Stanford excludes coach because he is Christian

[Queasy]

Daily Nebraskan - Religious beliefs present hurdles for coach's career

I am amazed at the hypocrisy of some liberals...and especially in this case. They yell out to the sky about diversity and inclusion and then deny a man an opportunity because of his Christian beliefs. Stanford just opened themselves up for a lawsuit with this though. You can't discriminate because of religious beliefs.

 

[b0mbrman]

Whether this is true or not, Stanford still sucks

Go bears! w00t!

 

[Spoooon]

<< Even Christian leaders - at both the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Stanford - said Brown's strong religious views might be seen as discriminatory. >>


I don't know, it doesn't seem like they didn't hire him because he is Christian. They didn't hire him because of his possibly discriminatory views. It would be like getting mad about some school not hiring the grand wizard of the kkk, who probably considers himself Christian, but espouses racist idealogy.

From the article, he says that he will hold to his beliefs no matter what. Kudos to him, but if he isn't willing to compromise, why should Stanford?

 

[Shantanu]

That is pretty fscked up. It is illegal to discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs. I go to an Ivy League school, and most of the faculty here is Jewish. They really hate Christians here too, so I know what they are talking about. Of the Christians that are on the faculty, they are either a) black nationalists, b) homosexuals or c) non-practicing.



<< It would be like getting mad about some school not hiring the grand wizard of the kkk, who probably considers himself Christian, but espouses racist idealogy. >>



You, sir, are a moron.

 

[Spoooon]

<< You, sir, are a moron. >>


Ah, the famous ad hominem retort. The last refuge for the ignorant.

Atleast if you are going to dispute something I say, try an attack on my statement or position rather than my person.

There are some people here whose views I really disagree with, but they almost always stick to the arguement at hand.

 

[Lucky]

In November 1999, Brown drew heavy media attention after he called homosexuality a sin on his Christian radio talk show, then called "Husker Sports Report." On the show, he admitted hating and sometimes harassing homosexuals as a child.




Yeah, im sure he'd be a GREAT fit for the campus.

 

[Capn]

hmn, I smell a nice law suit. I can't believe that stuff I read, man the hypocrisy is right there on their nose and they miss it completely. If the article was truthful, that was clearly discriminatory behavior and they should have to pay for it.

(not to say christians or conservatives can't be hypocrits themselves, they are as much as anyone)

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

<< In November 1999, Brown drew heavy media attention after he called homosexuality a sin on his Christian radio talk show, then called "Husker Sports Report." On the show, he admitted hating and sometimes harassing homosexuals as a child. >>


If I said that I hate black people during a job interview with a large black population, i wouldn't expect to be hired. Why is this any different?
This man hates homosexuals. I'm glad that Stanford didn't hire him, especially considering Stanford's large homosexual population.

 

[vi edit]

<< "Wow, it would be really hard for him here," said Courtney Wooten, a sophomore sociology and studio art major and social director of Stanford's Queer Straight Social and Political Alliance. "He would be poorly received by the student body in general." >>



[dr evil]Riiiiiiiiiiiight.[/dr evil]

 

[Lucky]

<<

<< In November 1999, Brown drew heavy media attention after he called homosexuality a sin on his Christian radio talk show, then called "Husker Sports Report." On the show, he admitted hating and sometimes harassing homosexuals as a child. >>


If I said that I hate black people during a job interview with a large black population, i wouldn't expect to be hired. Why is this any different?
This man hates homosexuals. I'm glad that Stanford didn't hire him, especially considering Stanford's large homosexual population. >>





Spot dead on. Good post.

 

[b0mbrman]

Yawp...if there's one thing in abundance at Stanford, it's homosexuals.

 

[Pepsei]

yeah.. looks like he was excluded because he doesn't like homosexuals....
there are plenty of other Christians standford can get.....

 

[Miramonti]

I don't know, it doesn't seem like they didn't hire him because he is Christian. They didn't hire him because of his possibly discriminatory views. It would be like getting mad about some school not hiring the grand wizard of the kkk, who probably considers himself Christian, but espouses racist idealogy.

Where do you associate Christianity with racism? For that matter where has Brown? He hasn't shown to be a racist or prejudice, so you're way off.

This story is a perfect definition of reverse discrimination and Stanford deserves to pay - that is if its true.

/edit - well maybe he has shown to be prejudice based on that radio show... if so then thats the price he pays then for holding the values he holds...life goes on, get another that accepts where he's at.

 

[Spoooon]

<< He hasn't shown to be a racist or prejudice, so you're way off. >>


Did you even bother to read the article?


<< On the show, he admitted hating and sometimes harassing homosexuals as a child. >>




<< Even Christian leaders - at both the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Stanford - said Brown's strong religious views might be seen as discriminatory. >>


Now, whether that means he would discriminate against players if he were hired... who knows? But he did say that he would not water down his beliefs. He thinks homosexuality is a sin. Would you want to have in a position of authority over you someone that firmly believes that what you are is an abomination before God? For that matter, would you want to hire someone that would object to the behavior of a large number of students on campus?

Also, I did not equate Christianity with racism. There are many Christians that are not racist just as there are Christians that are. My point was that if you were a Christian and happened to be the grand wizard of the kkk and were not hired... would anyone say that it was because you were Christian? No, it would be because of your discriminatory and racist ideology.

