Danielle Powell, Grace University Student Kicked Out For Being Lesbian, Must Repay Thousands

[onthemoon]

Danielle Powell was close to getting her bachelor's degree when she was kicked out of her university for being gay in 2012, and now says the only way the school will transfer her credits to another school is if she agrees to pay $6,300. In response, Powell has launched an online petition to pressure the school to forgive the debt.

Powell was a student at Grace University in early 2011 when she began her first same-sex relationship. Up until that point, neither she nor her then-girlfriend identified as lesbian. When Grace, a religious university in Omaha, Neb., found out about the relationship through a spiritual adviser at the school, they brought Powell before a judiciary board to decide whether she should be allowed to stay enrolled.

Full story here.

[onthemoon]

I understand that when she enrolled in that religious university, she knew that homosexuality is not tolerated there. So she agreed to these terms by signing up.

Can she now cry foul because she does not agree any more?

If she can, why is it legal for private universities to even make such rules?

[Scott]

Such Universities can make such rules because they are private. Personally, I think the institutions involved in accreditation should take a very close look at these schools and their curriculum. I know that quite a number of them are not accredited.

Her debt should not be forgiven, even though that would be the "Christian" thing for the University to do.

Her time and energy should be directed at 'educating' people about the dangers of religious educational institutions. These schools are little more than a Christian equivalent of a Madras.

[harrry]

Such Universities can make such rules because they are private. Personally, I think the institutions involved in accreditation should take a very close look at these schools and their curriculum. I know that quite a number of them are not accredited.

Her debt should not be forgiven, even though that would be the "Christian" thing for the University to do.

Her time and energy should be directed at 'educating' people about the dangers of religious educational institutions. These schools are little more than a Christian equivalent of a Madras.

Are you sure that is not madrasah. The Indian city is not really comparable.

Should not all people have access to full human rights, the fact it is private has nothing to do with it.

[Scott]

There are various transliterations and spellings of the Islamic Religious schools, so whatever spelling turns your crank is fine with me.

Everyone should have their rights protected -- even the right to make stupid decisions, I guess.

She went to a school that forbids this type of behavior and then decides to engage in that behavior. She would have been wise to either not attend (hindsight being 20/20) or withdraw once she entered into a 'forbidden' relationship. She did neither and now wants the school to pay.

I have no respect for these schools and would love to see them lose, but I would like to see them lose a lot more than just this one persons tuition.

[isanbirder]

There are various transliterations and spellings of the Islamic Religious schools, so whatever spelling turns your crank is fine with me.

Everyone should have their rights protected -- even the right to make stupid decisions, I guess.

She went to a school that forbids this type of behavior and then decides to engage in that behavior. She would have been wise to either not attend (hindsight being 20/20) or withdraw once she entered into a 'forbidden' relationship. She did neither and now wants the school to pay.

I have no respect for these schools and would love to see them lose, but I would like to see them lose a lot more than just this one persons tuition.

I think a clear distinction should be made between school and university.

A person is at university between the ages of roughly 18 and 22. It may well be the first time he/she has lived away from home. He/She is discovering new things about themselves (I can't keep on with this he/she nonsense), and meeting people with different backgrounds and different mores.

The university, religious or otherwise, should recognise this, and make allowances for changes in a student's personality and behaviour. In this case, I think the University authorities should have had her up on the carpet, told her that her actions are against the University's rules (it's entitled to make its own rules if it's private), and ask her to be discreet about her relationship until she finishes her course. She in her turn, having accepted those rules when she entered, should accept this.

Public confrontation helps nobody.

Edited June 15, 2013 by isanbirder

[onthemoon]

Such Universities can make such rules because they are private. Personally, I think the institutions involved in accreditation should take a very close look at these schools and their curriculum. I know that quite a number of them are not accredited.

Her debt should not be forgiven, even though that would be the "Christian" thing for the University to do.

Her time and energy should be directed at 'educating' people about the dangers of religious educational institutions. These schools are little more than a Christian equivalent of a Madras.

Are you sure that is not madrasah. The Indian city is not really comparable.

Should not all people have access to full human rights, the fact it is private has nothing to do with it.

I am sure this has nothing to do with madrasah or India, because the article clearly states it is a Christian university in the US.

And the right to university education is not covered in the Declaration of Human Rights.

Any private organisation has the right to make their own rules (within the law), and it is up to the members to accept them or stay out of the organisation.

