[Please see updates below.]
Gordon College has been given 18 months to recant. If they do not change the standards for sexual behavior in their “life and conduct statement” (which prohibit “sexual relations outside of marriage” and “homosexual practice”), they will lose their accreditation*:
The higher education commission of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges met last week and "considered whether Gordon College's traditional inclusion of 'homosexual practice' as a forbidden activity" runs afoul of the commission's standards for accreditation, according to a joint statement from NEASC and Gordon College.
The commission asked Gordon College to submit a report next September. The report should describe the process by which the college has approached its review of the policy “to ensure that the College’s policies and procedures are non-discriminatory,” the statement said….
In its joint statement, NEASC and Gordon College called the review process a “period of discernment” that will take place over the next 12 to 18 months…. [The president of NEASC’s higher education commission] said the long time frame that Gordon College has been allowed for the review is appropriate considering that Gordon College's policy is "deeply embedded in the culture of the college" and such things "don't change overnight."
How reasonable of the commission to give Gordon College 18 months to come to terms with overturning the thousands-of-years-old Christian view of acceptable sexual behavior.
This 18-month reprieve is nothing but theater, of course. Gordon College will not convince the commission their standards are “non-discriminatory.” Gordon College will explain the difference between behavior and identity, between a person with same-sex attractions who agrees with the biblical standards and one who doesn’t, and the difference between banning a person because of his sexual orientation and banning particular behaviors among all students that go against the biblical view. And then the commission will reject it.
How do I know this? Because this is what happened earlier this year when Gordon College publicly argued for the “right of faith-based institutions to set and adhere to standards which derive from our shared framework of faith.” That controversy ended with the termination of their city contract to maintain Salem’s historical Old Town Hall and their student teachers being removed from public schools. Here’s what the college said then:
In our statement of faith and conduct we affirm God’s creation of marriage, first described in Genesis, as the intended lifelong one-flesh union of one man and one woman. Along with this positive affirmation of marriage as a male-female union, there are clear prohibitions in the Scriptures against sexual relations between persons of the same sex.
It is important to note that the Gordon statement of faith and conduct does not reference same-sex orientation—that is, the state of being a person who experiences same-sex attraction—but rather, specifically, homosexual acts. The Gordon community is expected to refrain from any sexual intercourse—heterosexual or homosexual; premarital or extramarital—outside of the marriage covenant. There is currently much debate among Christians about the nature and causes of homosexuality, and about a faithful Christian response to same-sex attractions, but we acknowledge that we are all sinners in need of grace, all called to redeemed humanity in Christ.
We recognize that students at Gordon who identify as LGBTQ or experience same-sex attraction have often felt marginalized and alone, and recognize the pressing need for a safe campus environment for all students.
That wasn’t enough then, and it certainly won’t be enough now. But it should be.
Setting standards for sexual behavior is not the same as discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation—it’s not discrimination against single people because of their heterosexual orientation, and it’s not discrimination against gay people because of their homosexual orientation.
Consider this: I can think of three names off the top of my head right now of people who have same-sex attractions (and are open about it) who support the boundaries Christianity sets around sexuality and write for esteemed and popular conservative evangelical Christian ministries and/or whose books I recommend: Nick Roen, Sam Allberry, and Wesley Hill. No one is interested in kicking them out of anything because of their same-sex attractions, because that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not they subscribe to and live by the biblical view of sexuality, not their sexual orientation. There is a relevant distinction between the two.
Therefore, just as having a sexual behavior standard for people with opposite-sex attractions is not an act of discrimination against heterosexual people, so having the same standard for people with same-sex attractions is not an act of discrimination against homosexual people. But the commission won’t see this because our culture is no longer capable of making a distinction between “sexual identity” and behavior.
Richard John Neuhaus’s thoughts on how “Identity Is Trumps” in our society give some insight into why behavioral standards will be tolerated less and less. He explains that when behavior is identity, “what we will do is what we must do”:
Here disagreement is an intolerable personal affront. It is construed as a denial of others, of their experience of who they are. It is a blasphemous assault on that most high god, “My Identity.” …
[T]heir demand is only for “acceptance,” leaving no doubt that acceptance means assent to what they know (as nobody else can know!) is essential to being true to their authentic selves. Not to assent is not to disagree; it is to deny their humanity….
Whatever the issue, the new orthodoxy will not give an inch, demanding acceptance and inclusiveness, which means rejection and exclusion of whatever or whomever questions their identity, meaning their right to believe, speak, and act as they will, for what they will do is what they must do if they are to be who they most truly are.
If Stand to Reason still has tax-exempt status in five years, I will be very, very surprised.
[Update 10/05/14: In case there is any confusion about this, the title of this post is a prediction of what I think will happen; NEASC hasn’t explicitly given this ultimatum to Gordon College. At this point, NEASC is only explicitly asking for a report “to ensure that the College’s policies and processes are non-discriminatory and that it ensures its ability to foster an atmosphere that respects and supports people of diverse characteristics and backgrounds, consistent with the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation.” But since our culture now equates “respect and support” of people with endorsement of their behavior, it seems clear to me where this is going.
