Is Stanford discriminating against Christians?

[Asher]

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.

[Lincoln]

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.

[Drake Tungsten]

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?

[MichaeltheGreat]

"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 chicken**** excuse making.

[Jac de Molay]

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.

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?

[Asher]

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?

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).

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?

[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...

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...

[Jac de Molay]

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"?

[Asher]

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.

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.

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:

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"?

[MichaeltheGreat]

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?

[Asher]

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.

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.

[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.

[Drake Tungsten]

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...

[Drake Tungsten]

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.

[Lincoln]

"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?