A Baptist college in Kentucky has expelled a student for being gay — not for being caught engaging in homosexual conduct, but for being gay — under a policy which says that “Any student who engages in or promotes sexual behavior not consistent with Christian principles (including sex outside marriage and homosexuality) may be suspended or asked to withdraw from the University of the Cumberlands.”
It seems significant to me that it says “and homosexuality,” not “and homosexual conduct.” At the very least, that changes the burden of proof a bit, taking away the pesky necessity of proving that the student is actually in violation of prohibitions against having gay sex, which is what the Bible is really supposedly against (right?). Anyway, Jason Johnson was kicked out of school because officials discovered his MySpace profile, in which he “discussed his sexual orientation and boyfriend.” And before you say “well, he shouldn’t have gone to school there,” the policy didn’t exist when he started school. Back then, the student handbook merely prohibited “lewd and indecent conduct” and said students should “conduct themselves, on and off campus, in a manner which is consistent with the objects of the college and with its standards of conduct.”
Obviously, it would be helpful to know more about what exactly the MySpace profile said, but regardless of the details of this particular case, I find the school’s policy deeply disturbing, not only because I personally believe discrimination against gay people is wrong, but because the language of the policy seems at odds with the whole “love the sinner, hate the sin” concept that supposedly underlies Christian objections to homosexual activity. Given that the issue under the school’s rules is homosexuality, not just homosexual conduct, I would think that even devout anti-gay-rights Christians would have a problem with this.
The “or promotes” thing is also very concerning. As Mike (to whom, a hat tip) says:
I mean, it’s one thing for a religious institution to remove students who engage in behavior with which they have religious objections; to my mind, though, it’s a whole new level of frightening when students aren’t allowed to advocate something with which the university disagrees. The “or promotes” part of this actually bothers me more than does the “engages in”—if ND had that policy, for instance, students could be expelled for advocating use of condoms, regardless of whether they ever actually did use them.
Or, for another instance, if ND had that policy, students could be expelled for wearing those “Gay? Fine by me” t-shirts that I mentioned earlier today.
Anyway, I’m with Mike, who concludes: “They are within their legal rights here—as unfortunate as I find that—but morally, I find this utterly repugnant.”
Another issue this raises is the growing prevalance of sometimes too-revealing student profiles on websites like Facebook and MySpace. Although the sites have numerous disclaimers, people tend to (quite stupidly, IMHO) believe that there is some zone of privacy around their postings, because of the whole “inviting friends” notion that the sites promote. But c’mon… those sites are on the Internet. The Navy ROTC policy on Facebook pages, reported in the Observer last month, seems right to me: “We wouldn’t expect them to put on Web sites anything their grandmother wouldn’t be OK seeing.” They may also want to consider their boss, their former boss and their future boss… not to mention professors, parents, significant others, former significant others and future significant others, etc. Anyway, it seems like it’s only a matter of time before a student gets in trouble with the Notre Dame administration for posting about DuLac violations on Facebook. So far, the university is apparently using the site mostly to get more information once a student is already in trouble for something else, but is it such a stretch to imagine a Domer getting ResLifed because of a Facebook posting about the hot premarital sex he/she had last night? It’s a brave new world out there… or rather, a brave old world, but with new opportunities for people to publicly humiliate themselves…
But, like I said, that’s a separate issue; I raise it because it’s something I’ve been meaning for some time to raise, not because I’m trying to justify the university’s action or blame the expelled student in any way. I’d have to know more about what he actually posted in order to decide whether he acted unwisely. But I already know enough to know that the University of the Cumberlands’ policy toward gays does not meet my definition of what it means to be “Christian.”