Because of what I explained about the distinction between attractions and behavior, I agree with Gordon College’s confidence that they’re in compliance with NEASC’s standards (just as they were two years ago when they were fully reviewed and accredited—see their FAQ on this situation), but based on recent similar situations (e.g., the problems Gordon College had earlier this year and the Cal State InterVarsity issue), I have little confidence that NEASC will be reasonable about this. However, Gordon College has been emphasizing its good relationship with NEASC, speaking of that organization as a partner rather than an adversary, noting that NEASC has said, "[T]he Commission has enjoyed its positive relationship with the College for over fifty years and hopes and expects that to continue for many years to come," so perhaps NEASC will surprise me.]
[Update 10/20/14: I’ve been able to track down a missing piece of this story, and I find it somewhat encouraging. It’s a letter from the NEASC to the president of Gordon College dated July 15, and it explains why Gordon College was first put on the commission’s agenda for their September meeting. First, it affirms that no action (withdrawal or probation) regarding Gordon College’s accreditation would be taken at that meeting, then it explains:
It is common practice for the Commission to discuss instances in which a member institution has been prominently in the news over a matter that may relate to the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation or its policies. Being on the agenda only indicates that the Commission will discuss the matter and decide what action, if any, to take....
I appreciate that you have been very forthcoming about Gordon’s historic position on the matters at hand and also your offer to provide information for the Commission’s consideration at its September meeting.
As indicated by the generally positive comprehensive evaluation of the College in 2012, the Commission has enjoyed its positive relationship with the College for over fifty years and hopes and expects that to continue for many years to come.
If the commission's discussion of whether or not the college was in compliance with the non-discrimination policy really was just standard procedure and not motivated by NEASC’s agreement with the actions taken against Gordon College by the City of Salem, then that could be a good sign their congenial relationship with Gordon College will continue. Please pray for Gordon College.]
[Update 12/12/14: Christianity Today interviewed the president of Gordon College, Michael Lindsay, who said:
Christian colleges are better equipped to . . . pay attention to the challenge of being both open and faithful. That’s what we have to do as a Christian community. We demonstrate love and hospitality; at the same time, we do not abandon our core convictions….
Voluntary, moral communities by definition require boundaries. Folks say, “I willingly place myself under the authority of this community if I’m going to be part of it.” I made that decision when I came to Gordon. I’m willing to relinquish my individual rights out of a shared commitment to what’s good for the community….
Gordon is not just going to survive. It’s going to thrive as a result of this season. There are seasons of pruning and challenge that prepare you for seasons of greater fruitfulness. I have to believe that’s what the Lord is doing.]
___________________
*From the U.S. Department of Education: “Accreditation is the recognition that an institution maintains standards requisite for its graduates to gain admission to other reputable institutions of higher learning or to achieve credentials for professional practice. The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality.”
Not any more. Now the goal is to coerce certain political correctnesses.
It sounds to me like "accreditation" has jumped the shark.
Private colleges need to get off that addictive crack.
Posted by: Mike Westfall | October 01, 2014 at 07:44 AM
This reminds me of the "mark of the beast" in Revelation. In the fist century, people had to get a tattoo of emperor worship if they wished to partake in public trading and life. These types of things sound similar to what is happening nowadays. Accept the ruling powers paradigm, or you are pushed out of society.
Posted by: JBerr | October 01, 2014 at 08:06 AM
If this becomes the trend then Christian schools (and other religious schools with the same same-sex values) should get off the the accreditation train. If "official" accreditation becomes devalued because these schools continue to graduate excellent students and topnotch future employees then even non-religious private schools would likely follow to save costs and hassle to meet someone else's standards. A school's reputation would come from the quality of its education programs (which it basically does now) and a loss of accreditation "status" will have little to no effect on the desire to attend the school. I think it just needs the mass exodus from accreditation to have a strong statement.
Posted by: gromit45 | October 01, 2014 at 08:53 AM
NEASC isn't the only game in town. I'd immediately initiate proceedings to affiliate with a different accrediting agency, of which there are several.
Posted by: Bob Cleveland | October 01, 2014 at 09:33 AM
Where do accrediting agencies get their legitimacy? If there were enough Christian universities, couldn't they just form their own accrediting agencies?
Posted by: Sam Harper | October 01, 2014 at 01:29 PM
I actually wrote a piece recently that touches on some of these issues, at http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/09/uphold-doctrine-avoid-discrimination
I'm disappointed to see what Gordon is going through and agree with your general analysis. However, I do think that part of the difficulty is that Christian organizations have, in many cases, discriminated against people simply based on their experience of same-sex attraction, or their decision to be open about such an experience. Even if Gordon has not done so themselves, the broader phenomenon may have contributed to the skeptical atmosphere.
I think a broader call for Christian organizations to treat people more like they have in the cases you mentioned (or the case I mentioned in my piece), and not like I've seen in other cases, is a necessary part of how we address these challenges.
