Kevin Bolling on the Secular Student Alliance

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/08/03

Kevin Bolling is the executive director of the Secular Student Alliance. He has served in that position since 2017. Kevin brings with him 20 years of nonprofit leadership experience. His career has included over 10 years of student association management and on-campus program development from Los Angeles to Boston. For 10 years, Kevin served as the Executive Director of the California Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Foundation, a charitable trust serving the healthcare needs of the industries’ largely immigrant workforce. Most recently, Kevin served as the Director of Philanthropy at the Gay Men’s Chorus of Los Angeles, a major LGBTQ arts advocacy organization, whose youth outreach work has moved thousands of hearts and minds across the US towards embracing LGBTQ equality.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Okay, the Secular Student Alliance, you’ve been with them for a while now.

Kevin Bolling: I’ve been with the organization for over seven years.

Jacobsen: Congratulations on your longevity. That is unusual in the secular communities. 

Bolling: Typically, it’s a term, but we continue to see the organizations’ professionalization. Consequently, you are seeing longer and longer tenures with differing leadership. 

Jacobsen: That is normal for any rights movement. That is fair. 

Bolling: Someone recently mentioned this to me as a consolidation period, where people now look more for, “Okay, we’ve come to prominence. We have won at least modest public acceptance. Now it’s about building community.” So, yes, it is akin to a Sunday Assembly, with activities more oriented around building that community.

Part of that professionalization is also the top layer of the community aspect. If you look not that far back for the atheist secular movements, in part, it was about being a personality and being non-religious, whatever that meant for you. But yes, as you pointed out, we are continuing to look more and more at what we have to be doing, what our goals are, what we are trying to achieve, and how we will achieve that. Therefore, being an atheist or non-religious alone does not suffice. Part of our goal, and we hope this for our students, is that you are bettering your community. It would help if you were involved with it. You must be active in it. And so that is how you do that. We often say, “Great, you are an atheist. Now what? What are you going to do?” That is the part we must address—what will we do?

Jacobsen: The point about personalities is very good. A significant part of the movement was built around personalities, especially in the mid-2000s and 2010s, around, for example, Dawkins with militant atheism, and as those waned, both secular and religious individuals note that as part of the historical record now. The fact is, most people in leadership positions are seasonal. It does not matter because most of the organizations are democratic. So you are voted in for a couple of election cycles at most, but then it is someone else’s turn, and it is appropriate. No one gets too accustomed to any single personality. Plus, we have done quite well. Some people have failings as leaders, and we have held them to account to some degree. The open question for me, looking at the United States, Canada, or elsewhere, is insofar as leaders make various degrees and styles of mistakes or commit crimes, what is the degree to which we, as communities, are willing to forgive and reintegrate them, because they have a record of success? However, at the same time, they have done something wrong. So, do we, because we are not referencing anything transcendent, right? It is an interesting moral dilemma quietly bubbling in some of the community.

Bolling: That is an accurate statement. Each organization in the secular movement must make those determinations for themselves. We understand that, as human beings, we make mistakes. Hopefully, we continue to evolve, grow, improve, and learn as people and organizations.

If you look at how much society has changed its perception of values and those things, it has been so quick in such a short period. An organization that is also keeping up, making sure it is relevant, creating good, and meeting the needs of its members and partnerships within the secular community is essential. All of that comes into play when operating organizationally and even as individuals.

Yes, leaders and organizations will make mistakes. We will have the maturity to accept when that happens, admit our wrongs, and learn from them. Depending on the situation, a leader or member may need help to continue with the organization. We will continue to grow, learn, mature, and evolve with the organization and our members’ needs. 

Jacobsen: I’m sure I am subject to that, thinking back about things I shouldn’t have said in a certain way. A critical thought experience when considering this is if you take the case of an independent organization that has been around for 25 years. If they have done one or two wrongs or had a leader that did something wrong, they are gone, demoted, or similar. What’s the alternative? The alternative is to restart an entirely new organization and develop that for 25 years, restructure or change a policy, or wait for the next election cycle of an already established organization that may have a thousand, 10,000, or 20,000 members. Then, build from that existing base and show that you can, as a human institution, improve, build on mistakes, and continue growing. That perspective sets it in mind for me, where you can say, “Okay, this person made a mistake, but I can still work with them and also acknowledge that I have made mistakes, too.”

Bolling: Yes, I agree. However, starting over is sometimes a good thing. No organization wants to go through that arduous process, but it can be creative and energizing. As an organizational leader, I would refrain from undertaking that project and aspect. It’s much work. But there’s also that reality. As organizations, it’s easy to fall into the mindset of “we’ve done this,” even for some of the most innovative organizations constantly changing and adapting. You still have that history and the things we’ve done a certain way. When you start anew, you must look at everything from a new stage to a new process. This can often lead to doing things differently.

Jacobsen: So what is new and exciting at the S.S.A.?

Bolling: Yes, with the Secular Student Alliance, it’s been challenging for most campus-based groups. COVID was a hit, not just to campus-based groups but to our entire society. However, we have been coming out and meeting the students where they are. When we look back on the impact of COVID-19, especially on young people, in a few years, when sociologists and psychologists reflect, it will be seen as a much more dramatic effect than anyone realized, especially our youth. So, we have been trying to meet the students where they are.

In higher education, you see the growing mental health crisis among young people. This played out because students needed to be more confident about restarting chapters after COVID-19. Their experience had been classes, social activities, and everything on a computer screen. They were so, making that transition back to in-person created some hesitancy and anxiety.

Additionally, a lot of the social learning we did from being in groups, being with people, seeing leaders interact with groups, or being someone in a group and having that experience was missing for many young people. They didn’t learn those skills. So, we have been going back to basics—training on how to do an event, how to hold a meeting, what it means to be a leader, and how to empower and encourage people. We’ve been doing a lot of that.

This last year has been a significant growth period for us, with chapters coming back on campuses and students engaging, building community, and activating on their campuses. That has been fantastic. We love to see that happen and enjoy it when the students dive in. Many of the students we work with are in leadership, so they have these leadership experiences and “aha” moments. Watching that happen and witnessing their personal and leadership development is great. We’re excited about what is coming up in the upcoming academic year.

With the continual rise of Christian nationalism and the ever-present threat of Project 2025, we have the educational rights to show the documentary Bad Faith. Our chapters are signing up to show that on their campuses for free.

The people behind the documentary provide speakers for Q&A sessions on campus, heightening the conversation and ensuring students are aware. At the same time, we’re working with Campus Takeover and a couple of other campus voter registration and get-out-the-vote groups. So, here’s information on Project 2025 and growing Christian nationalism, along with voter registration efforts.

We have dual programs in which many chapters will be involved this fall. This is in addition to our regular webinars, student trainings, student meetings, and all the other programmatic activities we do. We always highlight something special each semester that addresses the current need. 84% of our student members are registered to vote. Having them be advocates on campus and working with groups specializing in voter registration and get-out-the-vote initiatives is a great way for them to be visible, active, and energized on campus.

Jacobsen: People might hear these terms often: Project 2025, Christian nationalism, and Christian nationalists. Regarding the latter two, how do we distinguish Christian nationalism and nationalists from Christians of all stripes who might be patriotic?

Bolling: Yes, there is a difference. Christian nationalism is a political ideology that seeks to transform our democratic society and government into a system based on Christian theology. This involves changing our laws, affecting the courts, and impacting people’s rights, all from one person’s or a small group’s religious perspective. In this case, it is Christianity. There are many Christians who are patriotic and not Christian nationalists. However, Christian nationalism is an intentional ideology that blends patriotism with a desire to transform our democracy into a theocracy.

Jacobsen: What are the concerns of young people, particularly those aged 18 to approximately 25, who are students on campuses where the Secular Student Alliance is active, bringing forward these ideologies? Also, in general, what concerns are they expressing?

Bolling: The intentional plans that religious conservatives in coalition with Republicans have been pushing on education are a major concern. We’ve had students who were active in protesting when Florida passed the “Don’t Say Gay” bills and book bans.

These actions, which I call “justifications” in air quotes, for discrimination against LGBTQ+ people are based solely on someone else’s religious beliefs. There is no other rationale besides that. This is a significant issue for our students who are passionate about separating church and state. If someone imposes their religious beliefs, it directly affects them.

When the Supreme Court made certain decisions, many of our students were not only activated in protest but also ensured that their campus health centers continued to provide reproductive healthcare for students. They saw this as part of a contract: “You are here to provide us healthcare. This is part of what we need.”

One of our chapters worked on getting Plan B and handing it out for free to students on campus. We’ve now shared that information with our other chapters, saying, “Here’s where you can get this and here are options for you to distribute this as well.” Our students see the need to ensure that someone else’s religious beliefs do not impact their reproductive healthcare, and they are also taking action about it.

We have students who, under new campus free speech laws, are facing Proud Boy-type groups coming onto campuses. 

Jacobsen: I apologize on behalf of Canada.

Bolling: Right, because that guy came from Canada, right? The original guy?

Jacobsen: The original Proud Boys? Yes. 

Bolling: We’re seeing Proud Boy groups coming onto campuses and harassing our students because they’re non-religious, harassing LGBT students, and harassing Black students. In conservative states right now, that’s allowed because of this ultimate right to free speech.