Looking forward to your explanation.

[onthemoon]

There are various transliterations and spellings of the Islamic Religious schools, so whatever spelling turns your crank is fine with me.

Everyone should have their rights protected -- even the right to make stupid decisions, I guess.

She went to a school that forbids this type of behavior and then decides to engage in that behavior. She would have been wise to either not attend (hindsight being 20/20) or withdraw once she entered into a 'forbidden' relationship. She did neither and now wants the school to pay.

I have no respect for these schools and would love to see them lose, but I would like to see them lose a lot more than just this one persons tuition.

I think a clear distinction should be made between school and university.

A person is at university between the ages of roughly 18 and 22. It may well be the first time he/she has lived away from home. He/She is discovering new things about themselves (I can't keep on with this he/she nonsense), and meeting people with different backgrounds and different mores.

The university, religious or otherwise, should recognise this, and make allowances for changes in a student's personality and behaviour. In this case, I think the University authorities should have had her up on the carpet, told her that her actions are against the University's rules (it's entitled to make its own rules if it's private), and ask her to be discreet about her relationship until she finishes her course. She in her turn, having accepted those rules when she entered, should accept this.

Public confrontation helps nobody.

Hm. A school is an educational institution, and over here in Thailand, they often call a faculty a school. As in "School of Business" rather than "Faculty of Business".

In addition, when I was studying I often heard fellow-students use the Thai word for school when they meant university, as in "we'll meet for lunch at the main entrance of the school". But that's anecdotal.

I do agree with the rest of your contribution, though.

Edited June 15, 2013 by onthemoon

[isanbirder]

I agree that the word 'school' is often used for university departments (even in Cambridge!).... but in this instance it is misleading to say 'school' when the institution is clearly a university, and the other points in my post therefore apply.

[onthemoon]

Now that we have clarified the vocabulary and the meaning of the word "school", we can go back to the topic.

Let's focus on this sentence from the article for a moment:

the only way the school will transfer her credits to another school is if she agrees to pay $6,300. In response, Powell has launched an online petition to pressure the school to forgive the debt.

I am now speculating, but if she has debts, there are two possibilities:

1.) She didn't pay her tuition fees

2.) She was on a scholarship.

She was not fired for being gay, she was fired for not following the rules she accepted when signing up. One of these rules is about homosexuality, and we will probably not like this rule, but she did accept it. Had she violated any other of the rules, and I will assume that she was warned before being fired, the same would have happened.

Of course, in case 1 above, the university will not transfer the credits before she has paid up. That's quite normal. In case 2 above, she is adding an insult: "Yes, you believed in me and actually offered a scholarship. I'll take that, but I don't care about your rules and conditions".

I have often heard from straight people that gays want special rights and want to be treated better than straights. I have always said that this is not true, we just want the same rights and want to be treated equally. Now this student thinks that the rules she agreed to don't apply to her (because as a lesbian she is superior?) and it actually "pressuring" (!) the university to absorbing the debt.

IMHO she is damaging the gay rights movement with her arrogant behaviour. She should be happy that they don't pressure her to pay if she doesn't want the credits transferred.

Yes, we should fight for all schools and universities to accept gay students. But first signing an agreement and then saying "I'm above that, rules don't apply to me because I'm gay" is selfish and counter-productive for the movement.

[Jingthing]

It's not quite that simple.

The school accepts federal money.

Supposing they have the right to have archaic rules about sexual behavior, there is an argument to be made that because they accept FEDERAL money, it is only just that their rules are FAIRLY and EQUALLY applied to both hetero and homo students.

Perhaps they are doing that.

This might not be so relevant to the student but I would approve of the ACLU looking into this issue across the board and launching legal actions against any institutions which are showing clear discrimination bias against gay sexual behavior vs. straight sexual behavior.

Otherwise, I basically agree, you signed, you deal with it, but the accepting federal money aspect is the kicker.

[onthemoon]

I must have missed the fact in the article that says that they receive federal money. But then, if that means that their rule against homosexuality has to be revoked, then so be it. But that is nowhere in the article.

The article only says that she has debts she does not want to repay because she is gay.

[Jingthing]

I am not aware of any actual federal law that would protect students from anti-gay discrimination in such a case of the discrimination being challenged based on federal monies. I'm assuming there is no such law. Which is why I think it might be an interesting case to make, perhaps another one for the supreme court. Marriage equality is nice but the full civil rights goal is full equality under the law, and legal protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation in ALL aspects of life.