Posted by: Jeremy Erickson | October 01, 2014 at 01:34 PM
Thanks so much for that link and for your comment, Jeremy. My hope is that organizations like Desiring God and Gospel Coalition (and First Things!) will help with that as people see their willingness to be open about this and make a distinction between attractions and behavior. It's really disappointing to hear about those other cases. But as these major organizations take the lead, I think people will think more clearly about this. Our culture doesn't understand the category of a person with same-sex attractions who is celibate for the glory of God, so perhaps many in the church haven't considered the possibility, either (or been afraid that donors wouldn't consider the possibility). I think that will change.
Posted by: Amy | October 01, 2014 at 02:16 PM
Sam, the problem comes when one of those Christian students wants to get a higher degree at a different institution (or join a professional organization or job that requires a degree). If that other institution doesn't recognize the Christian college's accreditation, the student won't be accepted.
Posted by: Amy | October 01, 2014 at 02:18 PM
all the CHRISTIAN Schools that operate by Biblical standards should start their own accreditation standards for their own schools and drop the secular requirements. If GOD be for you who can be against you
Posted by: Michael HALL | October 01, 2014 at 04:01 PM
"the problem comes when one of those Christian students wants to get a higher degree at a different institution"
Not to mention scholarships, transfer of units and so on. Pulling accreditation is a big deal. And, as we saw in that earlier thread on the Chronicle of Higher Education article, this is in the back of liberal minds for all Christian Colleges that maintain any statement of faith.
Some people in the other thread didn't find this troubling.
Posted by: WisdomLover | October 01, 2014 at 04:09 PM
If you had what you want, how wide a swath of higher education would you exclude LGBTQ people from?
Posted by: RonH | October 01, 2014 at 04:32 PM
Such control over the personal lives of college students, adults above the age of 18, bothers me and I have to wonder why it seems like a good thing to all of you. These kids aren't joining a religious organisation or ministry, they're getting an education, they may not have even had the choice of where to go, why do they have to have this draconian policing of their romantic lives? What has that got to do with learning Art or German or Engineering? I remember the humiliation and the shame I felt at a Christian college because one day I made the mistake of wearing shorts (to the knee) on a hot Texas day while running on to campus to collect a book. It wasn't just that I'd contravened a dress code, it was made clear to me that I was sinning. I can only imagine how much greater the shame must be for a young gay man or woman to have to live in the kind of atmosphere and culture that these places foster. You can say it isn't about identity all you want but I could change my clothes, a gay person doesn't have that luxury.
When the rules of a college are not mere rules but anti-sinning policies, that is a bad situation.
"If Stand to Reason still has tax-exempt status in five years, I will be very, very surprised."
Why should you (STR) be exempt from paying tax?
Posted by: Francis | October 01, 2014 at 05:48 PM
Yeah, I do have good hopes for things to change in the future. It has really only been within the past few years that any nontrivial number of LGB/SSA Christians have been willing to speak up about their experiences. Until very recently the common wisdom has been that it is better for us to keep quiet and only talk about our experiences with select trusted others. Some of us are starting to realize that we can do more good by talking more openly, although we respect people's decisions about how open they want to be.
The reactions of conservative Christian communities to our openness have been decidedly mixed. Wesley Hill did a really good related piece earlier this year, at http://spiritualfriendship.org/2014/01/31/the-church-is-homophobic-true-or-false/
My experiences have been mostly positive. I think that a lot of Christians are wary when they just hear about people they don't know personally, although I'm hoping that our growing presence on trusted venues like you mention helps in that regard. I was really happy to see Desiring God start posting Nick's stuff, for example. So I think things are changing for the better, even if it happens more slowly than I'd like.
Posted by: Jeremy Erickson | October 01, 2014 at 07:32 PM
Free people should be left free to make associations to transmit the knowledge, opinions, methods and techniques to the next generation without the government or entities operating as agents of the government picking winners and losers.
The only issue that the state, or an organization authorized by the state like the NEASC, should look at is
- Whether the university teaches coherently describable subjects.
- Whether the university has faculty able to effectively teach the subjects that the university offers.
- Whether the university has a plan for verifying that its faculty does, in fact, teach those subjects.
That way, parents and students paying the university to teach students in the disciplines that the university advertises can have some confidence that they are getting what they contracted for and not being victimized by an educational bait-and-switch (as happens all too often at nominally Christian colleges...where students and parents go to the college expecting a distinctively Christian education, but end up not getting anything of the sort.)If you want to make a university specifically aimed at promulgating gay witchcraft, you should be free to do so, and accreditation agencies acting under the authority of the government should accredit your school if it can meet the three criteria I alluded to above. No one is forcing anyone to go to our supposed school of gay witchcraft and wizardry.
The purpose of accreditation is not to force homogeneity on the educational system. The purpose is to ensure that purchasers of educational services receive what they contract for.
Posted by: WisdomLover | October 01, 2014 at 08:38 PM
Me.
Suppose the proportion of Christian Colleges were much greater. I have to think you'd like that.