We also see that being played out by Christian students who believe they have the right to discriminate against other students. So, while it’s under the guise of free speech, it’s not, and in some cases, it’s Christian nationalists and Christian students who feel privileged to use their speech to discriminate or harass other students, which we do not think is acceptable.

Jacobsen: Do you think that comes down to internalizing a common mythology or misunderstanding of the language of rights? Human rights are meant as an application of an ethics of universalism, balanced with one another. This idea of absolutism needs to be corrected in terms of its use.

Bolling: I agree with what you said. And there’s a balance. Put, your rights begin where mine end, or your rights end where mine begin.

Jacobsen: That’s very good.

Bolling: But what’s happening is that politicians and the extremist conservative right-wing are using terms like “parents’ rights,” “students’ rights,” “free speech,” and “freedom” to privilege Christian students over other students and allow discrimination to happen because of one’s, in this case, Christian beliefs. They are using words that we would all agree on as principles that Americans tend to be very proud of, but they’re using them to privilege Christianity intentionally.

Jacobsen: And secular values aren’t easily cataloged as left-wing. For instance, I published an interview with Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. He’s a registered Republican, and you and I agree on many things. So, we’re referring to an ideology when talking about extreme rights. To play devil’s advocate, what conservative views do students within the Secular Student Alliance umbrella agree with? Also, what areas in which left-wing points can go in that same ideological, dogmatic view to reverse that point of view? They go too far.

Bolling: It comes down to, for most of our students and a secular society, we have the separation of church and state. One aspect of that is the freedom of and from religion. They work hand in hand. For conservative people who are secular, and for secular and progressive people, they need each other. Yes, you will have people who say there should be no religion at all; let’s get rid of it. In my experience of interviewing many secular people, that’s a minority viewpoint, or it’s not a majoremphasis.

In the U.S., you have the right to practice your religion without interference from the government and, for the most part, without interference from other people. At the same time, you don’t have the right to impose your religion on others. We don’t want the government involved in dictating what you can and can’t preach, nor do we want the government digging into the finances of religious organizations under our current laws. You are protected by the government and protected from the government. So, you get to practice your religion and don’t impose it on others. They work together because they balance each other.

Jacobsen: You had a project with one of the most creative activist groups in the American landscape, the Satanic Temple. I am aware of the American comedian and semi-political commentator John Oliver doing a bit in one of his episodes on the After School Satan Club. Joking aside, how is this partnership developing? How are they providing a theoretical foundation with some actual practical application, and how are you providing them with infrastructure?

Bolling: Yes, we have had an ongoing working relationship with the Satanic Temple for a number of years. After-School Satan Clubs are a counter to the Good News Clubs. The Good News Club comes mainly into elementary schools under the guise of being a club for Christian students who want to participate. However, it’s often driven by adults and is about proselytizing, not about students getting together to pray or learn about the Bible.

Our partnership with the Satanic Temple helps provide a balance and counters the influence of the Good News Clubs by offering an alternative that emphasizes critical thinking and secular values. We help to provide infrastructure support to facilitate their activities and ensuring they have the resources needed to operate effectively within schools.

It’s important to recognize the intention behind these campus initiatives. We’re seeing the continued development of this or the next generation of this, which is passing in multiple states now; students are getting release time from classes to attend a particular church to pray. They are missing out on instructions to go to church.

And again, this is under the guise of “everyone can come,” but it’s a tactic to proselytize and recruit additional students. The Satanic Temple goes in with After School Satan Clubs. They’re great. But they’re intentional about why they’re going in. They’re going in as an alternative to Good News Clubs. They’re going in to give students real places to have conversations about science, critical thinking, and values. Those are all positive things. If you read the seven tenets of the Satanic Temple, it would be hard for anyone to disagree with those—they’re good values.

Jacobsen: I bought some paraphernalia myself.

Bolling: The intention of the two, Good News Clubs versus what the Satanic Temple is doing, is very different. The Satanic Temple cleverly and creatively uses their religious designation to challenge the often Christian privilege that we see in education, government, society, and places where it shouldn’t be. From that religious organizational perspective, I appreciate what they’re doing.

We were very interested in partnering with them. We have chapters in middle schools, high schools, and colleges. This was a chance for us to expand that reach to students who are increasingly younger and uninvolved in organized religion. The Satanic Temple would push back, saying this isn’t organized religion, which they have to say, and I understand that.

So yes, we have provided a curriculum. They have a curriculum that they’re using. We focus on making this an enriching experience for the young people involved. We shared our 15-week curriculum with them, which they can use to engage students in discussions and developing topics. We also provide lots of free stuff for them, like stickers and other materials.