[MrRealDeal]

I am not aware of any actual federal law that would protect students from anti-gay discrimination in such a case of the discrimination being challenged based on federal monies. I'm assuming there is no such law. Which is why I think it might be an interesting case to make, perhaps another one for the supreme court. Marriage equality is nice but the full civil rights goal is full equality under the law, and legal protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation in ALL aspects of life.

That was tried is a case with the Boy Scouts and lost. The decision based on the unfortunate fact that their is no Law against it. The Supreme Court is "supposed" to interpret the Law not make new Law. Their decisions generally only strike down Laws that shouldn't exist not create new ones that should exist, which is why they upheld Slavery at one point while pointing out the absurd Law needed to be changed at the same time.

[I Like Thai]

http://graceuniversity.edu/news/a-message-from-dr-david-barnes/

Posted on June 14, 2013 by admin

Dear Members of the Grace University Family,

Recent events surrounding the expulsion of a former Grace University student for her violation of our Code of Conduct have attracted media attention to Grace.

While I know it is painful for all of us to watch our beloved university endure the scrutiny and criticism of those who do not share or understand our values, I would like to take this time to assure you that we support and practice the position of The Association for Biblical Higher Education (ABHE) (ABHE Sexual Orientation Statement) in striving to demonstrate civility and compassion as we engage in dialogue with others on these issues. We affirm the dignity of all human beings and respect others even though we may disagree with them. (GU Religious Freedom-Human Sexuality Position Statement)

That said, we also share ABHE’s position that the Bible is the authoritative word of God and that it defines all sexual unions outside of marriage as sinful. As a Christ-centered educational institution, we have incorporated this into our Code of Conduct for our entire 70-year history. We stand by the strength of our convictions.

It is clearly outlined in the Code of Conduct that premarital sex of any kind is unacceptable. Every Grace University student signs a document confirming that they have read and agreed to the Student Handbook, which contains both the Code of Conduct and the Student Financial Accounts policy.

I want to clear up a misunderstanding that has been communicated in the news: in this case the University does not seek repayment of scholarships. Grace University does not employ collection agencies or take legal action, nor do we report to credit agencies to collect debt. Our policy is to notify the student of the debt, and we believe it is up to the student to uphold his or her obligations.

While we are under no legal obligation to do so, from the very beginning we have been and remain willing to provide transcripts for the student.

Many of you have expressed your support of our community during this time and for that we thank you. As it is written in Romans 15:5, “May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus.”

Yours for standing on the Word of God.

David M. Barnes, Ed.D.

President

[Jingthing]

...

The Supreme Court is "supposed" to interpret the Law not make new Law. Their decisions generally only strike down Laws that shouldn't exist not create new ones that should exist, which is why they upheld Slavery at one point while pointing out the absurd Law needed to be changed at the same time.

That isn't really true. If it was Brown vs. Board of Education would have never happened.

[Jingthing]

http://graceuniversi...r-david-barnes/

Posted on June 14, 2013 by admin

Dear Members of the Grace University Family,

Recent events surrounding the expulsion of a former Grace University student for her violation of our Code of Conduct have attracted media attention to Grace....

That said, we also share ABHE’s position that the Bible is the authoritative word of God and that it defines all sexual unions outside of marriage as sinful. As a Christ-centered educational institution, we have incorporated this into our Code of Conduct for our entire 70-year history. We stand by the strength of our convictions.

...

Again, if the history of their actions against violations by students of their code shows unfair discrimination against their gay students then they might have a problem with their argument. Their written policy is one thing, how they have enforced that is another.

[I Like Thai]

http://graceuniversi...r-david-barnes/

Posted on June 14, 2013 by admin

Dear Members of the Grace University Family,

Recent events surrounding the expulsion of a former Grace University student for her violation of our Code of Conduct have attracted media attention to Grace....

That said, we also share ABHE’s position that the Bible is the authoritative word of God and that it defines all sexual unions outside of marriage as sinful. As a Christ-centered educational institution, we have incorporated this into our Code of Conduct for our entire 70-year history. We stand by the strength of our convictions.

...

Again, if the history of their actions against violations by students of their code shows unfair discrimination against their gay students then they might have a problem with their argument. Their written policy is one thing, how they have enforced that is another.

