"Discrimination" is a pretty complicated idea. It's commonly used now as a bad word. You shouldn't discriminate. That's not nice.
Yet discrimination is the very essence of life. I'm choosing this over that. I'll accept this behavior, but not that. I strive to be a discriminating consumer. This person is good for me to associate with, but I should stay away from that one because he'll get me in trouble.
So what's good discrimination versus bad discrimination? More specifically, what's socially acceptable discrimination? Who gets to decide?
This brings us to the University of the Cumberland in Kentucky and the current controversy. Are the Baptists going to get screwed out of their funding?
A gay-rights group sued Gov. Ernie Fletcher on Tuesday for not vetoing $11 million in state funds earmarked for a Baptist college that expelled an openly gay student this month.Legislators included in the budget $10 million for a proposed pharmacy school and $1 million for scholarships at the University of the Cumberlands.
The college expelled Jason Johnson after he posted details of his dating life on the Web site MySpace.com.
The Kentucky constitution prohibits the use of state tax money to support religious institutions or entities that discriminate against citizens, according to the lawsuit.
What to think? Certainly the University of the Cumberlands discriminates against homosexuals. But then, Yale discriminates against stupid people. Good luck getting into Yale or Harvard with an IQ under 80. That's certainly discrimination.
You might argue that elite schools discriminating in favor of smart kids is good, just what they're supposed to do, but that this Kentucky school discriminating against homosexuals is bad. I suppose I'd tend to agree with that.
But this is a Baptist college. This Jason Johnson fellow is not just gay, but very public about it as well. Would it really be reasonable to expect a Baptist college to tolerate this guy making a public mockery of their beliefs on their campus - and representing them as a student? Should he have a civil right to advertise an orgy in a Cumberland dorm room, and damn those bigot Baptists if they disagree?
I think I'll have to side with the governor on this. The Kentucky Fairness Alliance is demanding that the governor discriminate against the University of Cumberland. You might argue that this would be good discrimination, but it's still discrimination.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Druxxx
If the University of Cumberland wants to get some money from the state, then they better not discriminate. If they can manage to be a completely private school, then they can let in or kick out whoever they want.
Seems like a simple distinction to me.
2 - Georgio
Baptists don't live in the real world..they live in the bible..just ask them.
3 - Jet in Columbus
Wow Al, this article made me think, and I kept fading in and out of agreeing with you, then wondering why? So I read it again.
Let me say that I like the thoughts you've put down, because they make sense, and that they're thought provoking.
Boiled down
a. I agree that the college should not be discriminated against because a student (whatever his orientation) was expelled. The institution makes no secret of being a religious institution, and for him to join it, in essence means he's knowing made a contract acknowledging a code of behaviour that's expected of him. To violate that code, is valid grounds for expulsion.
B. Religious institutions have no business being run by, officially endorsed by, or funded by the state. It'd be equal to members of a Jewish Temple being required to tithe to a Baptist church... or a congregation of a baptist church being required to tithe to the gay Metropolitan Community Church. On the basis of that argument, the State of Kentucky, no matter how proud they are of Cumberland, shouldn't be funding them.
c. I find the student's action in simply joining this school to be irresponsible, as like I said, he knew what he was getting into going in.
As for Georgio's comment, just as it would be unfair to lump all gays into the same group, because of an irresponsible few, it'd be equally bad to lump all Baptists together. If we did, we'd be guilty of the very crime we're accusing others of commiting against us!
I enjoyed the thought process Al.
Jet
4 - Eric Berlin
Well written piece, Al. However, I disagree with your reasoning. If we agree that the college discrimated against a student (which it can arguably do as a private religious institution) and we can agree that the law states that a state can not support an institution that discriminates, then I side with the group bringing suit.
Whether or not we think this discrimination is "good* is irrelevant in this case, I'd think.
5 - Georgio
Jet I agree with you ..I just can't stand the way Baptists ..think ..thier belief that every word of the bible is true..
6 - gonzo marx
bah...is this school under the good olde tax exemption for religious institutions?
if so, it should get shit from the state anyway
all other things considered, the Law for that state sets the requirements, the school broke that Law...thus no $ for them
simplicity
Excelsior?
