would still say I would continue to allow a Christmas Wish Tree to stand in public universities.
My reasoning is this: state funds are not directly supporting the christmas tree, it is set up by a charitable organization and using the school building as a public forum. Secondly, the school is not denying other charities with ties to non-Christian religions to set up their own seasonal drive.
Finally, and this applies to the Drake case as well, but the tree does have the secular purpose of aiding needy families with private donations. It's a means to an end and is neither preferencing religion no hindering it. Many people do feel more charitable around Christmas - something I would say is more part of the American consumer culture than to the Christian religion. (Christianity would preach that an individual be charitable throughout the year.)
It would be ridiculous to put up a "holiday wish tree" - a decorated evergreen in December simply symbolizes Christmas. There is no reason to be hostile to this (dare I say) long time tradition.
I would also agree that the spirit and intention behind the tree is not meant to be divisive, but to encourage charity (and, frankly, to function as a decorative object in the student union). You are right, there is no way that a decorated tree in December would be interpreted as something other than a religious symbol, but the tree does serve a secular purpose (aiding a charity). Drake is a private university, and I do not think the wish tree program is unacceptable.
That said, to play devil's advocate: are there ways in which the student senate could remove the religious overtones from its holiday charity program, and have a purely secular, all-inclusive charity drive? Is that something we should push for?
I find it terribly sad that such a complaint was brought as the tree is resulting in a benefit for those less fortunate than most of us, it is not for a religious purpose. Van is quite right in that we are a private institution and can endorse any religious symbol we feel like, but i do not see the charity drive in a religious light. While it is associated with a 'christmas tree' i feel like that is just a common holiday symbol that can easily be associated with such a charity. I do not see the harm in something that had such good intentions. If Senate were to consider every possible offense that could come from their actions they would never get anything done. The bottom line is the charity is a good thing they are doing no matter which religion it is associated with.
Private institutions should be allowed to do as they please. However, if the Senate's mission is charity then it would seem changing the name or Christmas association of the project in order to attract new members might prove effective. Asking someone to take part in the Christmas Tree program might be inclined to say no just out spite for evergreen trees or some other mis-perception, which cannot be controlled, as Van pointed out. Really if charity was the primary concern a proper label should be given to the program demonstrating such, otherwise it sounds like their trying to save trees or something.
First off, great post Van. It's good to get a local issue in here.
On the issue, however, I do recognize that this is not a legal issue, but to say that the tree is appropriate just on those terms is wrong. Yes, this is a private institution, but the Senate is supposed to represent the students. Clearly, every student here is not Christian, and we should respect that fact. The two female students who went to Senate suggested making the programs symbol for Drake a big present box. I have no issue with this. It does not symbolize a Christian holiday, nor a Jewish one. The Senate has a responsibility to be unbiassed and non-secular. An excuse that was thrown around at the meeting was that even non-Christian Senators didn't care enough to change it, but it's the principle of the issue. Our Senators need to represent the students better, and show the Des Moines community that they can make clear and coherent decisions that do not offend a hefty portion of the student population.
I agree with Van. There is no reason that Drake should be allowed to have this Christmas tree. We at Drake, are a private school and do not have to follow the same guidelines as state schools. Yes, the tree does promote Christian values but the concept behind the tree is not about the Christian values, it is about giving back to the community. I also agree with KB that the trees should be allowed to stand in state schools as long as it is not standing for Christian values but for benefitting the community. It really does bother me that there are so many people griping about students giving back to the community even if it involves having a Christmas tree up. I feel that this is part of why there is the statement that students are not willing to give back to the community. It seems that it is impossible.
Everyone mostly agrees! Crazy... Anywho, i think the fact the a tree isn't inherently religious is what makes the case. People can very easily interpret it differently. A yarmulke for instance has a strictly religious meaning. People also decorate trees for Halloween and other random holidays, and "Christmas" trees anyway have no religious value. They don't represent anything other than the giving of gifts. That's it. There's no deep theological conviction behind it at all. So, in that sense, I think it's a great symbol, because it's one of giving. Our culture however has made it so that a tree with decorations won't be seen as anything other than religious. I think the tree is fine.
Thank you for the very well-worded post, Van. I agree with your belief that Drake can and should do whatever it wants regarding religion. This, like others, is a trait of going to a private university - we do not and should be made to succumb to the petty demands that public universities do.
Finally, I believe the intention of the mighty Christmas tree at Drake needs to be given the highest amount of consideration. The intention is to help others. And if it takes a so-called religious object to do such, great!
In terms of supporting this cause within a secular realm, I find the objection rather absurd and weak based. If this program is a legitimate organization that is solely devoted to the cause of helping bring joy and material gifts to families in need during the Christmas season, and, therefore, is only named the 'Christmas Tree Program' out of representation of bringing gifts, it should be an obsolete issue. Further, the name of the organization denotes something Catholic; however, research should be conducted as to whether the organization shows bias to Catholic families, or excludes those of different religions.
I don’t see anything wrong with having the wish tree in Olmsted. I think it’s a great way to support families who can’t afford gifts for their children. I think people have lost sight of why the tree is being used...it’s all about the kids!!! I don’t view the tree as being a religious symbol at all, but a symbol of making some lucky kid’s day a little better!
I have to disagree with the idea that a Christmas tree is a religious symbol. A cross is a religious symbol, an icthus is a religious symbol, a menorah is a religious symbol. A Christmas tree, while used for the Christian holiday of Christmas, so no more a religious symbol than an Easter egg. For me looking at Christmas tree does not remind me of Jesus. In American culture, Christmas trees have become a symbol of the girt giving, secular part of the December holidays.
I think this is an interesting issue that we do not often see at PC. Due to being a Catholic college, all charitable and service related organizations or programs at PC are grounded in Christian call to serve others. Like Drake, not everyone at PC is a Christian, but students usually come here understanding that the College is lead by Christian values. I think Van makes a valid argument about Drake being a private institution and therefore students should be allowed to express religious beliefs in the public square. Ultimately, the Christmas tree does represent a Christian holiday, even if its meaning has been subjected to materialism of the holidays over the years. I find it troubling that the ability express religious beliefs (of all faiths) in the public square is being questioned, especially when the message of the program being sponsored at Drake has nothing but good intentions. If students at Drake feel that using a Christmas tree favors the Christian faith, maybe they could work to make the charity event have an interfaith focus. I think it is positive that Drake students are discussing this and while keeping in mind that the point of the program is charity for those during the holiday season.
Happy to follow Megan as I, too, attend PC, and have given little thought to the ways in which our campus is decorating as secular or Christian. Maybe this is because I am a Catholic, and I go a Catholic school -- I think nothing of seeing the Advent wreath or the Christmas Giving try, in fact, I expect them; and while I can recognize the wreath as inherently Catholic, I would never have, or at reluctantly, connected the tree with my faith. To me the emphasis is on the "Giving" not the "Christmas." Again, as non-issues on our campus, I am ignorant to the offense others must feel, as private, yet not religiously affiliated institutions. It might be effective to incorporate ALL faiths during the holiday season. As others have said, the name of the program itself would need to be revamped. Maybe something like "Faithful Friends and Neighbors"? The tree could be done away with, and replaced with an agreed upon symbol. Maybe it just becomes the school mascot, dressed/holding in a piece of traditional holiday garb of each faith? All silly suggestions, but if a compromise would be enough to help people refocus on the PURPOSE of the tree, then by all means: compromise!
Post a Comment