And, I assume LGBTQ people would be banned from all the true Christian colleges - the ones that don't 'bait and switch' as you put it.
Please let me know if I got either of those points wrong.
If not, I ask: Would you put any limit on how much of higher education LGBTQ people would be banned from?
Yes or no? Why or why not?
Posted by: RonH | October 02, 2014 at 04:07 AM
Wisdom lover, with respect, you miss the points, remade in the last two paragraphs of Mr. Erickson's 7:32 response. They are twofold, and here I will restate. First, If we indeed have a free country, then we are free to offer specific colleges with standards related to our belief systems, as we are also free to chose to attend said colleges or not. Secondly, accreditation has nothing to do with those beliefs systems and so should not be determined by them.
Posted by: Carole Makowski | October 02, 2014 at 04:25 AM
I am sorry...being new to this site, I misread the names associated with the comment. I direct my response to RonH, and refer to Wisdom Lover's points 8:38 response.
Posted by: Carole Makowski | October 02, 2014 at 04:28 AM
Me.
Suppose the proportion of Christian Colleges were much greater. I have to think you'd like that.
And, I assume LGBTQ people would be banned from all the true Christian colleges - the ones that don't 'bait and switch' as you put it.
Please let me know if I got either of those points wrong.
If not, I ask: Would you put any limit on how much of higher education LGBTQ people would be banned from?
Yes or no? Why or why not?
- See more at: http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/10/gordon-college-will-lose-accreditation-over-behavioral-standards.html#sthash.dhbENtwj.dpuf
What an outrageous line of argumentation.
A Christian college has the right to... be a Christian college, as ridiculous as that might sound to you. If they weren't to make decisions on God's moral law, then they wouldn't be a Christian college.
And I don't actually think most people here _would_ like to see a higher proportion of Christian colleges--unless that meant of course there were far more committed Christians, in which case there wouldn't be a need for Christian colleges in the first place! If you are trying to ask for the place of LGBTQ (Oh, it's "QUILT BAG" now--get with the times; you're excluding a lot of people) in a majority conservative Christian society, well that's valid, but it's a different question now, isn't it?
The point is, if Christian colleges don't have the right to be Christian colleges, then what purpose do they have to exist at all?
Christians have a sexual ethic. And, as aforementioned, it's a few thousand years old. You don't have to like it, but it's incredibly disingenuous of you to act surprised by it.
Posted by: Andrew K | October 02, 2014 at 04:51 AM
This is a response to the original article, not any particular comment:
Do you see no merit to the argument that prohibiting a behavior which is only popular among a certain class of people is discriminatory toward that class?
Posted by: buddyglass | October 02, 2014 at 05:29 AM
"This is a response to the original article, not any particular comment:
Do you see no merit to the argument that prohibiting a behavior which is only popular among a certain class of people is discriminatory toward that class?"
That argument would only have merit to the degree that the behavior in question were not considered inherently wrong. (E.g. Oxycontin is popular primarily among rural white males. Yet substance control mechanisms are not considered "discriminatory" to my knowledge.)
Again, a great deal of confusion seems to be arising here from the fact that so many on the other side of this argument seem absolutely unable to discuss the matter without smuggling in the assumption that homosexual acts are NOT inherently sinful.
But that is the very assumption that Biblical Christians cannot accept. So the discussion gets nowhere.
Posted by: Andrew K | October 02, 2014 at 06:31 AM
Ron-
I would place no limit on the number of Christian Colleges there can be.
I gather you would like to, but that's your gig, not mine.
I would also place no limit on how few there can be and on how many gay witchcraft schools there can be. Free people should be allowed to freely associate as long as they are not associating to carry out actions that would prevent other free people and groups from performing their moral duties and privileges.
Some students and prospective students would have disagreements with many of those schools, because many would include in their charters statements similar to those at Gordon College. Just as a side note, other schools might use different peaceful means of maintaining their Christian Identity
In a free society, just as there will be all sorts of disagreements that will lead to all sorts of associations among the free members of the society, there will also be all sorts of disagreements. Some people will even refuse to associate with others.
It is not for the government, or government authorized agencies, to settle these disputes. It's neither right, nor helpful for them to do so.
If you want there to be fewer Christian universities and colleges Ron, the way to do so is to use sweet reason to win arguments so that fewer people choose to be Christian. Don't to enlist the aid of the government or its agents to jam them down.
Posted by: WisdomLover | October 02, 2014 at 07:06 AM
RonH,
As you should know well by now, these rules are about behavior, not identity. No one would be banning LGBTQXYZ people from going to a school. They have behavioral standards for everyone. Sex outside of marriage is forbidden for all students.
Is it really so horrible that some people want to hold up a higher moral standard?
Posted by: ChrisB | October 02, 2014 at 07:28 AM
The position is this: Gordon College is a place you can choose to go to or not. You are completely free with regard to that. If you choose to go to Gordon College, you will be expected to follow the rules of the college. If you don't follow the rules of the college, you are free to leave and seek educational opportunities elsewhere.