|
Categories: Notre Dame, Gay Issues
|
April 13th, 2006 at 2:30:21 pm
To head off a certain type of criticism of my sentiments here which I feel may be forthcoming: the primary reason why I find it unfortunate that this is within the legal rights of the university is that I feel sexual orientation belongs in the category of federally protected antidiscrimination classes, up there with sex, race, disability, and the likeâ€â€?which would place them in a very perilous financial position, given that they do receive tax support for research grants, financial aid, etc. As a private individual you’re allowed to teach and believe whatever you like, and that’s as it should be, but there are certain things you’re not allowed to do legally even if your religion says that you should do them. You can’t refuse to hire someone because of his/her skin tone even if it’s because your religion adheres to some notion of racial “purity”. It’s simply my opinion that you should not be allowed to get rid of someone for being something you don’t like, regardless of whether that person engages in actions you have a problem with, but that’s tied to my personal disbelief in the existence of thoughtcrime, for which I’ve received criticism from both left and right of me, albeit on different specific issues. I also think it’s wrong to expell someone for saying something you don’t like, but that I don’t think needs to be illegal–it’s simply wrong, and I feel the university should be ashamed of such blatant censorship that a person isn’t even free to discuss their opinions on a personal website not even affiliated with the school. I highly doubt they are, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think they should be.
April 13th, 2006 at 2:42:07 pm
“does not meet my definition of what it means to be “Christian.â€?”
It is sorta sad but true that such definitions are like cheeks - we all have more than one of ‘em ! (OK - so it’s cleaned up, in keeping with the metatheme of the post …)
I’m going to go with one of *my* versions of Christianity - the one which mixes “Judge not, lest ye be judged” with “Let he who is without sin etc” …
If *I* owned/ran the institution, I would not be expelling the student … and, just as I would strongly be against someone telling me that I *must* expel such a student, I would equally strongly be against soeone telling me that I *cannot* do so … thus, I do not feel that I/we have the right to tell that specific institution that they *cannot* do so …
For all that, as a Scot, Ah hae a guid conceit o’ masel’, I do not feel sufficiently omniscient/omnipotent to even try to impose my own morals and values on third parties other than by choosing to interact with them or by choosing *not* to interact with them …
In this student’s situation, should he happen to be fully out and open about himself, and if he has no reason to hide things, then he would seem to be poised on the start of his 15+ minutes of fame - just not at the “University of the Cumberlands” … if his grades were good, then other Universities are likely to be quite happy to have him, not just for the positive PR boost, either … and U of the C is going to be getting a bunch of PR that will lessen its “University” status …
Still - what should one expect of a place that is named for a famous Butcher ???
April 13th, 2006 at 2:49:00 pm
um, why is anyone suprised, shocked or disgusted? these are christian institutions… the only part that suprises, shocks or disgusts me is the fact that ANYONE might go to a baptist institution and expect tolerance and reason to pervail…
April 13th, 2006 at 2:55:53 pm
The president of the University of the Cumberlands, Dr. James H. Taylor, said in a written statement, “At University of the Cumberlands, we hold students to a higher standard than does society in general…University of the Cumberlands isn’t for everyone. We tell prospective students about our high standards before they come. There are places students with predispositions can go such as San Francisco and the left coast or to many of the state schools.” Very professional!
April 13th, 2006 at 3:16:04 pm
Ricardo - I will take an honest bigot over a covert one ANY day ! And I’ll take an honest believer over someone who pays lip-service to small-l liberal beliefs likewise any day …
I have much more respect for Jesse Helms than for Sam Nunn, for example …
If the U of the C is indeed as upfront about the strength and importance to themselves of their beliefs, then caveat emptor with respect to the education there …
If someone insists on bringing a spiral-cut ham to the Temple or Yeshiva pot-luck after-service meal, that person forfeits my sympathy once he/she starts to implement such an action …
Then again, I tend not to like those whose thought process runs easily to such things as “I don’t believe that you should be able to do these things …” … and I *really* don’t like or respect those whose thought processes and actions run easily to “I don’t believe that you should be able to think or express these things …”
I don’t respect the bigotry of conventional bigots … and I dislike even more strongly the covert yet expressed bigotry of those who seek to ban bigotry …
Me - I prefer to expose bigotry, bring it out into the light of day, and show why it is a Bad Thing …
April 13th, 2006 at 3:21:44 pm
Alasdair’s statement seems out of a freaky Twilight Zone wherein he’s become the type of bleeding-heart liberal that can’t bring himself to “judge” another culture ’cause it’s just not his place…the type of liberal attitude that makes those just left-of center (like me) cringe, and the type whom Alasdair will often readily lampoon.
What gives?
