I think rsa and Kimstu have encapsulated the POV. He was not eliminated from consideration because he was a Christian – he was eliminated from consideration because his views on how to behave “as a Christian” (about which I have some strong remarks, better saved for GD) required him to take a stance contrary to the inclusiveness, acceptance, and diversity of Stanford.
He was not discriminated against for his religion; he was discriminated against for his bigotry.
December, I think the Ashcroft hijack, while admittedly a hijack, was singularly apropos. The problem was not that Ashcroft was a Pentecostal Christian; it was that many people felt that he could not keep his religious standards distinct from the laws of the land which tend to contravene some of the ethical principles he feels he must uphold as a Pentecostal Christian.
I tend to disagree, based on Ashcroft’s own spoken commitment, but I see the point quite clearly. And it’s a precise parallel, in that if Brown were able to say that he would feel it appropriate to follow the university’s code of ethics even when his personal beliefs about what a teacher or coach with his understanding of morality ought to do conflicts, he should have been considered.
OK, let’s say for teh sake of argument that he is a bigot. And, let’s say that Sua Sponte is correct that Stanford is obligated to not hire him, because having him on staff would constitute discrimination. Then where can he get a job?
Any other college presumably has about the same percentage of gay students as Stanford. And, I would assume that virtually all colleges prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. So, it follows that no college in the country is permitted to hire him.
On the other hand, he never did anything wrong. No harassment or other infraction has been even alleged in his 20 year coaching career. What’s wrong with this picture?
He can get a job coaching or answering phones at his local church that believes these things are appropriate. Buy why would any law-abiding employee concerned about its reputation hire someone whose views are predisposed to illegal activities (discrimination) and whose statements would damage the reputation and public image of the institution? This is no different than hiring someone who advocates war crimes or some such illegal activity.
December, you seem to be suggesting that someone who has a discriminatory viewpoint and says he believes illegal action should be taken on that discriminatory viewpoint has a right to work for whom he chooses , regardless of their objection. If someone wanted to be a MacDonald’s manager and stated in the interview that he think the workers should unite and short the cash drawers every day, he is not going to be hired (I’d hope).
Bigots in general are going to find it difficult to find jobs in the San Francisco Bay Area (where Stanford is) because bigotry is frowned upon, and Stanford relies for income on goodwill from the community.
Are you suggesting that this guy should move to the front of the pack of interviewees simply because he has a right to his views even though those views may be contrary to what the institution is trying to teach the student athletes?
Okay, so when I start a Pit thread about how GWB is a satan-worshiping cannibal rapist, I don’t want to see you show up whining that I have absolutely no evidence that this is true. It’s the Pit, I can make any unsupported allegation I want to.
Attacked by whom? Can you provide a cite that a prominent Democrat, leading public figure, or (just to tie it all back to the OP) the faculty at Stanford has ever attacked John Ashcroft for being a Christian? Remember, other people parroting your own unsubstantiated opinion does not constitute a cite.
Well, this is neither a court of law nor a history textbook, and your cites are pure shit.
“A” statement? Which statement are you asking for support for? That Stanford is full of religious bigots? It’s not our job to prove your hypothesis.
See above.
Oh, well that makes all the difference in the world. Don’t worry about Stanford, december, they weren’t discriminating against a Christian, they were only discriminating against Christianity, so it’s all okay.
Does the anti-semite you work with talk about how much he hates Jews at every opportunity? Does he confront Jewish clients about their religion? If the answer is “no,” then he has every right to keep his job. If, on the other hand, he had a radio program where he reads from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and talks about beating up Jewish kids when he was in school, I would consider that ample grounds for kicking his ass out the door.
Yeah, or Brown is a fucking whiner who wasn’t the most qualified person for the job, and is trying to use his own bigotry to make himself look like a victim. What I find especially ironic is that, if Brown had said, “They didn’t hire me because I’m black,” you’d be the first person in here with a Pit thread about how Brown is trying to use his race to get him a job he doesn’t deserve. But because he used his religion, which is your “preferred group,” december, he’s the victim of discrimination at the hands of the bad ol’ liberal college.