I see no problem at all with this position, and in fact it is utterly absurd to imagine there would be. It would be quite impossible for there to be any college anywhere if we adopted the policy that college rules are not to be allowed if following them is not popular among a certain group of people.
You see, the argument that's being used right now against Gordon College could easily be adopted to say that Gordon College shall not have rules against cheating.
How well do you think colleges could proceed if there were no rules against cheating? What would be the value of the degree offered by the college?
Inclusive colleges that are free and open to cheating students and non-cheating students exist. There are colleges that will simply mail you your degree for a certain fee. It seems to me that these are the only colleges that are fully inclusive...since they are open both to those who study and those who don't.
Are they any good?
Should they be accredited?
If Gordon college is losing its accreditation because of its lack of inclusiveness, by what principle do the accreditors not yank accreditation from any college but the fully inclusive degree-for-fee school?
I would think that one thing accreditors should look at that actually makes a difference is not that a college is inclusive...fully inclusive colleges are, as just shown, worthless and should not be accredited. What accreditors should look at is whether the college is exclusive in a way tailored to its stated educational objective.
Here is Gordon College's Mission Statement:
The question, the only question, accreditors should be asking is whether Gordon has mechanisms and resources in place to achieve this aim, so that parents and students who contract with Gordon get what they contracted for. It is not up to the accreditors to decide what the aim of Gordon college should be.Accreditors aren't supposed to have their own agenda. They are supposed to be an objective third-party standing between prospective students and schools that certify that the school is providing the education that they say they provide.
Now, it seems to me, that something like Gordon College's statement of life and conduct is an important mechanism to achieving the end they express in their mission. Far from counting against their accreditation, it should be considered important for their accreditation. (That's not to say that the end couldn't be achieved in another way.)
Posted by: WisdomLover | October 02, 2014 at 07:45 AM
"That argument would only have merit to the degree that the behavior in question were not considered inherently wrong. (E.g. Oxycontin is popular primarily among rural white males. Yet substance control mechanisms are not considered "discriminatory" to my knowledge.)"
I'm not so sure. If Oxycontin use were popular among rural white males to the extent homosexual sex is popular among homosexuals and anathema to non-rural-white-males to the same extent homosexual sex is anathema to heterosexuals I think we'd see prohibitions on Oxycontin abuse described as discriminatory.
In the case of Oxycontin the comparison is complicated by the fact that abuse is actually illegal. It's generally not seen as discriminatory to prohibit criminal behavior.
I'm torn on whether the criminality (or morality) of a behavior should influence whether we describe the prohibition of it as "discriminatory" if all the other relevant criteria apply. It may simply be that some forms of discrimination are desirable and completely warranted.
Another complicating factor is that, despite the existence of objective moral truth, not everyone recognizes that truth, and even folks who do recognize it often disagree on the nuances. Denny Burk, for instance, believes that same-sex attraction is inherently sinful. If he became the president of Gordon College and rewrote the requirements so as to exclude anyone who experiences same-sex attraction would you consider that to be discriminatory? Why or why not?
"Who said anything about prohibiting anything?"
Gordon College, which prohibits certain behavior among its student body. The argument is that prohibiting behaviors can be discriminatory when doing so disproportionately affects a certain class.
For instance, imagine if NotGordon College adopted a policy that no student may own or read the Bible. Reading the Bible is a behavior. Also, you can choose whether to attend NotGordon College or not; nobody's forcing you. Would you consider that policy to discriminate against Christians? I would.
Posted by: buddyglass | October 02, 2014 at 09:09 AM
But they are free to say that you can't come to their school.
I suppose you could argue that Gordon College is prohibiting something.
But they are not prohibiting any sex of any kind. Instead, they are prohibiting some people from using their educational services.
They also prohibit academic cheaters, those who haven't gone through the admissions process and those who don't pay tuition from the use of their services.
Of course the policy discriminates, if what you mean by "discriminate" is that it treats different cases differently.The question is whether it's anyone's business other than NotGordon college to do that. And I don't think it is. It certainly isn't the business of accreditation agencies authorized by the Department of Education.
Now, if NotGordon claimed in its Mission Statement that it would provide students with a rich education in world religions, and then adopted the no-Bible policy you describe, then the accreditors might have something to say.
Of course we're assuming that NotGordon is not a government school. I wouldn't support NotGordon's policy if the school were NotGordon campus of the California State University, nor would I support Gordon's policy if it were the Gordon College of the University of Massachusetts at Wenham.
Posted by: WisdomLover | October 02, 2014 at 09:42 AM
To take punitive actions against Gordon College because of belief is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment and Article 18 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (1948) Both guarantee the freedom of practice and expression of one's religious beliefs.
Ephesians 6:10-13
10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the
strength of His might.
11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you
will be able to stand firm against the
schemes of the devil.
12 For our struggle is not against flesh and
blood, but against the rulers, against the
powers, against the world forces of this
darkness, against the spiritual forces of
wickedness in the heavenly places.
13 Therefore, take up the full armor of God,
so that you will be able to resist in the
evil day, and having done everything, to
stand firm.
