Ruth, I don't know you and I resent being called disigenuous by you on the
list. I don't discriminate and I don't know anyone at Regent who does. I
know many people there with strong opinions about alot of things, but I
don't think that you can say for sure what would happen given your hypo
unless you have asked someone who either works there or who is on a hiring
committee. Your rhetoric presumes a point of view and a conspiracy
mentality that is frightening. The bible happens to be the book of faith
that Christians use to determine spiritual truths, and it is impossible to
divide spiritual truths from ehtics and behaviour. It is absolutlely
required for a person to be able to stand on their religious in many ways,
and in many milieus. That is WHY this country was founded and why we all
have the freedoms that we have. Read the documents: the duty owed to our
creator as dictated by conscience. I don't beleive that you should be
able to dictate to Christians what the proper interpretation of the bible
is. This is something that Christians need to work out for themselves.
By a group of Christians forming a school for the mutual support of their
"brand" of Christianity, how are they violating any one ELSE's civil
rights? I believe that they have a right to this point of view. The
constitution can not dictate interpretation of scripture, unless the
interpretation interferes with another's rights. So I don't think that
just because the majority of students and faculty at Regent do not beleive
that any sex out of wedlock is unbiblical, that any one has te right to
tell them that the their interpretation of scripture is wrong,
particularly not someone that is not a Christian. I am being serious when
I say that there ARE gay students at Regent. And I am being serious when
I say that I don't think that some one would be dropped from consideration
just because they said they were gay. They would also need to provide the
same type of witness and testimony that any applicant would need to
provide. Their witness would also be suspect, but not automatically,
because of their orientation. HONEST.
I can assure you that there is no attempt to decieve, hurt, or trick any
unsuspecting gay or non-Christian who might apply for the job. No one
wants people to apply, just so the school can discriminate against them.
What the ad says, the ad means. It was carefully edited before it was put
out on the 'net. Don't be paranoid, and don't be afraid of being rejected
by Regent. It is an honor inflicted on some of its very own. But it IS
what it seems: a community of sincere, bible beliveing Christians.
Richard Leiter
(I'm really NOT disingenuous. I'm actually a very nice guy.)
On Fri, 10 Jun 1994 RPARLIN@umiami.ir.miami.edu wrote:
>
> My understanding of the current job ad policy is this: AALL member libraries'
> that stand on their legal rights to discriminate on the basis of religion
> and sexual orientation - in defiance of AALL's non-discrimination statement -
> are permitted to advertise in the AALL Newsletter under a separate heading
> delineating their discriminatory policies.
>
> In my view, that policy should be applied to job ads on the law-lib list. A
> clear statement of discriminatory hiring practices should appear at the
> beginning of the ad, in the spirit of full disclosure.
>
> Speaking of full disclosure, I find Rich Leiter's statement that Regent
> doesn't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation disingenguous at
> best, and actively misleading at worst. If the argument about lesbian
> and gay members of the military hasn't cleared up the distinction between
> status (being gay) and behavior (sexual behavior) - and apparently it
> hasn't - what will? Mr. Leiter's statement about 'un-biblical acts"
>
> Mr. Leiter's statement about campus discomfort with "un-biblical acts" is
> problematic in two ways. First, it obliviates any possible distinction
> between status and behavior. Second, it smacks of sixties-style
> segregationist rhetoric, as in "this lunch counter doesn't discriminate
> against black people, we just think they wouldn't be very comfortable
> here."
>
> I believe that Regent gets a "two-fer" by standing on their rights to
> discriminate on the basis of religion: that by so doing, they also get
> to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, which of course is
> legal but nonetheless reprehensible. Mr. Leiter does not agree.
>
> How would the hiring committee at Regent respond if a devoutly Christian
> lesbian applied for the current position? People at Regent may not ask
> questions about sexual orientation, but suppose the applicant's resume
> stated that she had been a co-chair of AALL's Standing Committee on
> Lesbian and Gay Issues. Or that she came for an interview and asked about
> domestic partner benefits for her long-time partner.
>
> All other things being equal, would she get the job? Inquiring minds
> want to know.
>
> Yours in the spirit of full disclosure,
> Ruth Parlin
> Former Co-chair, AALL Standing Committee on Lesbian and Gay Issues
> University of Miami
> P.O. Box 248087
> Coral Gables, FL 33124
> 305/284-3585
> rparlin@umiami.ir.miami.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST