12-04-2002 04:07									#1
	Is Stanford discriminating against Christians? Tired of ads?

This article was on the front page of our campus newspaper today and I want to know what you guys think about it.

http://www.dailynebraskan.com/vnews...1/3cb576dda0d88

For those of you who are too lazy to click on the link, here's some of the highlights.

quote: In early January, shortly after Miami crushed Nebraska in the Rose Bowl, Nebraska football Assistant Coach Ron Brown journeyed to a Los Angeles hotel to interview for the coaching job at Stanford. But he didn't get any further than the initial interview. The reason: It soon became apparent his religious views, among other things, were incompatible with Stanford's liberal student body and active gay community.

quote: "If I'd been discriminated against for being black, they would've never told me that," Brown said. "They had no problem telling me it was because of my Christian beliefs. That's amazing to me."

Personally, I think that this definitely seems like discrimination. I don't agree with Brown's views on homosexuality, but I certainly think that he is entitled to believe whatever he wants. I've never heard of an incident where his personal beliefs have affected his performance as a football coach, so I don't really see what basis Stanford has for their decision. It seems like Stanford didn't consider him for the job simply because of his beliefs, which seems wrong to me.

Discuss...

	12-04-2002 04:13									#2
	Get a bigger avatar today!

What if his beliefs included race superiority or that poor people are dumb or some crap like that? It wasn't that he had a particular religious disposition, it was his personal interpretation of that belief system. People who (still!) discriminate against gays are a not a welcome part of the culture in the bay area. Period.

	12-04-2002 04:42									#3
	Got spare money?

quote: People who (still!) discriminate against gays are a not a welcome part of the culture in the bay area. Period.

Its comforting to know your area has ordinances against thought crime.

This is PC hypocrisy bullsh--. In essence, this "diversity" cause has created its own old boys' network.

	12-04-2002 04:45									#4
	Inflate your Upload Space

From the sounds of it, it seems your Good Christian had a bigoted attitude which clashed with the "liberal student body and active gay community".

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Nobody cares that he's Christian, but it would seem that he had some fundamentalist Christians views that would kinda paint a bad picture for the university because they actively put down segments of society because he doesn't agree with it or understand it.

Perhaps if he wan't a whacko he'd have had better luck.

Would you be up in arms if they stopped the Head Wizard of the KKK from becoming Dean or something?

	12-04-2002 04:45									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Sten Sture People who (still!) discriminate against gays are a not a welcome part of the culture in the bay area.

Last I checked, "belief" and "action" are two different things. Brown wasn't discriminating against homosexuals, if the article is correct.

	12-04-2002 04:45									#6
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I think bigots who hate homosexuals should be welcomed just as much as racists are welcomed -- that is, both should be admitted fairly, however disgusting their ignorant beliefs are.

	12-04-2002 04:48									#7
	Tired of ads?

Stanford is a private institution, yes?

As long as those same religious people have places like Baylor, which flat out refuse admittence to Homosexuals and the like, Stanford should be permitted not to allow bigots and other people who enjoy spreading hatred and intolerance.

	12-04-2002 04:51									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Asher Stanford is a private institution, yes? As long as those same religious people have places like Baylor, which flat out refuse admittence to Homosexuals and the like, Stanford should be permitted not to allow bigots and other people who enjoy spreading hatred and intolerance.

Good point --- as long as Christian universities can refuse homosexuals, then liberal, private universities can exclude homophobic applicants.

But then, that means we're standing on the claim that two wrongs make a right.

Or, we could be saying that fair is square -- you change your standards, and then we will change our standards.

	12-04-2002 04:52									#9
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Asher As long as those same religious people have places like Baylor, which flat out refuse admittence to Homosexuals and the like, Stanford should be permitted not to allow bigots and other people who enjoy spreading hatred and intolerance.

Just because Baylor's actions are legal does not change the fact that they are disciminatory. The question is not whether Stanford's (or any other private university's) actions are legal, the question is whether or not their actions are discriminatory.

	12-04-2002 04:54									#10
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Would he have been the best man for the job, with his moral views? Perhaps not, in which case why should someone who would not have been the best man for the job be hired?

	12-04-2002 04:54									#11
	Tired of ads?

Universities have tenured professors who have Very unpopular viewpoints about social issues, and who deal with many more students on a personal basis.

And where did it say that this guy "enjoyed spreading hatred and intolerance" ? He has a certain religion=based belief system. That's it.