7 - Jet in Columbus
Thanks Georgio, sometimes I get it right, most times I don't.
That's why I like this website, I larn lots of stufff, y'all
8 - Al Barger
Jet, you make an excellent point right here: "The institution makes no secret of being a religious institution, and for him to join it, in essence means he's knowing made a contract acknowledging a code of behaviour that's expected of him." Exactly right. Don't sign up for a Baptist college if you know you're not going to act like a good Baptist.
However, if the state is handing out money to colleges, then it would be totally wrong and seemingly unconstitutional to deny money to schools on the basis that they're religious. Being a church shouldn't get you government money- or stop you from getting it.
Gonzo, hadn't thought of this: "is this school under the good olde tax exemption for religious institutions? if so, it should get shit from the state anyway" Good point, perhaps, but aren't most colleges tax exempt, religion aside?
Mr Berlin, I can see an argument that the college is in violation of the policy, and I agree with you that "good" or "bad" discrimination is irrelevant. But I question the validity of the policy itself. I see the point of some of it, but I'm highly skeptical of social engineering like this.
9 - gonzo marx
big Al sez...
*Being a church shouldn't get you government money- or stop you from getting it.*
i tend to disgree here...that pesky establishment clause and all
i don't want a single tax dollar going to ANY religious institution, especially since they don't pay taxes in the first place
Excelsior?
10 - T-Unit
Al,
I really appreciate this well written and thought provoking piece.
It seems reasonable to argue that if a state gives funding to an institution which engages in "bad" discrimination, it (the state) is thereby surreptitiously endorsing that discrimination. But by this line of reasoning there isn't a single religious orginization I can think of that would be eligible for any kind of state funding, as they all discriminate against or in favor of certain behaviors. So either states must stop funding all "discriminatory" bodies, or begin funding them all (or at least make them all equally eligible for funding) if these types disputes are ever to be resolved.
-Travis
11 - Al Barger
Thanks Travis. This whole idea of having the government make everyone play nice with one another is a very slippery slope. I'm framing this KY thing in terms of religion, but leave that out of it for a minute. The KFA is wanting to enforce a law banning "discrimination." This would apply not just to schools, but to any and everything that involves state money, apparently. What exactly consitutes "discrimination" and who gets to decide? Putting such decisions in the hands of a government is an invitation to repression, and requires governments to start making value judgements that perhaps governments shouldn't be making.
12 - Jet in Columbus
On the other hand allowing religious bodies to do the deciding unimpeded would have just as much of an undesirable effect too.
13 - T-Unit
Jet says "On the other hand allowing religious bodies to do the deciding unimpeded would have just as much of an undesirable effect too."
True, but religious bodies are not subject to the same dicriminatory legalities as our government. And citizens have the freedom of association, so those institutions will thrive or dwindle based on their merits via participation of the people. We do not have a freedom of association in regards to our government as we are all subject to the law. So even though someone may object to the discrimination of homosexuality by the Baptist Church, that same someone is not subject to their doctrine if they choose not to be. But if the government decides to ban homosexuality, all of the sudden everyone is under a legal obligation not to be gay.
14 - T-Unit
Al says "What exactly consitutes "discrimination" and who gets to decide?"
A buddy brought this up to me... "It's just like pornography. What was the famous ruling? We can't define it but we'd know it if we saw it?"
My head is starting to hurt.
15 - Al Barger
Travis, another excellent point: "So even though someone may object to the discrimination of homosexuality by the Baptist Church, that same someone is not subject to their doctrine if they choose not to be." That's a critical distinction.
16 - gonzo marx
and it's that very distinction that forms the basis of the "smell test" for who should get federal dollars
just ask Jim Crowe
Excelsior?
17 - RedTard
The thought police are back out in force I see. Using the power of the government to force everyone to agree with them.
It's the same shit over and over and over it doesn't matter healthcare, education, housing.
1) The government provides money in order to 'help' you.
2) Individuals and institutions become dependent on that government support.
3) You're dependent, they own you.