April 13th, 2006 at 4:00:36 pm
“I don’t respect the bigotry of conventional bigots … and I dislike even more strongly the covert yet expressed bigotry of those who seek to ban bigotry …”
At what point do you draw the line, Alasdair? Do you dislike the existence of anti-discrimination laws which prohibit, for instance, racial bigotry in hiring practices? What about those who wish to extend such protections to other classes of people? How about hate speech laws? Or does it take trying to criminalize thought, not action or even speech to get you riled? This is a serious question–different people will draw the line in different places. Personally, I draw it between speech and actions–think whatever you like, say whatever you like within appropriate boundaries (no yelling Fire in a crowded theatre unless there is, in fact, a fire, etc, and be prepared for people to disagree with what you say), but there are much stricter limits on the actions you may take. What about you?
April 13th, 2006 at 4:21:00 pm
I really fail to see how this kid had any of his civil rights violated. It’s not a RIGHT to go to any school of your choosing. If that was the case, I probably have a good lawsuit for Harvard on the grounds that I am simply not smart enough to go there. Why should I be discriminated against? This is a private institution who can admit or deny anyone they wish on their own terms.
You can find it morally repugnant if you wish, but I don’t particularly. It is a Christian institution that does not approve of homosexuality. There is nothing at all suprising about that.
Their behaviour is right in line with those espoused by the NAACP or CAIR or any other of a number of non-inclusive (AKA EXCLUSIVE) organizations that grace the country. I suspect that most of the people exhibiting moral outrage about this have no beef with those groups and their antics.
April 13th, 2006 at 4:31:39 pm
Texican, you are the first person in this thread to use the term “civil rights.” Why are you rebutting an argument that no one has made?
April 13th, 2006 at 4:33:39 pm
P.S. Indeed, the only other uses of the word “rights,” in relevant context, were:
“They are within their legal rights here…”
and
“…this is within the legal rights of the university…”
So again, why would you say, “I really fail to see how this kid had any of his civil rights violated. It’s not a RIGHT to go to any school of your choosing.” Who do you think you’re arguing with? Certainly not anyone in this thread who has spoken up thus far.
April 13th, 2006 at 4:45:57 pm
Brandan,
OK maybe I’m not arguing, more projecting really. I’ve seen these types of arguments before, and they always devolveinto an argument about “civil rights” even though it is sometimes couched with different language.
Also, there was a passage in the thread referring to “devout anti-gay-rights Christians”. I read this to mean civil rights. If that is not the way it was intended then I stand corrected and retract my entire post.
April 13th, 2006 at 5:00:50 pm
Brendan,
There was a passage in the original thread mentioning “devout anti-gay-rights Christians”. That may not refer to civil rights, but I am not sure what the difference between gay rights and civil rights are.
April 13th, 2006 at 5:05:45 pm
Texican, that’s a real stretch. So because I said “I would think that even devout anti-gay-rights Christians would have a problem with this,” therefore I’m claiming that somebody’s rights were violated? Even though I summed up my position thusly:
Sorry, but there is no ambiguity at all in my position, which is that legal rights were not violated but the action is morally wrong. My use of the descriptor “anti-gay-rights” to refer to those on the other side of this issue is just that, a descriptor; in no way does it imply that this particular case is a civil rights issue. I’m merely saying that the people on the other side of the larger gay issue, who I describe as “anti-gay-rights” (because they are), should agree with me about this particular issue, that they should “have a problem with this” — but that doesn’t mean that “this” is a “rights” issue. You are inventing something out of nothing to justify your straw-man argument.
April 13th, 2006 at 5:07:34 pm
P.S. When I listed “the only other uses of the word ‘rights,’ in relevant context,” I left out my comment about the “devout anti-gay-rights Christians” because it seemed so obvious to me that it was not in “relevant context.”
April 13th, 2006 at 5:34:29 pm
Scientizzle @ 3:21 - who said anything about me “not judging” ? Did I not delineate pretty much how I would act (or not) upon my judgments in each such situation ? The simple fact of expressing respect or lack thereof is the result of judging, of comparing, of using discriminating abilities …
Mike @ 4:00 - I find that, historically, atttempts to legislate morality tend not to succeed … generally, I dislike bans per se … with respect to the concept of a hate crime, I would prefer to see someone who murders a person be caught, tried, and sentenced for the murder - and then punished - severely - not because of a hate crime but because of the murder irrespective of the target … you probably like the same concept - the “All men are created equal” one … you have probably noticed me more than once on this blog observing that insults are “taken” and do not have to be “taken” if the intended target chooses NOT to take insult … does that start to answer your question ?