	12-04-2002 04:55									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think that it is important to note that Brown, while he believes in a literal interpretation of the bible, is not anything like people like Jerry Falwell and others who preach intolerance towards homosexuals. Brown rarely discusses his views on homosexuality and when he does so it is at Christian forums where discussion of religion is specifically sought. While people here sometime question his faith, I don't think anyone considers Brown to be anything less than a good human being. This isn't a bigot you are discussing, but simply a man who believes deeply in Christianity.

quote: "I don't believe homosexuality is biblically correct," he said. "But that doesn't mean I disdain the people or do anything to disrespect anyone here."

Are these the words of a bigot?

	12-04-2002 04:56									#13
	Suffering from ads?

As long as there are people who believe that it is right for Christian universities to exclude gays and lesbians, then there will be people who can justify private liberal universities in excluding too-conservative Christians.

	12-04-2002 04:57									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DetroitDave Universities have tenured professors who have Very unpopular viewpoints about social issues, and who deal with many more students on a personal basis. And where did it say that this guy "enjoyed spreading hatred and intolerance" ? He has a certain religion=based belief system. That's it.

Obviously Stanford turned this guy down because he has a history of publically talking about it, or doing something about it.

Otherwise they wouldn't know or care.

And yes, damnit, it is disciminating, in the same sense that we discriminate by trying to only throw criminals in jail, and allowing only 16 year olds and above to drive, etc.

	12-04-2002 05:00									#15
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by MrFun As long as there are people who believe that it is right for Christian universities to exclude gays and lesbians, then there will be people who can justify private liberal universities in excluding too-conservative Christians.

Nobody's saying that Stanford isn't allowed to discriminate against Christians. AFAIK the coach isn't pressing charges or anything, but just wants the university to own up to its discriminatory policies (just as Baylor has owned up to its discriminatory policies).

	12-04-2002 05:02									#16
	Inflate your Upload Space

Let's make this clear:
He's not being discriminated against because he's Christian.

He's being disciminated against because he's an intolerant bigot.

The man's putting down his own religion by constantly linking the two, not all Christians are intolerant bigots.

I hope this gets much more publicity, because Stanford's reputation just went way up in my books.

	12-04-2002 05:04									#17
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I don't know if Stanford is a public institution or not. If it is private then they can hire whoever they want (within reason). If they are a public institution then they are breaking the law. We still have a right in this country to discriminate by associating with particular groups of people. Churches or particular religious organizations should not be required to hire persons who do not share their religious beliefs and neither should a private educational institution be required to hire Christians if they choose to be bigots.

	12-04-2002 05:07									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Asher He's being disciminated against because he's an intolerant bigot.

Do you have any proof of this, Asher? Did you even read the article? I think the article makes it clear that Brown does not hate or fear homosexuals; he just doesn't believe that their behavior is morally correct. Does that make him a bigot?

	12-04-2002 05:08									#19
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

"thought crime" - hardly.

Head football coach at Stanford has a hell of a lot of power over a hell of a lot of young athletes - much moreso than the average prof, especially as there are a number of athletic scholarship students who live and die according to the whims of the coach.

You're not talking about hiring someone as a janitor, or painter or electrician - you're talking about hiring someone into a hugely public and public relations oriented position, with a lot of power over athletes, and a lot of influence on the overall success (financially and otherwise) of the total athletic program, not just football.

When you hire someone into an executive level position, *everything* comes into fair play, including personality, attitude, and how that individual will mesh with everyone else he or she works with, including the public. The head coach job is year round, and has to do with a hell of a lot more than running plays on a football field - that's why you have offensive and defensive coordinators, but nobody remembers or cares who the **** they are.

I lived in Palo Alto, within about half a mile of the Stanford Campus (close enough to get me a free ticket to the Super Bowl to watch the Niners whoop the Dolphins' asses ) for four and a half years. I still know people who live and work there and three years ago, my daughter spent most of the summer on campus.

I'm Catholic, there are quite a few churches in Palo Alto (and at least a chapel on campus, probably more than that), and nobody there ever had a problem with churchgoers. There's also a Buddhist temple in the area, at least one mosque (I think two or three), and a number of Jewish temples. The only "problem" I ever saw or heard while I lived there, or in talking to friends, is a couple of incidents where ignorant teen punks defaced the Jewish temples as a "prank." As a rule, nobody gets in anybody's face, people are easy to get along with, regardless of belief. Stanford is also home to the Hoover Institute, which is hardly a bastion of liberalism, and there's never much problem with it being there - the occasional trendy but well behaved leftist demonstration when Reagan was in office, but it was practically a joke.

If the guy didn't get hired, it's probably for a pretty good and definite reason, and his "I'm picked on because the liberals and gays discriminated against me" line sounds like a bunch of chickenshit excuse making.

	12-04-2002 05:10									#20
	Remove this text

quote: And yes, damnit, it is disciminating, in the same sense that we discriminate by trying to only throw criminals in jail, and allowing only 16 year olds and above to drive, etc.

Not comparable to discrimination on the basis of thought or belief.

quote: As long as there are people who believe that it is right for Christian universities to exclude gays and lesbians, then there will be people who can justify private liberal universities in excluding too-conservative Christians.

If you think one wrong policy justifies another, cool. But which institution stands to lose more, a lot more, by continuing to follow through?

	12-04-2002 05:37									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten I think the article makes it clear that Brown does not hate or fear homosexuals; he just doesn't believe that their behavior is morally correct. Does that make him a bigot?

Erm...duh? Yes?

quote: Not comparable to discrimination on the basis of thought or belief.

So you're saying that it's not right for Stanford to also reject a KKK member as a head coach (which, as MtG touched on, is a very important role model).

quote: If you think one wrong policy justifies another, cool. But which institution stands to lose more, a lot more, by continuing to follow through?

Well, let's see...
Stanford doesn't deny admission to christians or employment. I'd wager a huge chunk of their body is christian. This guy is simply whining because they won't hire him because he's openly an intolerant bigot, which is NOT something a school like Stanford needs in its public image.

Baylor stands to lose a lot more, because not allowing any admission to homosexuals is simply bigotry. Open bigotry.

In today's society, it's only PC to not tolerate intolerants. Stanford is not tolerating intolerants, Baylor is not tolerating homosexuals.

So yes, which one does stand to lose more, a lot more, by continuing to follow through?

	12-04-2002 05:48									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

So basically you're saying that anyone who doesn't agree with your own standards of morality is a bigot, right Asher? How open-minded...

Also, one can't disapprove of the behavior of others without hating them. By that logic, all those who disapprove of Israeli actions must be anti-semites. How ridiculous...

It is entirely possible to disapprove of a person's actions without hating the person themselves. I don't agree with Brown's views, but I know that he isn't an evil man. You should be careful before you jump to conclusions and brand everyone who has different beliefs than you a bigot. Such behaviour reflects badly upon you...

	12-04-2002 06:01									#23
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: So you're saying that it's not right for Stanford to also reject a KKK member as a head coach (which, as MtG touched on, is a very important role model).

I'd say it's a "small" matter of degree between a member of a former terrorist organization and a man who has only publicly spoken an unpopular (albeit discriminatory) view. If you think it's right, I'm thinking you would also support purges of published and tenured professors who have expressed Anti-semitic, racist, etc. views. Or are they "hiding" under Academic Freedom?


If Stanford takes the same high ground regarding academic freedom, why is this different? Why does it stoop to Baylor's level in practicing discrimination and defining diversity in the form of "tolerants" and "intolerants"?

	12-04-2002 06:02									#24
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten So basically you're saying that anyone who doesn't agree with your own standards of morality is a bigot, right Asher? How open-minded...

Anyone who dismissed a segment of society and calls them "morally incorrect" because of who they are is a bigot.

Learn to deal with my overbearing definitions.

quote: Also, one can't disapprove of the behavior of others without hating them. By that logic, all those who disapprove of Israeli actions must be anti-semites. How ridiculous...

Who said anything about hate?
Look up the definition of bigot.

quote: It is entirely possible to disapprove of a person's actions without hating the person themselves. I don't agree with Brown's views, but I know that he isn't an evil man. You should be careful before you jump to conclusions and brand everyone who has different beliefs than you a bigot. Such behaviour reflects badly upon you...

Ermm...
Bigot is defined as:

quote: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Brown a bigot if he goes around saying homosexuals are "morally incorrect"?

	12-04-2002 06:05									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Drake and Asher (since you two seem to be most into this thread)

There are politically conservative campus clubs at Stanford, and Christian groups too, as well as everyone else.

What is most likely the issue with Brown is the extent of "in your faceness" - part of the goal of the program is to fill that stadium and to get those alumni association donations coming in.