You come across as the type of person that is hell bent on finding prejudice. You set out to find it everywhere you look. You do Gay people more harm than good

[Jingthing]

You come across as the type of person that is hell bent on finding prejudice. You set out to find it everywhere you look. You do Gay people more harm than good

Thanks for sharing.

[MrRealDeal]

...

The Supreme Court is "supposed" to interpret the Law not make new Law. Their decisions generally only strike down Laws that shouldn't exist not create new ones that should exist, which is why they upheld Slavery at one point while pointing out the absurd Law needed to be changed at the same time.

That isn't really true. If it was Brown vs. Board of Education would have never happened.

That's absurd ....again ....That decision was based on a violation of the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause of the Constitution. It was not making up some new Law but simply striking down an existing incorrect decision of a prior Court. The court overturning a prior decision is not making new Laws but making a new interpretation of already existing Law in this case the 14th amendment and weather or not separate was actually equal , it may very well have been in 18?? when the first decision was made but in 1954 it was not because things change over time or revisiting a case may overturn it's existing incorrectness from the beginning ..... but it's still interpreting the Law of the 14th amendment not making up a new Amendment.

Not to mention that your just being argumentative in the first place as I said they are "supposed" to and went on to use generally ..... Although your example is absurd and incorrect I could name ones that are not, which is why I used supposed in quotes and said generally and which is what makes your comment both argumentative and wrong at the same time.

It is absolutely true that they are supposed to interpret the Law not make the Law and it's also true they generally strike down Laws that exist not make up new ones that don't exist because they are not granted the power under the Constitution to make Laws in the first place ..... You just like to be argumentative about my posts which would be fine if it came with something other than absurdly incorrect nonsense to waste my time.

[onthemoon]

While I disagree with the biblical view and ABHE's position, this is what she signed and agreed with. I for one wouldn't agree nor sign, but she did.

I am happy to learn that the university won't enforce the payment of the tuition fees. So the issue in the original article is actually moot.

Nothing to see here. This student seems to just be interested in getting into the news, that's all.

[LeCharivari]

Again, if the history of their actions against violations by students of their code shows unfair discrimination against their gay students then they might have a problem with their argument. Their written policy is one thing, how they have enforced that is another.

You come across as the type of person that is hell bent on finding prejudice. You set out to find it everywhere you look. You do Gay people more harm than good

There’s a lot of prejudice to be found here, but unfortunately it’s on the part of the tens of thousands of gays who have actively supported her petition as well as those who have taken the opportunity for some unwarranted God-bashing. Fortunately for “Gay people” generally that applies to very few gays posting here most of whom have, in my view, been refreshingly objective.

There is no “if” here and the only “history” of “discrimination” by the University is not “against their gay students” but in favour of them.

We (as in “we” = LGBT) should be very careful about which “gay” causes we support if we are not to become as bad as the zealots who have discriminated against us in the past and who continue to do so, albeit it in reduced numbers.

Danielle Powell had no grounds for complaint and no justification for the considerable support she has received from the gay community for her petition. According to the published reports she was treated not just according to the college rules, which she was well aware of, but at least as well as straight students had been under similar circumstances and in some ways with considerably more tolerance.

Financially, which is the excuse for her complaint, she is getting off very lightly indeed.

As a varsity volleyball player she was on a “very generous” full sports scholarship from the college which covered her living expenses, accommodation, insurance, etc, and any tuition fees not covered by a federal grant. She continued to get the scholarship even after she had broken the rules (indulging in pre-marital sex) for another year and a half, even though it should have been automatically revoked, until she was finally expelled for very publicly announcing her lesbian relationship and getting a gay marriage (blatantly breaking another rule and boasting about it). These decisions weren’t taken by a bunch of university administrators, but by a panel mainly made up of her fellow students. She has not been asked to repay ANY of the substantial scholarship and has only been asked to repay the $6,000 in tuition fees for her final semester, which were paid by a federal grant and which is required by federal law – nothing to do with Grace University who cannot simply “forgive” her debt.

Grace University has NOT made transferring her credits conditional on her re-paying the fees as she claims – this was clear from the time this thread first started; other universities have already said they will take her and accept the transferred credits, disproving that. Grace University do not send some heavy-set altar boys round swinging smoking thuribles to demand that students owing them funds pay up: they simply send a letter in the mail every 6 months, as they did with Powell, relying on their “Christian” honesty.