Brendan @ 4:31 - “Why are you rebutting an argument that no one has made? “ - koan-cidence ? I think not ? (grin)
Brendan @ 5:07 - at some point in your training, someone will point out to you that it’s not your context (as the originator of the communication) that matters, but rather the context of the recipient of your communication … for you, you did not believe it to be relevant, and yet texican received the meaning from your words to which he responded …
April 13th, 2006 at 5:49:51 pm
Brendan,
Maybe you’re right about the civil rights thing, but how is it that you find it morally repugnant? A student engages in behavior that the University deems inappropriate and takes steps to remedy it. Their doctine evidently states that homosexuality is wrong. What about people who find homosexuality morally repugnant? Are they all bigots?
What this kid did is akin to me going down to the worst bar in Dallas where I know white people aren’t welcomed and then being surprised when I get beat up.
April 13th, 2006 at 5:59:43 pm
Texican, my reasoning is stated quite clearly in my post, and I’m not going to rise to your bait re: “Are they all bigots?” Any fair-minded individual reading this post will notice that I haven’t called anyone a bigot. Anyway, if you really want to know what I believe, I would urge you to re-read my post, perhaps a bit more carefully, and consider that, as I made clear, I find the policy itself, on its own terms, repugnant, for the reasons I stated (none of which you’ve addressed, BTW), regardless of the particular circumstances with this one student.
April 13th, 2006 at 6:00:12 pm
Brendan,
Matbeyou’re correctabout the rights thing and I was just dredging it upot of thin air. If his rights weren’t violated here, then what’s the big deal?
What this kid did was akin to a white supremacist going into a bar in south Dallas and spouting his views, then being all surprised when he got the crap beat out of him. Most people would not have a lot of sympathy for him.
April 13th, 2006 at 6:18:44 pm
Brendan,
Of course you are correct, you have not called anyone a bigot. I am drawing that conclusion based more on inferences than any direct language.
Be that as it may, if this kid had no violations of any of his rights, as everyone here seems to be in agreement of, then I fail to see the big deal. It is a private institution. Attendance there is at the pleasure of the administration. The rules apparently in place when he started did say that behavior should be in accordance with the schools values (paraphrasing).
It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to determine that homosexuality or the promotion of it is not in accordance with most Christian teachings. In fact, it probably runs counter to it in more than one area.
I understand that would be like ND punishing people for the purchase or promotion of condoms, but they don’t do that do they. This place does have such an aversion to homosexuality in all of its forms.
Also, not being a law student at ND would probably tend to mean that I am somewhat more dense than the people you encounter on a daily basis. I would appreciate a little tolerance to that fact! (Joking)
April 13th, 2006 at 6:35:02 pm
Brendan,
2 things.
1. I should learn to click in the (more…) button BEFORE I spout off.
2. You have of course not called anyone here a bigot. I drew my conclusion stricly by inference rather than any actual language to that effect.
If this kid didn’t have any of his rights violated, what’s the big deal. As you stated, the rules were apparently changed after he joined. But even before enrolled, the rules did state something to the effect of conducting themselves in a manner consistent with the schools standards (paraphrasing). Almost everybody knows that homosexuality in all its forms are not consistent with Christian tenets.
Also, given that I am not an ND law student, I am certainly more dense than people you encounter on a daily basis. I would appreciate a little tolerence on your part for my obviously inferior intellect! (Joking)
April 13th, 2006 at 7:02:16 pm
Um…is it just me or did Texicans posts dissapear? Or is Brendan the only one who can see them? Soo very confused right now…
April 13th, 2006 at 7:05:09 pm
BTW, Alasdairs point about insults being taken is crap, he is basically place the onus on the target. Sorry but if you say something horrible then you are sayign something horrible, its not my problem its yours.