I pray that Gordon College will stand firm against this onslaught from those that don't know the difference between a behavior and an orientation.
If this were a faith based Muslim institution does anyone think this subject would have even come up?
Posted by: omd | October 02, 2014 at 09:54 AM
"We recognize that students at Gordon who identify as LGBTQ or experience same-sex attraction have often felt marginalized and alone, and recognize the pressing need for a safe campus environment for all students."
...and what is being done about it? ...
Posted by: Nathan | October 02, 2014 at 10:29 AM
"But they are free to say that you can't come to their school."
Yes. They prohibit certain behaviors among their student body. They won't stop you from engaging in those behaviors, but if you do then you will cease to be a member of the student body at Gordon College.
"They also prohibit academic cheaters, those who haven't gone through the admissions process and those who don't pay tuition"
There is no overlap between those particular behaviors and specific classes of individuals. The set of "people who don't pay tuition to Gordon College" is not especially black, white, male, female, gay, straight, etc.
"Of course the policy discriminates, if what you mean by "discriminate" is that it treats different cases differently."
Why is that case "discriminatory" and not Gordon College's policy w.r.t. gay and premarital sex?
"It certainly isn't the business of accreditation agencies authorized by the Department of Education."
Are accreditation agencies authorized by the DoE or do they act as private entities? I can see the "value" of an accreditation agency that validates (among other things) its member institutions' adherence to a certain brand of non-discrimination. Who knows, maybe that's important to some people.
Posted by: buddyglass | October 02, 2014 at 12:20 PM
"If this were a faith based Muslim institution does anyone think this subject would have even come up?"
Yes.
Posted by: buddyglass | October 02, 2014 at 12:21 PM
There is a Christian accrediting body. "TRACS is recognized by both the United States Department of Education, and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, as a national accrediting body for Christian institutions, colleges, universities, and seminaries." http://tracs.org/
Posted by: J E Pitts | October 02, 2014 at 02:58 PM
As a side note, I observe that there is no particular group of people, black, white, male, female, gay, straight who engage in premarital sex (except, of course, fornicators). I guess that clause is actually OK according to you?
They are authorized by the DoE, at least the NEASC (the group that just yanked Gordon's accreditation) is.I'm glad to hear that you see some value in that.Follow-up question: Why should a state authorized agency prefer your values to those of other free and equal individuals and act against those free and, not so equal after all, individuals to privilege your values over theirs?
Certainly.Here's another follow up. When did the United States become an aristocracy where what is important to some people matters more than what is important to other people, even when those other people are engaged in activities on their own property that they force no one to go onto their property and engage in?
Posted by: WisdomLover | October 02, 2014 at 09:14 PM
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us.
Posted by: Dumbsheep Thoughts | October 03, 2014 at 01:58 AM
You're being unreasonably specific with the meaning of the "prohibit". A quick google search turned up the definition "to forbid by authority or law". Gordon is able to make "laws" that govern its students. Because Gordon isn't the state, there are limits to its ability to enforce the rules it makes for its students. For instance, the worst it can do is expel someone. That doesn't change the fact that it is "forbidding by authority" certain behaviors among its students.
I don't say this with any particular negative connotation. Every university or college prohibits certain behaviors. Cheating is one you've already pointed out. Though, one could argue cheating does damage to a university's educational mission in a way certain other behavior's don't.
Legally speaking it's relevant because "cheaters" are nowhere a protected class. In terms of disparate impact, anybody could potentially be a cheater. Only individuals who experience same-sex attraction are likely to engage in homosexual sex.
I'll grant that this doesn't apply to the premarital sex ban. I'd be curious to know what the agency's objection to that policy was, since it can't really be construed as discriminatory to any particular class of individual.
Good. That's all I wanted to establish. Other comments have advanced the idea that Gordon isn't discriminatory toward individuals who experience same-sex attraction because it doesn't ban same-sex attraction per se, but only gay sex.
I actually haven't voiced an opinion on either of Gordon's policies, so you shouldn't assume I'm "not OK" with them. In terms of being discriminatory toward a protected class, the only way I could see the premarital sex ban being criticized on those terms is to argue that it creates a special burden on single people relative to married people. So I suppose it could be viewed as discriminating on the basis of marital status.
Does the DoE publish its requirements for authorizing accreditation agencies? My first thought is, "Why is the DoE even authorizing these agencies?"
My feeling is that the agencies, as private entities, should be able to use whatever criteria they choose. If an agency wants to only accredit universities that require their students to abide by sharia law then that's its prerogative. I think that's a dumb thing to require for accreditation, but if there are enough people who care about that then, in theory, universities might seek out accreditation from that agency.
That was poorly written on my part. I don't personally see the value in that criterion for accreditation; I just meant that I can understand how other people might value it, and why a university might value being accredited by an agency that has "doesn't discriminate" among its criteria for accreditation.
