There’s something to say about standing up for your beliefs. Something brave, something bold.

At the University of Michigan, Asian InterVarsity did just that. InterVarsity Christian Fellowship is an evangelical and inter-denominational campus ministry with over 700 chapters at schools across the nation. Last week, the story of Michigan revoking its recognition of AIV’s status as an official student organization came into the media spotlight.

It happened like this: AIV requires leaders to sign a statement of faith, declaring Jesus Christ as Lord. To hold a position in the group, you have to be a Christian.

Enter the non-discriminatory policy, which says Michigan “is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all persons and does not discriminate on the basis of … religion.”

According to the school, AIV was guilty. In December, Michigan asked the group to revise its constitution, but it wouldn’t back down. And so Michigan kissed them goodbye, causing a roar of backlash from Christian organizations and support from the secular society.

AIV came back to campus this past Monday, after a few botched peace talks and lots of commentary from the campus. In an editorial written by The Michigan Daily, students sided with the University, arguing the need for AIV to open its leadership positions to all students.

The editorial board’s gentle attack on Christian groups encouraged Michigan officials to check up on other InterVarsity chapters on campus, expanding the argument past AIV.

Their opinion was clear: AIV was (and still is) in the wrong.

What happened at Michigan is about much more than club leadership. The actions of the editorial board and University reflect the mind-set of public universities across the country. People crave pluralism, acceptance, coexistence and compromise. They want to stuff religious differences far, far down and say an enthusiastic “yes!” to everybody.

This is the way of the world we live in.

Compared to Michigan, our university is far less liberal. We’re not there — not yet, anyway — and I hope to God we don’t ever get to the point of kicking a religious RSO off campus for requiring its leaders to adhere to spiritual tenets. Still, the mere possibility is too big, too important to ignore. As soon as someone cries discrimination, colleges take action.

I’m not suggesting that discrimination as a whole is permissible, but in the context of religious groups, it doesn’t make sense to open up leadership opportunities to students of any faith. Would a Jewish society want a Mormon to be president? Would Muslims adopt an atheist as a club officer? Would a Christian group want anyone other than a believer to be in charge?

Consider what happened at Vanderbilt University. Last spring, the school implemented a non-discriminatory policy requiring all organizations to allow any student, regardless of his or her faith, to hold a position of leadership.

In response to the policy, eleven Christian groups banded together to create the Vanderbilt Solidarity. The official statement read: “Each of our eleven organizations is a faith-based group dedicated to sharing the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ on campus. As such, we simply cannot allow those who do not share our faith to lead our ministries, as Vanderbilt now demands. To do so would not only compromise our very reason for existence, it would also violate the central tenets of our faith.”

Is this what Vanderbilt wanted? To take away the students’ religious freedom? To lessen the risk of offending? To compromise these Christians’ very reason for existence?

In January 2012, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito caused a strong reaction with his thoughts on a 2012 case concerning federal discrimination rules: “A religious body’s right to self-governance must include the ability to select, and to be selective about, those who will serve as the very ‘embodiment of its message’ and ‘its voice to the faithful.’”

I wholeheartedly agree with Justice Alito. Christian groups need Christian leaders, Muslim groups need Muslim leaders, Buddhist groups need Buddhist leaders and so forth. This is more than common sense. For Michigan’s AIV and the Vanderbilt Solidarity, it is a Biblical standard. Taking away an organization’s right to choose leaders undermines the core values of the group.

Here at the University, I remain thankful that our vast and varied religious organizations are able to meet, to grow, to exist. But watching these trials unfold at other colleges across the country stirs something in my soul. I believe in the freedom of religion. I believe we should enjoy that gift of freedom on each and every college campus.

If there ever comes a time when our clubs come under fire, I can only hope that we stand up and together for the truths we hold closest to our hearts.

Melanie is a sophomore in Media. She can be reached at [email protected] and @mellystone.