OPINION: It’s time to put a stop to religious proselytizing on campus

Institutions of higher education around the country have always struggled with the amount of freedom they grant religious groups to spread their opinions in public. The biggest point of contention is religious groups proselytizing on campus — for example, the people who walk around campus and  hand out bibles or invite passersby to join their spiritual study group. Georgetown University, a historically Jesuit school, banned proselytism in 2007; Earlham College in Indiana discourages it; and Suffolk University allows it so long as it doesn’t involve religious harassment, which it defines as any “coercive behavior that affects one’s personal freedom to choose one’s own religious practices.”

Proselytism, by most definitions, refers to “any attempt to convert people to a different point of view.” That alone is nothing unusual: A person is proselytizing when they try to convince their friends to watch the latest movie or try out a new restaurant. Religious proselytism, however, is entirely different. Attempting to convert others to one’s own religion is a violation of personal rights and should be prohibited on college campuses.

According to USC’s Free Speech Policy, student organizations are permitted to discuss any question or opinion, both in public and private. Presumably, this means that any religious group that wants to share its beliefs has the right to do so. The policy further states, however, that “the imposition of opinions and concerns upon those who in turn dissent from them … is inconsistent with a university’s process and function.”

It’s a common experience to be approached by individuals who ask probing questions about a student’s religious background and if they would listen to a short presentation about Christianity. But even after explaining that they were not interested, they said that the religious groups insisted on continuing the conversation, which made them feel uncomfortable.

Many students choose USC specifically because of its lack of religious affiliation (the University cut ties with the Methodist church in 1952). For them, it is imperative that their spiritual lives be kept separate from their academic lives.

There are a number of reasons why students might not be interested in engaging in religious discussion. Some come from a religious family but value the diversity of experience that comes from interacting with people of different beliefs. Many were former members of the church but left for political or social reasons. Others are nonreligious or come from another background entirely. The experience of being preached to can be insulting, since it suggests that one’s beliefs are inferior to those of the preacher. An interaction could be interpreted as an imposition of beliefs on people who dissent from them, which the University explicitly discourages.

“I think [religion is] good for people who feel that they need that in their lives … but they should respect others’ decision not to follow it,” said Allison Fischer, a freshman majoring in industrial and systems engineering.

While the action of religious proselytizing could be seen as no different from, for example, a sailing club attempting to recruit students, the intent behind religious and nonreligious proselytism is different. Members of some religious groups go out of their way to engage with students, often stopping them on their way to class. Representatives from other student groups generally do not approach random students to lecture them, preferring to use less invasive marketing methods like flyers. Even though religious groups are trying to sway students toward their beliefs and create a positive impression, proselytizing tends to create negative feelings toward the religious group.

While we must learn to respect people of all beliefs — religious or not — students should not be subjected to harassment by those who believe their worldviews are wrong. Not only does campus proselytizing transgress students’ boundaries, it also violates the word of God, and should therefore be heavily advised against. USC should follow the examples set by Georgetown, Earlham and Suffolk in taking definitive action to ban, or at least regulate, religious proselytizing.