Posted on 04/27/2002 9:39:04 AM PDT by greydog
From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk
Published 4/26/2002 1:44 PM
WASHINGTON, April 25 (UPI) -- College administrators have pursued diversity on campus for years now—but only up to a point. When University of Nebraska assistant football coach Ron Brown interviewed for the head-coaching job at prestigious Stanford University, he was turned down, probably because of opinions he held that arose from his strong Christian beliefs. Question: Was Stanford within its rights if it rejected Brown because of views based on his faith? United Press International National Political Analysts Peter Roff, a conservative, and Jim Chapin, a liberal, face off on opposite sides of this critical question.
Roff: Stanford was within its rights but it was also wrong and stupid.
Implicit in the idea of free association is the right not to associate, even in the workplace. On broadly philosophical grounds, Stanford should be permitted to hire or not hire whomever it chooses for whatever reason as long as it is willing to accept the economic and social consequences of the decision.
In the current context, however, the responsible officials should be ashamed.
For far too long, Americans have had integration rammed down their throats. It is wrong for the state to discriminate on the basis of race or religion or sex; the state should be neutral on such matters. But legal rulings and congressional actions have moved the debate far beyond public accommodation and into the realm of private action. Stanford is a private institution but the current laws apply nonetheless.
Brown’s sin is that he has denounced homosexuality as “dead wrong,” a position arising out what he believes the Bible says.
The Daily Nebraskan’s Veronica Daehn asked Stanford’s Alan Glenn about the role Brown’s faith played in their decision not to call him for a final interview.
She quotes Glenn saying, “(Brown’s religion) was definitely something that had to be considered. 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 the many variables that was considered.”
Glenn and Stanford Athletic Director Ted Leland say the remarks were taken out of context, but Daehn is standing by her story.
If Brown’s faith leads him to positions Stanford personnel find controversial, thus keeping him from becoming their head football coach—and the evidence points in that direction—then the university has committed what should be seen as a grievous offense. If Brown, who has remained largely silent, were denied the job because he was Jewish, one-armed, Muslim or black, heads would roll. Federal laws, those passed by Congress or written by judges, hold that discrimination because of disability, race, ethnic origin and a host of other issues is unconstitutional.
Religion is also supposed to be on the list. But because homosexuals are considered a protected—or an “ought to be” protected—class, and Bible-believing Christians are not, Brown lost out.
College campuses are supposed to be citadels of intellectual freedom. Of late, they are more like prisons where discordant thought is crushed. Left-wing opinions are endorsed tacitly if not outright by university officials, while conservative thought is suppressed.
Alternative campus newspapers are routinely stolen. Conservative speakers are heckled, harassed and in some cases have had their invitations rescinded.
If the account in the Nebraskan is true, then Brown was denied a job because his faith leads him to embrace a position on homosexuality that runs counter to the prevailing attitudes in academia.
Fairness demands that Stanford admit its error and apologize to Brown.
Chapin: "Religion" Doesn't Give You Unlimited Privileges
Well, if it's true that Stanford didn't consider Brown because of his staunch Christian convictions and then didn't tell the truth about it, that's too bad.
For one thing, "spinning" doesn't become institutions of higher learning.
But the idea that because Brown's religion, according to Brown's interpretation of it, believes that homosexuality is "dead wrong," that he's entitled to make speeches on the topic and still get hired by people who disagree with him, is also wrong.
Lots of religions believe lots of things -- highly civilized people have believed many things that are considered both illegal and immoral in the modern world.
Ancient Egyptians buried a Pharaoh's servants with him, Carthaginians burned babies alive, Hindus practiced -- and still practice in some areas -- suttee, or burning widows alive on their husband's pyres, and many Africans believe in female circumcision.
All these are forbidden in the United States.
Even animal sacrifice, a well-nigh universal religious practice of the human past, is restricted by U.S. law.
As it happens, discrimination against homosexuals is forbidden both by California state law and by Stanford's own governing policies.
Now Brown himself drew attention to his views, when, three years ago on his own radio program, "Husker Sports Report with Ron Brown," he started talking about his religious attitudes toward homosexuals, saying that the Bible "clearly teaches ... that homosexuality is dead wrong," and that Christians should shower homosexuals with love "to win the homosexual to Christ."
One might well ask why Brown was talking about this subject on a radio show about sports and whether he would have continued in this vein had he been hired at Stanford.
Defenders of Brown may state that his belief that homosexuality is "dead wrong" would be overridden by his call for love of individual homosexuals, though it should be noted that this "love" depended upon them giving up homosexuality "for Christ."
It's hardly surprising that a major university with an active group of homosexuals on campus, not to mention probably a majority of students and many rich alumni who are not active Christians, didn't want to be saddled with a head coach whose presence would be a lightning rod and actually hurt contributions to the school, not to mention causing demonstrations at the team's games.
If Stanford didn't hire Brown because it didn't want to get involved in all these issues, that makes perfect sense. But colleges, like other private institutions, are not under normal circumstances required to explain their hires for top positions.
I would be extremely surprised to learn that the majority of the football coaches at top schools are not actively practicing Christians, and equally surprised to find any of them explaining their religious beliefs in detail on radio sports shows.
I would be very surprised indeed to learn that most major secular universities even thought for a second about the religion of their potential head coaches.
Stanford was under no obligation to explain to Brown why he wasn't one of the three finalists for the job, nor, for that matter, to the two men who weren't picked why they picked the coach they did. If it is true that they didn't take Brown to a second interview for the reasons stated by Daehn, that Brown was publicly advocating positions opposite to those of California law and Stanford's own policies, they could have come out and simply stated that to be the case. But they are under no moral or legal obligation to do so.
Most organizations can't expect all the people they hire to agree with their policies. But they certainly can expect that leaders of major programs agree with their policies, or, at the least, don't go on record against them.
That seems to be a test that Brown didn't pass. What did he expect?
Somehow I feel that if Scott Sutton, the basketball coach at Oral Roberts University, had been speaking on behalf of gay rights before he was interviewed, he wouldn't have been hired. Too bad for Brown that ORU doesn't have a football program.
discrimination against homosexuals is forbidden both by California state law and by Stanford's own governing policies.
Discrimination is an action, not an opinion. Mr. Brown did not practice or even advocate discrimination against homosexuals. Mr. Chapin has in essence (and probably without realizing it) announced that just holding the opinion that homosexuality is wrong constitutes a form of discrimination against homosexuals and that the state is therefore justified in practicing real discrimination against those who hold (or anyway publicly state) such beliefs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.