Summary:
SUBU should make amendments to elections policy to allow faith hand belief societies to have an additional requirement in order to run for committee positions. This should take the form of agreeing to the given faith of the society. The definition of this faith would be outlined in each society’s constitution. This is in order to ensure a safe space for students of faith, reduce risk of conflict, prevent religious discrimination and protect the aims and objectives of the society. As far as we understand this proposal is consistent with the Byelaws of SUBU concerning committee membership (see 8.3, 8.5, 8.6)
Thought Process:
The current policy states:
“11.2. Any Club/Society member may stand for election to the Committee of the Club/Society, subject to eligibility outlined below.
11.2.1 The President, Treasurer and Secretary must be Full Members of SUBU (i.e not Affiliate Members, past member, Life Member, or current BU student who has ‘opted out’ of SUBU membership) and the candidates must hold valid Standard membership to be eligible.
11.2.2 Affiliate members may stand for election for additional roles but will not be eligible to become a signatory on the club or society’s accounts (the signatories are President, Treasurer or Secretary).”
Current policy means a student of any or no faith could run for a position in a faith-based society. This means they may not be aligned with the society’s goals and aims (and are therefore in conflict with other parts of the constitution).
This also means that the society may not be a safe-space for members of the faith in question and members may not feel able to express themselves freely. In turn, there is also a risk of the committee member who is not of the relevant faith causing distress to other members and spreading views or ideas not in line with the beliefs of the given society. We propose a change to allow faith societies to ensure all candidates are of the relevant faith. This is also commonplace for other Christian Unions across Great Britain. Many of them have this requirement within their constitution already.
The Equality Act 2010, European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Acts 1998 supports this amendment.
The Equality Act 2010 Paragraph 2 states “A difference in treatment may be lawful in situations outside the workplace such as if:
- A faith school is using religious criteria to give priority in admissions to children from a particular religion.
- A religious or belief organisation is restricting its membership or participation in its activities, or the provision of goods, facilities and services to persons of a particular religion or belief. This only applies to organisations whose purpose is to practice, promote or teach a religion or belief, whose sole or main purpose is not commercial. A restriction can only be imposed:
- If the purpose of the organisation is to provide services to one religion or belief
- If it is necessary to avoid causing offence to persons with the same religion or belief as the organisation”
We believe that SUBU faith societies fulfil the criteria of “organisations whose purpose is to practice, promote or teach a religion or belief” and “the purpose of the organisation is to provide services to one religion or belief”. Though the Equality Act 2010 deems it lawful to apply this to members, we seek only to apply this to leadership in order for the society to remain as open and inclusive as possible.
This would help support SUBU’s strategic themes of Togetherness (belonging and community) and Identity.
Student Consultation:
Christian Union has raised this issue and the committee feels that it is a significant problem for the operation of the society and safety of its members. We consulted other faith-based societies as well and asked for their feedback. The feedback from some of the faith-based societies is seen below.
Pensa Society: “We think the proposal is a wonderful idea as it allows faith societies to stay true to their beliefs and values and it ensures that all committee members agree with the values therefore stopping potential future issues.”
Catholic Society: “We support this amendment because we are strongly committed to our faith and are totally opposed to any watering down or subversion of our identity which is currently possible without this amendment.”
We also met with the Islamic society, and they were for the idea we are proposing. After consultation with these groups, we feel that the proposal is warranted and will have a positive effect on students of faith.
Purpose:
We propose an amendment to SUBU Clubs and Societies Elections policy to include an additional requirement for faith societies (who can choose to adopt it if they wish).
This should sit under section 11.2 as additional clause 11.2.3 of the constitution and would be as below or similar:
“All committee members and leaders must agree and adhere to the faith/religion/belief system (and denomination(s) where applicable) the society professes”
Within the constitution, there would be a definition of the given faith. This constitution would be reviewed and agreed annually by the committee of the society and the Student Opportunities Team.
Practically this would be implemented via the addition of a check box upon self-nomination to confirm they are of the relevant faith.
This would mean that faith-based societies can ensure that they are a safe space for students of that faith and that the society will be able to fulfil their purpose and goals. IT would also reduce the risk of any conflict within the society.
This is crucial for faith societies to have in place to ensure that elected officials are earnest in their wish to run for committee and to reduce the risk of religious discrimination.
Additionally, in the event that a committee member is no longer of the given faith, we believe there are adequate processes and protections within the model constitution (7:8-10) that provide grounds for their removal from leadership.
Actions
-
SUBU will amend clubs and societies election policy to include proposed clause 11.2.3.
-
SUBU will amend any other policy or byelaw currently in place that would prevent the above proposed clauses being implemented to allow for their addition.
Updated: 05/02/2026
To be implemented by: VP Welfare & Community
Proposed by: Andrea Morris