April 13th, 2006 at 7:23:57 pm
DAMMIT I don’t understand this spam filter……
April 13th, 2006 at 8:00:27 pm
DAMMIT I don’t understand anything…
April 13th, 2006 at 8:01:55 pm
OOPS I did it again…
April 13th, 2006 at 9:18:07 pm
First let me say that I hold the principle of “grandfathering” in very high regard. It is utterly unfair to let someone commit to something (I would expect for four years in this case) and then change the rules before the end of that commitment. For that reason, I think Mr. Johnson at least deserved a chance to comply with the new regulations or even be fully exempt until his projected graduation date. But his attitude in the article of “I am so ready to be out of here.” seems to imply he would have left on his own even if his MySpace hadn’t been found.
So what if this happens to a new student a couple years down the line? With no “grandfathering” I fail to see a problem with the school’s position. I think it should be obvious that they have every right to prohibit behavior and promotion of behavior that is against their religious convictions. And why is the “or promotes” being emphasized as being “very concerning?” When an institution specifically states it is teaching Christian principles why is it a surprise they are prohibiting anti-Christian principles from being taught (promoted)?
The comments about not being “Christian”, “judge not, lest ye be judged”, and “those who are without sin…” are “very concerning” to me. This is an attempt to bully Christians into changing their beliefs. These are all guidelines for living everyday life; not for a setting where young minds are learning Christian principles. “Judging not…” refers to repentant sinners. If a gay person admits homosexuality is a sin and repents they should have no problem not promoting homosexuality. Why should a religious institution allow a sinner to promote their sin on campus? Why should they be allowed to turn other students away from Christianity?
My impression is that the gay community wants to force the religious community to accept them. At some point the gay community has to understand the religious community believes homosexuality to be a sin. They need to argue their case that it is not a sin instead of attending religious institutions (schools, churches, etc.) and then crying foul when they are discriminated against.
April 13th, 2006 at 9:31:58 pm
Sorry for the multiple posts Brendan. That darn spam thingy made me think that I was banned or something.
April 13th, 2006 at 10:01:40 pm
uh-huhhuh-huhhuhhuh, he said “University of Cum”, huhhuh-huhhuh.
April 13th, 2006 at 10:02:58 pm
Texican, even if this is not a surprise, that doesn’t mean that it’s not a big deal. Maybe it wouldn’t be a surprise if you got beat up for going into a given bar and spouting your views, and maybe not a lot of people would have sympathy for you, but that doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t be wrong if it happened. Even if the context of his postings on MySpace did run into conflict with the rules which were in force at the time he enrolled, I see nothing wrong with condemning the policy. People can agree to all sorts of things legally that others find repugnant–I’m betting, for example, that the majority of the ND community would find prostitution morally repugnant, and the fact that it’s legal in certain places doesn’t mean that they have no basis for decrying the practice.
Alasdair, no, you haven’t answered my question. You didn’t actually state where you’d draw the line. You did, at least, articulate a view on hate crimes, but not on, say, bans on employment discrimination. Incidentally, I happen to agree with that view on hate crimes. I’m also with David that I think your view on taking offense is, well, ridiculous.
Scott, the reason I, at least, am highly concerned about the promotion part is that the way this is being enforced is incredibly intrusive into the student’s life. This student isn’t trying to get funding for a student organization, which could result in a plausible argument that this would be seen as the university endorsing an action. He’s not trying to hold demonstrations on the campus, where the massively unobservant might mistake him for a university spokesperson. His website isn’t even using university resources. Any statements he made about his orientation on his website–and I don’t know what they are–were made as an individual who could in no way be considered as representative of his university, using none of the university’s resources, and in a manner no one could reasonably construe as being a university endorsement of his statements. That is massively concerning to me. That would be like David, currently a Microsoft employee, being fired for posting a comment from home on Brendan’s blog stating that he uses Netscape instead of IE.
This is a religious school, but while you’re focusing on the adjective, I’m focusing on the noun. It concerns me when any academic institution says that a given viewpoint may not be expressed under any circumstances. It’s a restriction on the content of speech, which is far more distressing to me than a restriction on the manner of speech. That strikes me as contrary to the very idea of education. If you can’t hear a given view being expressed at all–if you can’t express it yourself even as a thought exercise–you are drastically limited in your ability to learn. Relegating certain views to specific venues–having the Bible come up in an elective world religion course in a public school, rather than a mandatory literature course–is one thing. Saying that you aren’t allowed to bring a Bible into the building is another entirely.