The answer is to move government support away from the institutions where it never should have been in the first place and put more money in the hands of students who can then go whereever they please and learn whatever they please. Vouchers, loan, grants, whatever you want to call it brings back competition and free choice and shuts down this censorship garbage.
18 - Dave Nalle
The real problem here is that the government is giving money to a religious institution at all. Regardless of whether they discriminate, the principle of separation of church and state should demand that they not get money from the state. That's all there is to it.
Dave
19 - gonzo marx
comment #18 sez...
*The real problem here is that the government is giving money to a religious institution at all.*
Quoted for Truth
Excelsior?
20 - RedTard
"The real problem here is that the government is giving money to a religious institution at all."
True. As I stated giving money to select institutions in the first place is crap. Give it to the students and let them spend it at whatever learning institution they see fit. Or would that not satisfy your dislike of religion?
Would you prefer we cut off SS, disablity, and welfare payments to citizens who attend church for fear they might donate some of your precious government money to said churches?
21 - Al Barger
Dave (comment 18), I don't think that's relevant here. They're not giving money to a church, they're giving it to schools. That this one has a religious affiliation should be irrelevant.
In this case, the money is supposed to be building a school of pharmacy. That's nothing to do with a government promoting religion, plus they shouldn't be in the business of DEmoting religion, either. If they state's giving out money to colleges, then they should be getting a teat like any other outfit, without regard to their religiosity or lack of it.
22 - Dave Nalle
Red, your solution of giving money direct to students in the form of scholarships in their name is the perfect solutions. Why, it's just like a voucher system for those stuck in public education at the secondary level.
I'm fine with people giving money to churches, I'm just not for the government doing it. Once things like SS get in the hands of the recipient that money is theirs, not the government's.
But I do think the churches ought to pay taxes like any other business, or else make my 'donations' to WalMart tax deductible too.
Dave
23 - Dave Nalle
Dave (comment 18), I don't think that's relevant here. They're not giving money to a church, they're giving it to schools. That this one has a religious affiliation should be irrelevant.
It's entirely relevant. Religious institutions of education have religious curriculums and they promote beliefs which may not be held by the general public. They are training grounds for missionaries and those who spread religion. By giving them money you are underwriting the promotion of that particular faith above others.
In this case, the money is supposed to be building a school of pharmacy. That's nothing to do with a government promoting religion,
Want to bet? I'll lay odds that the graduates of that school of pharmacy believe that they have a god-given right not to fill prescriptions for birth control or the morning after pill.
plus they shouldn't be in the business of DEmoting religion, either. If they state's giving out money to colleges, then they should be getting a teat like any other outfit, without regard to their religiosity or lack of it.
The state shouldn't be giving money to ANY private colleges when you get right down to it. I'd even go so far as to suggest that state-run university systems are a bad idea too.
Dave
24 - Chris
1) According to most news articles about this, Jason Johnson was not very public about being gay. Only his family and a few close friends knew. It was discovered when someone brought his myspace.com homepage that mentioned a boyfriend to the attention of school administrators.
2)The University of the Cumberlands policy against homosexuals was put in the student handbook last year, AFTER Jason Johnson had already enrolled.
That being said, if the school wants to discriminate they can, because they are a PRIVATE school... however...
3) Section 189 of Kentucky's State Constitution states: "No portion of any fund or tax now existing, or that may hereafter be raised or levied for educational purposes, shall be appropriated to, or used by, or in aid of, any church, sectarian or denominational school."
This is not an issue of discrimination, it is an issue of whether the state legislature and governor can disregard the state's laws.
25 - Al Barger
Chris, I'd argue that this quote of the KY constitution may reasonably be construed as conflicting with the higher law of the US Constitution, as it requires the state to discriminate against educators who happen to have a religious affiliation.
Monsieur Nalle writes: "I'll lay odds that the graduates of that school of pharmacy believe that they have a god-given right not to fill prescriptions for birth control or the morning after pill."
To which I respond, yeah and so what? It's definitely not the place of the state to decide on funding schools based on the presumptions of philosophical beliefs likely to be held by students. That's government discriminating again.
Of course, I'd be happy to go with you on the compromise of getting government out of the education business altogether.