Of the many students at the University of Denver, we only make up a mere six percent of the total population. Out of all the demographic groups, we are hated and feared more than any other. President George H. W. Bush once said that we are not worthy of U.S. citizenship. Can you guess what we are? We are atheists.
To clarify, an atheist is only someone who does not believe in a god. There is nothing to be feared about us; yet, we are one of the most ostracized groups in society. A primary reason for why I chose the University of Denver is that it advertised itself as a secular institution, and I felt like the university would accept me for who I am. This is why I was sorely disappointed by the university over the Pioneer Carnival Passport Program.
For those unfamiliar with the passport program, it is where students are given a card to be stamped by four different booths at the Pioneer Carnival, and in return they are entered into a lottery to earn prizes. The University Chaplain’s booth was one of the booths required. Since students could be entered into a drawing, they were given an extra incentive above and beyond what was offered by other booths to visit the chaplain’s booth.
I fully support the representation of religious clubs at the Pioneer Carnival. They have every right to be there to promote their cause. Most of them are doing a lot of good, and I applaud them for that. However, students should be free to explore their own religious beliefs. The university should neither incentivize nor deter religious exploration among students. If one group, such as the chaplain’s office, is given an extraordinary advantage, all religious – and non-religious – groups should be given the same advantage.
The University of Denver clearly lists itself as a secular institution, meaning that it has no religious affiliation. It markets itself to prospective students as a secular institution, and its curriculum requirements also support this assertion. Promoting a religious office at an event that all freshmen are required to attend is a violation of this secular nature. Asking students to go to the Chaplain’s booth is much like asking all students to go to the Asian Culture Club. Not every student identifies with the Asian demographic and, therefore, the university should not give it undue advantage. This same logic can then apply to non-religious students having to visit the chaplain’s booth.
I conclude by asking the university to not repeat the same mistake for next year’s freshmen. The Chaplain’s office and other religious groups should market to students with their own resources, and on the same level as everyone else’s. I hope that in the future the university can respect students of all beliefs, even if those beliefs are non-religious in nature.