And yes, Scott, the gay community and their allies in the straight community do routinely express the view that homosexuality is not a sin. But I’m not willing to say that that’s the only route people should take in what many of us consider to the most important civil rights issue of our time. The students who sat at the lunch counters a few decades back weren’t at all surprised that they weren’t served. There were people expressing the view that the laws allowing that situation were wrong, and needed to be changed. There were also people arguing that the entire mindset behind those laws was wrong, and needed to be changed. But that was not the only route taken in that fight. I don’t see why it should need to be the only one taken in this one.
April 13th, 2006 at 10:12:18 pm
Anyway, I’m with Mike, who concludes: “They are within their legal rights here�as unfortunate as I find that�but morally, I find this utterly repugnant.�
Count me in as well. On the other hand, if indeed Mr. Jason Johnson has a boyfriend (per the MySpace profile), then that is de facto evidence he is engaging in homosexual behavior (which doesn’t necessarily have to include anal or oral sex; if Brendan dreams of makeout sessions with Andy Dick, that’s definitely homosexual behavior). I still have a problem with the “promotes” language, but I don’t think that is the trigger clause here.
We tell prospective students about our high standards before they come.
Okay, but again, the specific language disallowing homosexual behavior or the promotion thereof was not instituted until after the student was expelled.
…I feel sexual orientation belongs in the category of federally protected antidiscrimination classes, up there with sex, race, disability, and the like….
I’d have to disagree. Not only do I not think sexual orientation is the same category as race and whatnot, I don’t think the government constitutionally has the constitutional authority to prevent private businesses and institutions from discriminating. The laws certainly exist (and SCOTUS is reluctant to strike them down) for obvious and compelling moral reasons, but in a perfectly libertarian, constitutional world, such anti-discrimination laws would not exist and could only apply to government institutions and businesses or institutions that accept government funds. There are such things as just but unconstitutional laws, just as there are constitutional but unjust laws.
By the way, what’s up with Christian schools having naughty names? Cumberlands? Oral Roberts?
April 13th, 2006 at 11:16:08 pm
So, Andrew, in your opinion the equal protection clause of Ammendment 14 is not a valid constitutional hook on which to hang antidiscrimination laws? I’m not saying that position is indefensible, but it’s not like I’m just inventing governmental authority to do this out of thin air. Even if you disagree with the opinion, I think you can see how a reasonable person could well conclude that said clause gives the government the right to pass such laws.
In any event, as I alluded to earlier, this instiution does receive government funding, which would make it subject to such laws or risk losing that funding. Which, ultimately, makes the above a moot point in regard to this particular case.
April 13th, 2006 at 11:53:54 pm
So, Andrew, in your opinion the equal protection clause of Ammendment 14 is not a valid constitutional hook on which to hang antidiscrimination laws?
Mike, the 14th Amendment works great for supporting laws against government discrimination and ensuring due process, but if a private business wants to solely hire, say, big-busted women to serve hot-wings, or muscular blacks to lift heavy objects, or all whites to do personal accounting for redneck racists, that business should be allowed to do so on the basis of freedom of association. And then the market can decide to reward or punish such discriminatory business practices.
Even if you disagree with the opinion, I think you can see how a reasonable person could well conclude that said clause gives the government the right to pass such laws.
It’s far more reasonable to accept the unconstitutionality of such laws, and yet also accept that either the Constitution ought to be amended or the laws will have to stand regardless in order to guard against the immorality of certain types of discrimination.
Finally, how do you know the school accepts direct federal funding? Federally-funded student loans don’t count, last time I checked.
April 14th, 2006 at 12:40:50 am
Financial aid only doesn’t count because there is no federal law barring discrimination on sexual orientation. There is on race, sex, age, and physical disability, which is why the linked article says that universities participating in the federal financial aid program can’t discriminate on those. Therefore, my point remains that it doesn’t matter if such laws are only applicable to those receiving governmental funding–if orientation was in the list of things over which the federal government barred discrimination, then the school would still be subject to those laws, or face the loss of the money. The moot point was the issue of being private vs governmental, not whether the federal government can issue such laws in regards to the federal government.