It shouldn't prefer my values. I question whether "state authorized" should imply what you feel it should imply, i.e. that the accreditation agencies should be "values neutral". My ideal would be no state authorization at all; let the "market" decide which agencies sink and which swim. If an agency starts using criteria nobody values then universities will stop seeking its accreditation. If there is going to be state authorization, though, I'd prefer the criteria for authorization be well-defined. If those criteria stipulated that authorized agencies must be values neutral and only base accreditation on academic concerns then I'd support revoking NEASC's authorization.
Possibly 1964. The Civil Rights Act created a legal framework in which what is important to some people (an individual's ability to be a full economic participant without respect to race, sex or religion) was deemed to trump was was important to other people (right to discrimination on the basis of race, sex or religion) even when those other people were engaged in activities on their property (running a business) that they forced no one to go onto their property and engage in.
In the case of Gordon college no such force was applied. We're not talking about the state telling Gordon college it can't have those policies. We're talking about an independent accreditation agency whose accreditation Gordon College voluntarily seeks communicating that, in order to gain that accreditation, Gordon must drop its policies. In the same way Gordon doesn't force anyone to be one of its students the NEASC doesn't force anyone to seek its accreditation. They're not the only accreditation game in town; if you don't like their criteria then go get accredited by someone else.
Posted by: buddyglass | October 03, 2014 at 06:04 AM
buddyglass,
What about nymphomaniacs?
Posted by: KWM | October 03, 2014 at 10:21 AM
Posted by: buddyglass | October 03, 2014 at 11:20 AM
But this is a less important point, so let's leave it to one side for the moment.
Since Gordon's educational mission is clearly spelled out (accreditation agencies always require that), and since it includes the development of Christian character, the life and conduct statement is also crucial to its educational mission.Why shouldn't cheaters be a protected class? I might point out that only people who experience grade anxiety are likely to engage in cheating. Underachievers are seldom cheaters. They just take their C in stride on the way to the campus pub.Of course it is, it is discriminatory to fornicators. The point is that the class being 'discriminated against' is defined by its behavior. But we have to 'discriminate against' all sorts of classes of people where the class is defined by the behavior of its members. And the fact that there might be overlap with other classes not defined by the behavior of its members, but by some genetic factor is entirely beside the point. Violent criminals are overwhelmingly men, it does not follow that laws against violence are sexist.So you are willing to allow government authorized entities, like accreditation boards, lots of freedom to maintain their institutional identities, but you are not willing to extend the same tolerance toward the less powerful small colleges they affect.The point of accreditation is to assure prospective students and their parents that the school is what it claims to be. Not to force schools to be something that the accreditors like. That's the point of accreditation with or without government authorization. And to do it well requires acting in as close to a values-neutral way as possible (I grant that pure values neutrality is impossible). You add the authorization of the government into the mix and that rule of prudence becomes a matter of justice. The government should not be authorizing accreditation boards that favor one set of religious beliefs over another.I don't think that the Civil Rights Act is analogous. Again, the so-called discrimination is based on a behavior, not the color of skin.There are only a few forms of discrimination based on behavior that are explicitly limited by the Constitution (in its amendments). They are discrimination based on: religious behavior, speech (both oral and printed) and association. But these are precisely what's getting stepped on in the case of Gordon College. Gordon can't have the statement of life an conduct it has, even though that statement is informed by its religious vision and is meant to apply only to people who freely choose to associate with the college.
Now some points of agreement.
We probably agree that the DoE shouldn't even be in the business of authorizing accreditation boards. Maybe we'd be better off if the boards were rated, the same way the schools they accredit are, by U.S. News, Consumer Reports or other journals.
We also agree about this:
What concerns me is that if one government authorized agency can get away with this, what is to stop the rest?Posted by: WisdomLover | October 03, 2014 at 12:17 PM
Buddyglass,
On cheaters you wrote:
On premarital sex I wrote:
What about nymphomaniacs?
You wrote:
So let me get this straight…for someone to be part of a “class” one has to be disproportionately affected as it relates to being married vs. single?
How do you keep all this garbage straight?
Posted by: KWM | October 03, 2014 at 04:17 PM
I am personally glad this is happening to this school. The college's medieval ways are so far stuck in the past it is ridiculous. Not allowing the opposite sex in a dorm room with the door closed, not allowing homosexual behavior, the list goes on. While there are many students attending Gordon College that have to hide their true selves because of judgement they will receive if people know that they are homosexual. This school's policy's disgust me and without change they should (and will) lose their accreditation which will drastically affect the school and cause future students to think twice about attending.
Posted by: Student | October 03, 2014 at 09:01 PM
Student-
Do you attend Gordon College?
If not, why do you care so much? The people who go there do so freely. Why do you feel the need to force your morality on them?
If you do go there, and you find their policies so offensive, why did you go there in the first place? And why don't you just leave? Again, why do you feel the need to force your morality on that community?
If their policies are so awful won't natural market forces serve as a better corrective than any accreditation shenanigans. After all, as many posters have pointed out, there are other accreditation boards. Gordon can be accredited by one of the other boards. (I'd frankly be surprised to find out that they haven't already begun moves to be accredited by another board.) But if students stop going because the policies are so bad, then the school will go under. Right?