They keep referring to his Christian beliefs. Instead, the article needs to say "anti-homosexual" beliefs, or something to that effect. The whole "excludes coach because he is Christian" is inflammatory.

 

[Capn]

<< If I said that I hate black people during a job interview with a large black population, i wouldn't expect to be hired. Why is this any different?
This man hates homosexuals. I'm glad that Stanford didn't hire him, especially considering Stanford's large homosexual population. >>



You think people would actually read the article before making themselves look ignorant.

"'My source of truth is the Bible,' he said. 'That does not get me off the hook from loving people.'

But his views on certain sexual preferences remain the same.

'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.'"

 

[gopunk]

i think it's pretty damned obvious he was NOT discriminated against because he was christian. he was discriminated against because of his views towards homosexuality.

 

[Capn]

<< i think it's pretty damned obvious he was NOT discriminated against because he was christian. he was discriminated against because of his views towards homosexuality. >>



Doesn't the first case in general beget the other? I see that argument similar to this analogy "The reason we didn't hire him wasn't because he was black, it was because he had dark brown thick scruffy hair"


Any case, this is from Stanford's Diversity & Access Office:

"Stanford University is an institution dedicated to the pursuit of excellence. Central to that premise is our institutional commitment to the principle of diversity. To encourage such diversity, we prohibit discrimination and harassment and provide equal opportunity for all employees and applicants for employment regardless of race, color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, veteran status, marital status, age, disability (including HIV and AIDS), and medical condition. "

 

[gopunk]

Doesn't the first case in general beget the other? I see that argument similar to this analogy "The reason we didn't hire him wasn't because he was black, it was because he had dark brown thick scruffy hair"

no, i disagree... the opinion that homosexuality is a sin is not, imho, a major aspect of christianity. i know christians who do not believe that homosexuality is a sin.

 

[Capn]

<< no, i disagree... the opinion that homosexuality is a sin is not, imho, a major aspect of christianity. i know christians who do not believe that homosexuality is a sin. >>



You're right, it isn't a major aspect of christianity. Just one that gets way too much attention if you ask me. I've also met christians who don't think sex outside of marriage isn't a sin either. Who is to decide what code of rules is inherent to christian values and what isn't? (Not me, that's for sure. ) However, the point is that there is a strong correlation between the views, enough to say that there is good reason to believe that one is a direct result of the other.

edit(I can't type)

 

[Zebo]

Wooten, the social chairwoman of the 50-member Queer Straight Social and Political Alliance, said she knows "a huge number" of football players who would be uncomfortable with a coach who's against homosexuality.

Times sure have changed. I've played from peewee 6 yrs old till college and never seen anything but homophobic or at best neutral guys on the teams.

Brown was stupid to apply for the job if he's that conservative but Stanford could have some legal problems with this statement His religion) was definitely something that had to be considered," said Alan Glenn, Stanford's assistant athletic director of human resources. "We're a very diverse community with a diverse alumni. Anything that would stand out that much is something that has to be looked at. ... It was one of many variables that was considered."

You know liberals piss me off too and I'm one. Some just are bullsh}ters and selfish and act liberal becasue it's easy to get along that way and pick up chicks.

 

[gopunk]

However, the point is that there is a strong correlation between the views, enough to say that there is good reason to believe that one is a direct result of the other.

in this case, while his views may be partially derived from his religion, i think we can safely say he was not discriminated against because of his religion. i know, this sounds weird, but just think about it. are there no christian coaches? no, on the contrary, i would wager that there are more christian coaches than there aren't. what makes this one special? i think it's the fact that he felt it necessary to state his view that homosexuality was a sin. this clearly brought up some red flags, for stanford. to reduce this to a simple thing like "oh, well they just don't like christians" seems overly simplistic to me.

to better illustrate my point, i think we should look at other people. lets take some muslim extremist for example, who says he views western culture as that of "the infidels". you could say that his views are derived from his religion. but should stanford be *forced* to hire him? i say they shouldn't. i will admit that my feelings are based on what i feel to be common-sense, and may or may not be legally accurate... that's just what i feel is just.

i think part of the criterea i would use to distinguish between discriminating on the basis of something like this, and discriminating on the basis of religion, is whether it involves other people or not. it is my opinion, that the spirit of the whole anti-discrimination laws in place, is to protect people from being discriminated against because of their religion as it pertains to a higher being. so you shouldn't be able to discriminate because somebody does or doesn't believe in god. you shouldn't be able to discriminate because somebody believes in a different god, or many gods. but the lines should be kept within the relationship between that individual and and their beliefs about higher beings.

 

[sandorski]

Well, this is a tricky situation. On the one hand, it seems obvious that Stanford tries to be all inclusive/non-discriminatory, but OTOH there is a difference between student and faculty. If he was a student, or a student held those opinions applied to enter Stanford, this issue probably wouldn't matter, but since he is applying to be part of the Faculty, this in effect makes him somewhat representative of Stanford.

Another aspect is, one common in the Private sector business world, does he fit into the team? If you(no one in particular ), as a total introverted Geek for example, try to get a job at a software company where the employees are very extroverted, it's quite probable that you won't be hired unless you have some really mad skills that no one else has. IMO, this seems to be the primary reason that Stanford rejected him.

 

[trez2k3]

Thats ridiculous and they would probably hire a muslim.