Let's assume that he's not a conscious bigot, or a bigot at all. If he feels a need to make his position on the subject clear, that raises a big question - why? It's not a question of having different moral views, or of practicing different moral views. It's a question of publicly making a point of it in a manner that's unrelated to the job.

Let's say he was a black member of the Nation of Islam, and was a little vocal about how the Jews and the white devils conspired to keep down the black man. Would not hiring him be discrimination because he's black? or because he listens to brother Farrakhan a little too much? Or because his vocal profession of his personal views is inconsistent with the nature of the position for which he's hired?

What were Jack Elway's views on the morality of homosexuality? When I lived near Stanford, Jack Elway was the coach, and John Elway was still there. Stanford was no less "liberal" then than now, but Elway's politics, religious views, etc. were a non-issue. Was that because he had no such views? Or because he treated his private personal views as his private personal views and kept his public persona focused on being the head coach of the Stanford football team?

	12-04-2002 06:08									#26
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by DetroitDave I'd say it's a "small" matter of degree between a member of a former terrorist organization and a man who has only publicly spoken an unpopular (albeit discriminatory) view. If you think it's right, I'm thinking you would also support purges of published and tenured professors who have expressed Anti-semitic, racist, etc. views. Or are they "hiding" under Academic Freedom?

Intolerance breeds hatred, directly or indirectly. Historically this has been proven to be true.

It's entirely acceptable for a large liberal university like Stanford to not employ someone who has opened expressed his negative opinion of homosexuals. He's trying to bend this around and say it's because he's a Christian ( ). Anyone, regardless of religion, wouldn't have gotten the job with those types of belief.

Deal with that.

quote: If Stanford takes the same high ground regarding academic freedom, why is this different? Why does it stoop to Baylor's level in practicing discrimination and defining diversity in the form of "tolerants" and "intolerants"?

Because Stanford has a right to say who it employrs or not, particularly when this man becomes a role model for many young students.

When a man comes across as a close-minded bigot, he should not be permitted to have a position of power in a liberal, private university.

Yes, it is discrimination. No, it's not discimation against his religion, but rather his bigotry.

Stanford wouldn't hire a Black Panther, a KKK member, or someone who went around saying Straight People were morally incorrect (or impure, as it were). Simply because that kind if ideology isn't appropriate for the environment. Same reason Baylor chooses to not permit gays.

	12-04-2002 06:14									#27
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I think it is also important to consider what he would have done had their been gay players on his team. I get the impression (granted, perhaps mistaken) that they would not have been treated as well as other players.

	12-04-2002 06:24									#28
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat What is most likely the issue with Brown is the extent of "in your faceness" - part of the goal of the program is to fill that stadium and to get those alumni association donations coming in.

I don't think that it was made clear in the article, but Brown isn't "in your face" about his beliefs at all. As I said earlier, he rarely mentions his views on homosexuality and when he does it is because he was asked to talk about them. When he is asked about his beliefs, however, he is always honest about them, which seems to have come back to bite him in the ass. Everybody in this area knows that he is a born again Christian, but no one cares. Hell, I didn't even know about his views on homosexuality until I read this article. His beliefs have never affected his job performance for the Huskers or caused strife on campus, so no one bothers him about them.

Anyway, I can totally see why Stanford chose to not continue interviewing Brown. His views are controversial and would probably have an adverse effect on campus relations. I just think that it is a bit hypocritical for an institution like Stanford to claim to represent diversity and tolerance while discriminating against prospective employees based on their personal beliefs. I think Stanford has every right to discriminate against Brown, but I don't think that it is right.

As for the domination of this thread by Asher and myself, it's just a friendly rivalry. He is my nemesis, after all...

	12-04-2002 06:27									#29
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer I think it is also important to consider what he would have done had their been gay players on his team. I get the impression (granted, perhaps mistaken) that they would not have been treated as well as other players.

Sorry, but you are mistaken on this. There have been plenty of gay Cornhuskers over the years, some of them coached directly by Brown. I've never heard of any conflicts.

	12-04-2002 06:27									#30
	Suffering from ads?

"it's only PC to not tolerate intolerants. Stanford is not tolerating intolerants"

Who exactly is defining "intolerants"? This reminds me of the "newspeak" in George Orwell's 1984. It seems like Stanford is being accused of not tolerating Christians who believe certain things. If that proves to be the case does that make Stanford intolerant? Or if Brown chooses to not tolerate Stanford's intolerance does that qualify him for the PC badge of "not tolerating intolerants" as well?