April 14th, 2006 at 12:49:59 am
Mike - I much prefer to see the ‘market’ discipline employers rather than to see The Government intrude … essentially, what Andrew said …
As an example … if various organisations are so convinced that someone should employ that organisation’s pet subjects, then why the {unprintable} do said organisations not start the businesses to employ said pet subjects ?
If the Boy Scouts choose to discriminate against gays, then stop subsidising ‘em as a non-profit, and treat ‘em like any other private oganisation without not-for-profit status …
The Market will then decide whether they will thrive or simply wither on the vine …
April 14th, 2006 at 2:17:04 pm
“if Brendan dreams of makeout sessions with Andy Dick, that’s definitely homosexual behavior”
So, now, unconscious thoughts are behavior? Somehow, Andrew, I don’t buy it. Thoughts aren’t actions; all the moreso when they aren’t even conscious. I’ll go along with the idea that having a boyfriend in some ways constitutes homosexual behavior (in the same sense his having a girlfriend would have been heterosexual behavior), regardless of whether they’re chaste, but as we’ve stressed and you’ve acknowledged, Brendan and I are objecting much more to the policy than to this specific instance.
April 14th, 2006 at 4:25:22 pm
“if Brendan dreams of makeout sessions with Andy Dick, that’s definitely homosexual behaviorâ€?”
Actually, I’d suspect it’s more likely to be as a result of the subliminal recording playing through Brendan’s pillow that Becky put in place cuz he had misbehaved somehow …
(grin)
April 14th, 2006 at 5:01:56 pm
Dude… I did NOT make out with Andy Dick in the dream… just wanted to make that clear. :)
Texican, thanks for the clarification. Don’t take my “silent treatment” as an indication that I’m mad at you or anything — I’ve just been busy and haven’t been keeping up with the comments.
April 16th, 2006 at 1:16:53 am
“It’s simply my opinion that you should not be allowed to get rid of someone for being something you don’t like”
Why should intelligence not be a federally-protected anti-discrimination class?
I am toying around with this in my head to see if there is some reason to suppose that it should not be.
April 16th, 2006 at 3:19:28 am
Because intelligence is a trait fundamentally linked to job performance? You are allowed to discriminate against people for being unable to perform a job–to be glib, a parapalegic doesn’t have a case if he doesn’t get a contract as a professional basketball player even though those doing the hiring are undoubtedly looking for a tall, coordinated, athletic non-cripple. More seriously, you’re allowed to force applicants for a job to demonstrate abilities relevant to that job, even if it means that it’s more difficult for members of a protected class to get the job than those of the unprotected class. You can require that prospective employees demonstrate the ability to lift 200 pounds if you’re hiring them to be stevedores–you’re not if you’re hiring them to be accountants. Many more men will pass that test than women, and many more young men than old men, but it’s a necessary ability for certain jobs, and thus is considered an acceptable practice when hiring/renewing contracts for them. In the same way, intelligence writ large is linked to job performance in, well, just about every job–including even jobs that you might not suspect would be highly influenced by it, such as being a tank gunner.
Basically, you’re allowed to discriminate against people for being unable to perform a function, or for being worse at it than others you hire instead. That’s why, for instance, the Catholic church is allowed to bar women from the priesthood, as they argue that the role of the priest requires one to take on the aspect of Jesus during such things as transubstantiation, and that this is only possible for a man to do.* That would make intelligence virtually impossible to protect in terms of discrimination law, and it would make virtually any law trying to protect it unenforceable.
*(In fairness, I’m not Catholic, so I don’t find it compelling that being male is a requirement, but being born Jewish and being able to speak Aramaic isn’t, but that’s another debate entirely–for the purposes of this point, it’s enough to state that they believe this to be a requirement of the job that women are categorically unable to fill, much as a casting director for a remake of Cleopatra would be within his/her rights to only consider women for the title role)
April 17th, 2006 at 1:25:20 pm
Mike - at the risk of raising theological disputation, given that the Catholic Church believes in the Miracle of Transusbstantiation as a literal fact and regularly repeated miracle, what’s a little sex-change amongst Friends ?
(Yeah, I know, Joe, I may just have offended a number of devout Quakers, for which pecadillo, I will do penance …)