The Student Union's recent change to its bylaws outlawing discrimination based on political affiliation or ideology may seem like the latest innocuous change to a set that already includes sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, graduating class, age, nationality and physical ability. In reality, it's part of a broader movement to avoid the specter of discrimination at all costs, even if that means stripping away those things that make individuals unique. There is a glaring difference between political affiliation or ideology and all the other items on the list: While a person is born into his race, age, nationality and sex, admitted into his graduated class and genetically delegated a physical ability and sexual orientation, ideology and political orientation are based on choice. Despite all the advances in genetic research, I still have yet to hear a single scientist argue that there is a Republican gene or a Democratic gene; ideology stands among the most distinguishable characteristics that an individual can select. The obvious question is, if we cannot judge people based on their ideological outlooks, then what measure can we use?

Often, distinctions between ideologies are absolutely essential for the functionality of organizations. For instance, the Bush administration's recent appointment Dr. Eric Keroack, who opposes abortion, birth control and contraceptives, to oversee the nation's family planning program is a clear example of where ideology should play an extremely large discriminatory factor. Allowing someone who believes contraceptives are "demeaning to women" to lead programs intended to offer access to contraceptives is illogical.

Even more dubious is when ideas that violate an organization's intent arise from the democratic mechanism of the group itself. Is it really so difficult to imagine members of our large liberal organizations taking over the relatively tiny Republican club if they were so inclined? This allowed the Nazi party to take charge in Germany. If a small group cannot protect its ideological compactness, then it will in all likelihood be absorbed or destroyed. It is interesting to note that those most involved with the planning of this legislation (the leaders of Republican organizations on campus) are those that have the most to loose if nondiscrimination backfires into an inability to function.

This leads to the question of what defines membership in a club. In my high school, I used to, along with other liberal friends, attend Republican club meetings to heckle and agitate. I went to more meetings than some of the legitimate club members, but I hardly considered myself a member. Membership in an organization implies a certain ideological alignment with a certain purpose or intention. Disagreement can, and most often does, arise within a club, but clubs are typically joined and created because of a common ideological component that members identify with and wish to further.

Mandated nondiscrimination can never truly guarantee anyone's right to expression or dissent. This change to the bylaws may affirm my "right" to walk into a Hillel meeting and loudly express my disregard and distaste for Judaism, but I couldn't be surprised if I were yelled down, or when my words would be viewed as disruptive and not conducive to the organization's success. I can always form my own group and scream my views at the top of my lungs.

Granting one with radical ideas the right to be part of an organization or to be present at a meeting does not at all give that person the ability to express his ideas. Even good ideas will often be lost within a group if the majority stands strong to a certain belief. The best way to secure one's ability to have ideas heard openly in a marketplace of ideas is to allow for the legal protection of each unique group rather than trying to make each group open to a wider variety of ideas.

This is the type of equality that laws can and should enforce, giving each student an equal opportunity to have views expressed through the formation of an organization dedicated to a goal rather than through the mixing of various incompatible ideologies. Diversity in college can best be promoted through a multitude of competing clubs and factions, each representing various ideas and allowing unaffiliated individuals a clear choice, rather than virulent and perhaps even destructive viewpoints being allowed to take seed in each group and leave the identity of the group uncertain and unfocused.

The writers of the new bylaw said they hope it will initiate discussion about diversity and tolerance within our community, and I hope they're right. I worry that our obsession with inclusion robs us of the ability to make critical judgements and dillutes the strength of ideology. To force ideologically conflicting people to accept each other equally is not only dangerous but destructive to what makes free speech great.