According to the University straight students have previously not only been suspended for breaking the University’s “morality” rules, as Powell was briefly, but they have had their scholarships revoked and been expelled. The only penalty Powell was given was that she was briefly suspended, she was no longer allowed to live on the campus, and she had to attend a “restoration programme” of counseling and church. When she was briefly suspended (over a year before she was expelled) she was warned then that she was liable for $6,000 in tuition fees if she left and did not take part in the “restoration programme” - she chose to stay on, to continue to take the scholarship, and to take part in the programme so she was well aware of the possible financial implications when she announced her lesbian engagement very publicly.

The University turned a blind eye to her off-campus sexual activities and were far more tolerant to her as a lesbian than they had been in the past to straight students under similar circumstances. Her deliberately very public engagement and subsequent marriage were done, according to her “wife” Michelle Rogers, to support “LGBT activism” and to provoke a reaction – far from “doing a witch hunt” as Powell claimed. The University was forced into a corner and to choose between either applying their policies or changing them; they chose the former as that is the basis on which their University was founded and funded.

The University’s policies are clearly homophobic – I have no problem acknowledging that and disagreeing with those policies in principle. I wouldn’t choose to go there even if they did offer me a “very generous” scholarship. Powell, though, DID choose to go there and she was quite happy to take their money. Now she wants to keep the money AND to condemn the University, biting the hand that fed her – if the University did not have those policies it would not be funded, it wouldn’t exist, and neither would the scholarship that Powell took enabling her to get a free college education.

Far from having grounds for complaint she should be grateful for the education and opportunity she has had, courtesy of an institution she is now condemning – she clearly doesn’t want just “equal rights” but she wants “extra rights” and to both have her cake and eat it.

That is not what being gay is about; that is not what gay rights are about. She is appealing to the bigot in all of us to support her not because she is justified but just because she is “one of us”. Judging by the numbers she has supporting her petition this is a not unpopular concept for LGBTs and I think we need to be very careful that we do not abuse the backlash against homophobia - to use a black civil rights analogy making us more Robert Mugabe and less Nelson Mandela.

[LeCharivari]

(edit)...

And the right to university education is not covered in the Declaration of Human Rights.

It’s actually covered in Article 26 (1), as in your link - I have emboldened the relevant part:

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

[LeCharivari]

(edit)...Should not all people have access to full human rights, the fact it is private has nothing to do with it.

(edit) ...I have no respect for these schools and would love to see them lose, but I would like to see them lose a lot more than just this one persons tuition.

Whether you agree with these schools and similar institutions’ policies or not is a separate issue – anybody who wants to can vote with their feet (and their fees) and either choose to go there or to go somewhere else. That’s what freedom of choice, as a basic human right, is all about.

What is beyond any doubt is that if these institutions were not allowed to follow their discriminatory policies we would ALL suffer – not just from a lack of freedom of choice but from a lack of available facilities. These are private institutions, privately funded by individuals and organisations who support specific ideals and want to encourage them; if they were not allowed to support those ideals their funding would not be diverted into some general pool available to all but would simply stop and those opportunities (in this case for education, but the same applies elsewhere) would disappear giving reduced opportunities for everybody – INCLUDING US.

These discriminatory educational policies are not just confined to religions – all you have to do is to take a very brief look at the seemingly limitless range of scholarships available to students in the US like Powell, from disabled veterans to Irish/Italian/Hungarian/Afro Americans, from Jews to Muslims, from gay Pacific islanders to “deaf queers of color” (sic). They are ALL discriminatory and would probably ALL disappear if they were no longer allowed to be allocated on that basis with little reference to academic achievement – some only need a GPA of 2 to qualify academically.

Should these somehow be regulated? Is discrimination in favour of “deaf queers of color” any more acceptable than discrimination against lesbians because of a religious belief?

Regulating these institutions, scholarships and organisations in any way would mean that we would ALL lose.

[LeCharivari]

(edit) ...Yes, we should fight for all schools and universities to accept gay students.

Are you suggesting that “all” schools and universities should have to accept gay students?

Why? Who would benefit?

If “all” independent, privately funded schools and universities were made to accept anyone, regardless of their religion, gender, sexual preference, etc, and boys’ schools had to accept girls, muslim schools jews, etc (and vice-versa) that would not only deny them freedom of choice but it would result in the private funding being withdrawn from those schools and universities and their being closed.