Bolling: It’s also a fun, engaging, and rewarding process for the students. The SSA and the Satanic Temple have had a long relationship of not always partnering but getting along, doing things together, and appreciating each other’s work. They’ve got some great staff, and we enjoy working with them.

Jacobsen: How is the integration going two months into the new board member’s term? There’s usually a bump, period.

Bolling: We do our board cycle with nominations every year as part of our ongoing process. Our board is specifically designed to have 14 members, two of which are student positions. This way, we have several positions coming up each term to prevent large turnovers at any one time. We always have a bit of new blood, ideas, and energy coming in while maintaining a longer perspective and history to keep things balanced. We have a pretty integrated training process and orientation for new members. Most of the new members were at our summer conference, where they got to talk to students, see what interests them, and learn from them as they began their tenure with the organization.

We are also starting a three to five-year strategic plan. We began developing it in January, but when COVID hit in March, we decided not to proceed with a strategic plan during a pandemic. Coming out of it, we did a short two-year strategic plan, and now we are doing our three to five-year plan. We had a session at our conference where board members spoke directly to students about our mission and values, gathering feedback on various topics. We will also have surveys going out to our students, donors, and supporters, and we will be talking to many of our partner organizations. Some of our supporters who want to have conversations with our board members will also be able to do so. We want this to be an integrated learning process to see where we’re headed in the next three to five years.

Jacobsen: So, Project 2025, what will impact public education, post-secondary education, and the mental health or reactions of the student base?

Bolling: I’ll start with the second part first. From the anti-DEI, anti-colour of history, and “Don’t Say Gay” bills in Florida, we saw the chilling effect that had on students and student leaders. The idea was to suppress their voices, deny their existence and agency, and ultimately make them shut up and go away.

It was scary how that worked, how students felt that pressure and did not want to do much of it. So, that concept works. Project 2025 is on steroids as far as what it wants to do for poor, socially or economically disadvantaged students, LGBT+ students, students of colour, and any minority—disadvantaged students in general. Reading the plan, they’re very carefulwith their language, but there’s always a caveat. They want to reduce Pell and graduate student grants except for a small population of wealthy white Christian students. Almost everything, especially about education or young people, is worded that way. It’s obvious what they want to do with that, but for education. So, yes, they want to privatize scholarships. So, a lot of the government scholarships go away. Then there’s the Betsy DeVos aspect of these predatory lender financial aids.

Biden’s been going after. You’ve been paying and paid that loan, but you will never pay it off because it was written badly. It’s designed so you can never get out of it, so you will always be paying. These students are in a debt trap. Yes, Project 2025 doesn’t just double down; it’s all that. They are privatizing scholarships and basic financial aid.

So yes, for the first young people, you will always be in debt if you go. It’s to discourage you, make it harder, and reduce the number of people going into higher education, except for that slight population they want. They preclude that by making school vouchers universal all across the United States, intentionally taking money out of public education and putting it in…

While they don’t say it specifically, into religious private schools, the example of what their game plan has already been happening in Florida is what they want to bring nationally. This is to schools that can discriminate against who comes in. So LGBT+ students and students of colour don’t have to provide any Americans with Disabilities Act accommodations.

There needs to be accountability for educational outcomes. Public schools have to undergo testing. You’ve got to do the testing. That doesn’t happen with private schools, so what they do with that is amazing.

But then, LGBT+ students go through the entire government work and take out the words gay, lesbian, and gender from everything in the government. We’re not going to track it. We won’t take care of it so that we can intentionally discriminate against it. So, LGBT+ students face devastating requirements—open discrimination against LGBT+ students, especially trans students. For race, it’s very similar. Many programs designed to look at lower economic populations associated with populations of colour are being eliminated.

It’s again very clear who wants to go to college. We eliminated Head Start for younger students. This strips away any of those resources and other things. So, it’s interesting how it’s all about destroying public education in general. 

Jacobsen: How can people get involved by donating money, expertise, time, or physical labour?

Bolling: Sure, we always say that our organization and people donate to us so that we can provide, and almost everything we do is free services for students, so go to our website and donate. We always appreciate that. We are also looking to see if someone knows of any students. Please tell them about the organization. If you’re near a college or university, we’d love to work with you to help us identify students where our chapters are all student-led. We would love it if people could have a contact, and we’d love that introduction to the organization. Also, let students know about our Secular Activist Scholarships. Let them know about our leadership development conference in the summer. So, easy ways to get involved and ensure students know what’s happening.

Jacobsen: Excellent. Kevin, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

Bolling: No problem. Thank you.

License & Copyright

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.