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

[LeCharivari]

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.

I am not suggesting that the legislation would be to close the schools, but that their closure would be the effect of such legislation as the schools would no longer be financially viable.

The legislation would mean that the schools could no longer follow the policies which those sponsoring them and those paying the fees to attend them want, so the sponsors would stop sponsoring them and the students would stop attending them and paying the fees and would go elsewhere. Without private funding the schools would have no option but to close.

As I wrote previously:

"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etc (and vice-versa) that would not only deny them freedom of choice but it would result in the private funding being withdrawn from those schools and universities and their being closed. ....

....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 .....

.... 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."

In my view the sponsors support these schools financially because the schools' policies based on religious belief, gender, culture, etc, reflect their beliefs and culture; if the schools can no longer reflect those beliefs the sponsors would no longer have any reason to support them and would withdraw their funding. Similarly, the students' (or their parents) pay considerable fees so that they can attend a school that reflects their beliefs and culture and if a school was no longer doing so there would be no reason for them to pay those fees. Without those fees and financial backing the schools would no longer be financially viable, would not be able to remain open, would close, and the education service they were providing would be gone; less schools means less education unless someone else provided alternative funding.

Maybe I'm wrong and the sponsors would continue to provide financial support to schools that had ceased to follow their policies and students would continue to pay fees to attend schools whose policies were contrary to their beliefs ....

.... maybe the government that passed the legislation forcing these schools to change their policies would provide more funding to open new schools to cater for the additional students looking for an education because the schools they wanted to go/ used to go to had closed because they couldn't afford to stay open....

.... maybe the "liberals" whose understandable and commendable pursuit of non-discriminatory policies had led to schools which did not have such liberal policies losing their financial backing would provide the financial backing instead, allowing the same number of students to have the same number of places at schools.

This is far from just a "gay" issue, as basing admissions purely on merit and banning schools from applying their own standards of religious and secular morality at "all" schools (sex, gender, prayer, diet, etc) would not just affect gays and schools with policies that are "anti-gay" but would be a lot more far-reaching.

How weird to set up a loaded question that doesn't exist.

Please don't make this personal and pass personal comments which contravene Rules 1, 4 and 5.

"..... ThaiVisa is first and foremost a discussion forum ....."

[Jingthing]

If schools can't exist financially without having bigoted admissions policies, no, I don't think that is a loss to society. The previously mentioned Yeshiva University example I'm sure is heavily supported by religious Jews and I'm sure that support is not diminished by the fact that being Jewish is not an absolute requirement of admission. Again, I think this is a NON-ISSUE from an American point of view, presenting this red herring that the schools will close if they can't have bigotted admissions policies. No of course it is not only a gay issue but being the gay forum we are naturally focused on the discrimination against gays part of it. Anyway, no matter how you slice it, denying students admission only because of their sexual orientation can never be the just thing to do; there is no rationality to it whatsoever.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Jingthing

[onthemoon]

(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.

We (the GLBT community) would benefit if "all" schools accepted gay students. I don't see anything wrong with that, even for the straight communities.

It is probably not realistic when taking religious schools into account, but that's bad in itself.

[LeCharivari]

If schools can't exist financially without having bigoted admissions policies, no, I don't think that is a loss to society. The previously mentioned Yeshiva University example I'm sure is heavily supported by religious Jews and I'm sure that support is not diminished by the fact that being Jewish is not an absolute requirement of admission. Again, I think this is a NON-ISSUE from an American point of view, presenting this red herring that the schools will close if they can't have bigotted admissions policies. No of course it is not only a gay issue but being the gay forum we are naturally focused on the discrimination against gays part of it. Anyway, no matter how you slice it, denying students admission only because of their sexual orientation can never be the just thing to do; there is no rationality to it whatsoever.

I am surprised at your citing Yeshiva University as an example, unless you think it is a school that would not be a "loss to society" if it were to close.

Not because it's a madrasa - that doesn't worry me at all.