Posted by: WisdomLover | October 04, 2014 at 12:06 AM
Many have commented that Gordon College can simply seek accreditation from another agency. This is correct, of course; there are other accrediting bodies that are recognized by either the USDoE or CHEA. But the standard for accreditation in the US for established, liberal arts colleges and universities has long been regional accreditation. Small Bible colleges are often accredited by ABHE, purely distance education schools by DETC, and schools with very new and innovative approaches by TRACS. Despite the fact there are some wonderful schools accredited by these agencies, they are commonly perceived as a significant step down from regional accreditation. Regional accreditation is the gold standard in US higher education, again particularly for liberal arts colleges and universities. When it comes to regional accreditation, there is only one agency per region. So, in that sense, for Gordon College NEASC is the only game in town.
Because this is the expected standard for liberal arts colleges to be accredited (including religious ones), this decision is a very big deal. This accrediting agency is imposing blatantly non-Christian views on a school with a clearly articulated Christian identity. This is political correctness run amuck. If allowed to stand, this sets an alarming and dangerous precedent for everyone (not just Christians). It's relegating consistently Christian colleges (and any others who disagrees with the current Big Brother) to an educational ghetto outside of the accepted standards of US liberal arts education. I'm not sure what kind of appeal process they have, but I would be quite surprised if we don't see a concerted effort to oppose this incredibly flawed decision, possibly even including schools that are not evangelical.
Posted by: Curt Parton | October 04, 2014 at 10:57 AM
Curt-
Thanks for that. What I'm wondering is that if this will be the callous disregard for objectivity that we see from the NEASC, should they be considered the gold standard anymore? We see the lengths to which they are willing to go to in preventing accreditation because of their own agenda. How much have they glossed over in sub-standard schools that support their agenda?
Posted by: WisdomLover | October 04, 2014 at 01:34 PM
Gordon College is located in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages have been legal for 10 years. So their REAL policy is that they are only recognizing some marriages and they are selectively picking and choosing which marriages they recognize.
You can argue that only those marriages performed in a Christian church are recognized, but many of those same-sex marriages are performed in Christian churches.
So the argument comes down to which Christian churches are "Christian enough" for the college to recognize marriages performed in them. A very bad idea.
If it's accreditation you have an issue with, any institution of higher learning without accreditation has the problem of their degrees being worthless.
Posted by: Phillip | October 05, 2014 at 07:03 PM
[Saw the following web piece. Any reactions?]
USA - from Puritans to Impure-itans
Is there a connection between beautiful New England and entire American cities turned into smoking rubble? There is.
Take same-sex marriage. I would have guessed that a "sin" city (San Francisco? Las Vegas?) would have been the first to legalize it.
Oddly it's been the place where America started that's wanted to be the first place to help bring about the end of America and its values! It's been a Nor'easter of Perversion (helping to fulfill the end time "days of Lot" predicted in Luke 17) that began in (you guessed it) Boston in 2004.
New England has gone from the Mayflower Compact to the Gay Power Impact, from Providence to decadence, from Bible thumpers to God dumpers, from university to diversity to perversity, and from the land of the Great Awakening to God's Future Shakening that will make the Boston bombings look like Walden Pond ripples by comparison!
The same Nor'easter has been spreading south and as far west as Washington State where, after swelling up with pride, Mt. Rainier may wish to celebrate shame-sex marriage by having a blast that Seaddlepated folks can share in lava-land!
The same Luke 17 prediction is tied to the Book of Revelation which speaks of the cities that God will flatten because of same-sexism - including American cities - a scenario I'll have to accept since I can't create my own universe and decree rules for it.
I've just been analyzing the world's terminal "religion" that has its "god," its accessories, its "rites," and even a flag. It's an obsession that the infected converts are willing to live for, fight for - and even die for!
Want more facts? Google "God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up," "Universal GAYety is Coming," "FOR GAYS ONLY: Jesus predicted," " 'Jesus Never Mentioned Homosexuality' - When Gays Have Birthdays...," "Harvey Milk Stamped 'Out' Forever" and "The Background Obama Can't Cover Up."
Posted by: Irv Spielberg | October 05, 2014 at 09:04 PM
Posted by: WisdomLover | October 06, 2014 at 12:21 PM
WL,
Sorry for the late response. It certainly could go that way. What I think more likely is that regional accreditation would continue to be perceived by the culture at large as the gold standard for higher education, and consistently Christian schools would be viewed as a special niche, one that is not up to "accepted" standards. I think actions such as that of NEASC could actually accelerate such a perception if not strongly opposed now.
With the witch hunt mentality we're seeing concerning any opposition to same-sex "marriage," we could reach a point where public universities face the PC wrath if they accept students from non-regionally accredited (i.e. conservative Christian) schools into their grad programs, etc. I'm not saying this is inevitable, but taking into consideration the changes in the cultural landscape the last few years, it's easy to see how this could happen fairly easily and relatively quickly.
Posted by: Curt Parton | October 08, 2014 at 01:46 PM