Nobody would gain and everyone would lose, just as would happen if scholarships were awarded on a purely academic basis.

What we should be doing is making gays socially accepted and that comes from being socially acceptable as individuals and from education – not from legislating, fighting or going to the streets.

[Jingthing]

(edit) ...Yes, we should fight for all schools and universities to accept gay students.

Are you suggesting that “all” schools and universities should have to accept gay students?

Why? Who would benefit?

If “all” independent, privately funded schools and universities were made to accept anyone, regardless of their religion, gender, sexual preference, etc, and boys’ schools had to accept girls, muslim schools jews, etc (and vice-versa) that would not only deny them freedom of choice but it would result in the private funding being withdrawn from those schools and universities and their being closed.

Nobody would gain and everyone would lose, just as would happen if scholarships were awarded on a purely academic basis.

What we should be doing is making gays socially accepted and that comes from being socially acceptable as individuals and from education – not from legislating, fighting or going to the streets.

Speaking as an American with typical LIBERAL American values, I totally disagree with your POV.

After all, this topic is about an American school.

Of course, no American school should be allowed to deny admission just based on race, religion, ethnicity, national background, gender, or sexual orientation.

If you're talking about Saudi Arabia, that's THEIR business.

That said, not many non-Jews are going to want to attend Yeshiva University, but they allowed there if they qualify for admission.

Sex segregated schools would be an exception.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

(edit) ...Yes, we should fight for all schools and universities to accept gay students.

Are you suggesting that “all” schools and universities should have to accept gay students?

Why? Who would benefit?

If “all” independent, privately funded schools and universities were made to accept anyone, regardless of their religion, gender, sexual preference, etc, and boys’ schools had to accept girls, muslim schools jews, etc (and vice-versa) that would not only deny them freedom of choice but it would result in the private funding being withdrawn from those schools and universities and their being closed.

Nobody would gain and everyone would lose, just as would happen if scholarships were awarded on a purely academic basis.

What we should be doing is making gays socially accepted and that comes from being socially acceptable as individuals and from education – not from legislating, fighting or going to the streets.

Speaking as an American with typical LIBERAL American values, I totally disagree with your POV.

After all, this topic is about an American school.

Of course, no American school should be allowed to deny admission just based on race, religion, ethnicity, national background, gender, or sexual orientation.

If you're talking about Saudi Arabia, that's THEIR business.

That said, not many non-Jews are going to want to attend Yeshiva University, but they allowed there if they qualify for admission.

Sex segregated schools would be an exception.

Instead of "Of course" maybe you could answer the original question "Who would benefit?" from the loss of opportunities for an education if these schools were closed and these scholarships withdrawn.

These schools and scholarships are privately funded so such legislation wouldn't open them up to everyone but would simply close them instead. Nobody gains and everyone loses, as their students would go elsewhere to get an education and those with a GPA of 2.5 or more would replace the Deaf Queers of Colour and many others going to more "open" schools who would be unable to get an education at all due to the increased competition for fewer places at the remaining schools with the remaining scholarships.

These schools are the direct descendants of the cathedral schools in the UK which started over a thousand years ago which, until a couple of centuries ago, like temple schools in Thailand until a few decades ago, and like madrasas today (which with few exceptions are not hotbeds of radicalism, despite how they have been painted in the west post 9/11) provided an education for those who otherwise would never get one.

It may not be the best education. It may not be a liberal education. It may be far from an ideal education, but legislating against them would, for many who had no connection with these schools or policies at all, simply mean NO education as they would close and not be replaced.

"Who would benefit?"

[Jingthing]

We're talking about different things. There is no problem with the scholarships you mentioned. I was talking about having general non-discriminatory ADMISSION policies.

[LeCharivari]

We're talking about different things. There is no problem with the scholarships you mentioned. I was talking about having general non-discriminatory ADMISSION policies.

I was talking about scholarships and schools, which are parallel issues in this topic.

Leaving the aside the issue of scholarships, let me ask again:

"Instead of "Of course" maybe you could answer the original question "Who would benefit?" from the loss of opportunities for an education if these schools were closed".

(Note: its an open question, as a number of posters have suggested support for this policy)

[Jingthing]

Why close the schools? Just make sure the American schools have non-discriminatory ADMISSIONS policies excepting of course their measures of objective MERIT. Sexual orientation has NOTHING to do with merit. How weird to set up a loaded question that doesn't exist.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Jingthing