Not because of their recent sexual abuse scandals, although the cover ups put those more newsworthy ones at Catholic Schools in the shade.

Not even because of their admissions policy, which although they do not specifically say that being Jewish is an absolute requirement of admission they effectively make one by admitting only "qualified and committed bnei Torah".

But because "being the gay forum we are naturally focused on the discrimination against gays" and there is plenty of that to go around at YU:

A "Tolerance Club" was formed there in 2009 with the aim of "promoting the notion of tolerance within the Orthodox community", particularly towards gays. When they proposed inviting a gay orthodox rabbi to speak to the group the meeting was cancelled by YU. When they finally held a meeting entitled "Being Gay in the Modern Orthodox World" the Jewish Star wrote that "In a twist on the gay-pride slogan of the 1970s, it said: We're here, we're queer, and we're sorry about it ... posters that drew a connection between the event and bestiality were placed around the campus .... Rabbi Mayer Twersky, a rosh yeshiva, interrupted the regular schedule of Torah study in the Beis Medrash for an unusual session in which declared that the event the previous week had been a “chillul Hashem,” [desecration of G-d's name] and a “travesty.” ...Appropriate sympathy is correct and warranted but it’s a travesty when that sympathy is cynically manipulated and exploited to create a legitimization, to create a new category of a Jew who should be able to come out of the closet and identify himself as oriented towards Toeva [an abomination], ...Rabbi Twersky explained". The Tolerance Club was disbanded by YU soon afterwards.

YU policy on homosexuality was summarised as follows:

“The Torah requires that we relate with sensitivity to discreet individuals who feel that he/she has a homosexual orientation but abstains from any and all homosexual activity. Such sensitivity, however, cannot be allowed to erode the Torah's unequivocal condemnation of homosexual activity. The Torah's mitzvos and judgments are eternally true and binding. Homosexual activity constitutes an abomination,’...As such, publicizing or seeking legitimization even for the homosexual orientation one feels, runs contrary to Torah. In any forum or on any occasion when appropriate sympathy for such discreet individuals is being discussed, these basic truths regarding homosexual feelings and activity must be emphatically reaffirmed.’

http://newvoices.org/2009/05/05/0073-2/

http://www.thejewishstar.com/stories/Don039t-ask-don039t-tell-at-YU-Don039t-ask,1385?page=1&content_source=

I am surprised that, as an American Jew, you would not consider the potential closure of Yeshiva University a "loss to society" (if I have read your post on your more general views correctly), but if so I commend you for your impartiality and objectivity. For my part I consider the potential loss of any of these type of schools to be a loss - not just to those attending them but to all those who would have their opportunities for higher education reduced as a consequence.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, as there seems to be a fundamental difference of view on the balance between gay rights and the right to an education.

[Jingthing]

(if I have read your post on your more general views correctly)

No you have not. Not in the least. Cheers.

[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.

We (the GLBT community) would benefit if "all" schools accepted gay students. I don't see anything wrong with that, even for the straight communities.

It is probably not realistic when taking religious schools into account, but that's bad in itself.

OTM, I agree with you 110%. I would actually go further, as I think that '"all" schools' would benefit as well as the LGBT community.

My point, though, is that this should be achieved by education and acceptance and be a decision made by the schools themselves not one forced on them by legislation - there's a world of difference between the two approaches.

[onthemoon]

We (the GLBT community) would benefit if "all" schools accepted gay students. I don't see anything wrong with that, even for the straight communities.

It is probably not realistic when taking religious schools into account, but that's bad in itself.

OTM, I agree with you 110%. I would actually go further, as I think that '"all" schools' would benefit as well as the LGBT community.

My point, though, is that this should be achieved by education and acceptance and be a decision made by the schools themselves not one forced on them by legislation - there's a world of difference between the two approaches.

Yes, education is the key, as always. Laws are only enforceable if the population supports them (unless you live in a dictatorship).