Calblog

Mr. Turck and his parents are customers of Pepperdine University. If they don't like the product it produces they should find another supplier.

If Pepperdine receives one thin dime of tax dollars (and you can bet that they do, and quite a few dimes at that), then the university president has absolutely no right in engaging in this kind of behavior. Otherwise, I would agree with Mr. Williams' assertion that Turck's parents should find another "supplier". Our tax dollars should not support homophobia, or pay the salary of homophobic university administrators.

The student probably should have researched Pepperdine more thoroughly. Had he done so, he would have discovered that it is a private university with strong ties to (if I remember correctly) the United Church of Christ, and one which falls on the conservative side of UCC theology.

To the extent that the University might chose to discriminate, they probably can on this basis because I don't believe that Title IX and other educational funds consider sexual orientation to be a protected class. If this were a public university (e.g., UCLA), this would be a different story entirely.

First off, it's a Christian school. Schools and churches in America that refuse to accept homosexuality haven't been banned yet. Until such a time I assume they will do their level best--sometimes clumsily so--to remain true to their religious convictions.

Clearly, the university president was foolish to commit to paper anything he felt necessary to suppress. How imprudent was that?! Certainly, he shouldn't have written anything the homosexual lobby could latch upon as a rallying cry.

Further, he was foolish to ask the student not to disseminate the letter. He should have seen this coming from a mile away.

Regardless of the actions of the university president, let us keep clear of such charged language as "homophobia." It is widely misused and adds nothing but empty rancor to the debate.

Okay, how about intense dislike of homosexual students and their lifestyle? What, exactly, is the Politically Correct term for homophobia?

Homophobia, schmomophobia. This kid knew what he was getting into when he decided to attend Pepperdine.

I attended a VERY conservative Catholic university in the midwest and such organizations would not have been officially recognized. However, Courage, a "homosexual group" that upholds Catholic Church teachings existed on campus. If a student did not agree with Courage, Church teachings or the president's interpretation of the rules of the university he or she was free to attend school somewhere else or meet privately with others who were gay and/or shared their beliefs about the matter, (and they did).

Yeah, I know about that. Schmomos scare the crap out of me, too.

Xrlq, sometimes I don't know how to take your comments.

This one goes down better with a very large grain of salt.

And the citadel was not vehemently opposed to female candidates, nor did they except tax dollars. Any of you want to buy a bridge, too?

Mark: WTF does the Citadel have to do with anything?! The Citadel is a state college; Pepperdine isn't. End of story.

XRLQ: This thread began with a comment that the Turcks could find another college if they didn't like what was happening at Pepperdine. If you recall the controversy surrounding the Citadel and their first female cadet, the Citadel's administration claimed that as a privately funded academy, they had the right to bar women from entering. As it turned out, the Citadel, in fact, receives tax dollars as part of its funding. My point is that ANY college that receives ANY amount of tax dollars has a responsibility to treat all students fairly and equitably without regard to race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, etc, and I don't believe that Pepperdine is an exception to the rule any more than the Citadel. That, XRLQ, is what the F**K the Citadel has to do with anything. You know, I have noticed a tendency on your part to post some very acerbic comments on various sites, especially when you are disagreement with someone. You might want to consult your physician about adjusting your meds. Do have a nice weekend, won't you?

Mark, you may not have noticed this, but as silly, ignorant and downright myopic as that first comment of yours may have been, I didn't reply with any "acerbic" remarks, nor did I even respond to it at all. Why not, you ask? Simple: contrary to your claim, I don't flame people simply for disagreeing. I do flame people who make ridiculous, unsupportable, factual assertions. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion; no one is entitled to his own facts.

Prior to your last comment, this one was ambiguous. Under one reading, it was a non sequitur: "if state institutions can't exclude women, private institutions can't include gays but refuse to recognize their clubs." Under the other, it was a flat out lie: "Pepperdine and the Citadel are equally public/private, and thus subject to the same rules." Based on your original comment, I suspected that the lie was the correct reading, but rather than assume the worst, I thought it best to give you an opportunity to clarify your position. It turns out that I was right, though. Next time you post something ambiguously stupid, remind me NOT to ask for a clarification, but instead simply to assume that the stupider meaning was the one that you intended.

In reality, neither VMI nor the Citadel has ever pretended to be anything other than a public insititution. The whole issue in both cases was whether or not a state institution could exclude women without violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (which, like most of the Constitution, applies only to government). Far from claiming to be a private institution, the Citadel abandoned its defense as soon as the VMI case was decided. They would not have done this if they thought their case was distinguishable from VMI's, as it clearly would have been if they were (or even believed themselves to be) a private institution.

XRLQ - This discussion is over. See my e-mail. Have a good weekend.