Which I suppose explains why your name appears in so many thread titles 'round here.
I leave it to the good people of the SDMB to decide whether or not Ron Brown is a bigot or not. I have done my best Googling this guy, alas, I am not the equal of Duck Duck Goose I only wound up with 2 relevant sources
First up, a totally out of context quote from CBS Sportsline gleaned from one of Mr. Brown’s most inflammatory radio programs in 1999
Sounds pretty bad for old Ron, eh? Next up, a somewhat more in context essay on that particular radio program from Creative Ministry, a source that may be a bit biased, you make the call!
I did not find a single thing online to indicate that he had in fact discriminated against anybody at any time in his 15 year tenure with Nebraska.
You are implying that
[ul][li]Brown talks about how much he hates gays at every opportunity. []He confronts gay colleagues and students about their sexual orientation. []He has a radio program where he reads (i.e., on a regular basis) vicious homophibic literature and [/li][li]talks about (i.e., on a regular basis) beating up gays as a kid. [/ul] I fully agree with you, Miller. If Brown does these things, he should not be hired.[/li]
However, the cited article doesn’t support any of these allegations. The only one that’s even close is that he “admitted harassing gays as a child.” As elucidator pointed out, the word admitted could well indicate that he was acknowledging that he did wrong to harass gays as a child.
It’s wasn’t Brown’s statement; it was Stanford’ personnel expert:
It’s just brazen to admit this reason publicly. Imagine someone publicly stating that “sexual orientation was definitely something to be considered.” Either Alan Glenn is a complete idiot or he just isn’t concerned about religious discrimination. (Imagine how Stanford’s lawyers must have cringed when they saw that quote!)
I still don’t think you can equate this with religious bigotry. While his views my have been formed by his religion, it’s his views on homosexuality that are the issue.
I have little doubt that Stanford would happily hire a Christian (or Muslim, Mormon, etc.) football coach, if they didn’t share his views on this issue. By the same token, I’m pretty sure Stanford would walk away from an atheist candidate who had a problem with homosexuals.
I didn’t want Ashcroft as AG, but it was his position on issues, not his denomination, that I had a problem with. I also choose my friends accordingly. The vast majority (all of them, except for me, as far as I know) of my friends are believers in some sort of higher power, but they all treat others with respect, regardless of race, creed, color, sexual orientation, etc.
John Ashcroft believes abortion should be illegal. It is not, in fact, illegal. Wether or not Ashcroft would be willing to defend laws that he does not agree with is an entirely fair question. Since Ashcroft is currently the AG, the answer to that question was apparently, “Yes, he is willing to defend laws he personally disagrees with.” To call this “religious intolerance” is comically inept.
Do we need to hold the hiring process to this standard? As the article states, he wasn’t invited back for a second interview partially for his beliefs. If his beliefs had him eliminated in a first-round interview, whereas a candidate who did not hold his beliefs was invited to a second-round interview but not hired, wouldn’t this be sufficient to imply discrimination?
Again, the fact that he believes that homosexuality is a sin was factored against him in not extending him an invitation to a second round of interviews should be sufficient. He may not have been extended a job offer no matter what his beliefs, but is it not discriminatory to cut someone off earlier in the hiring process than their merit would mandate for their personal beliefs?
I called it a relgious attack. To accuse someone of being ineligible for a job because of his religion sure sounds like an attack to me.
Furthermore it’s un-Constitutional to apply a religious test for a government job.
It was appropriate to ask if he could enforce laws that differ from his religious belief. It would have been appropriate to ask Miller the corresponding question about his religion and dealing with gays.
I don’t mind attacking religion. After all scientology is a religion. To accuse someone of being ineligible for a job because of his religion is fine if that religion makes him ineligible. Its no more a religious attack than accusing christans of believing in sin. Its only bigotry when you are wrong.
If a person’s religious beliefs would make them less capable or likley to fully carry out their position than someone without those beliefs, then they should not be considered for the position. Regardless of what type of position it is.
It sure is, although I don’t know why you are bringing that up. Stanford coaching is not a government job, and Ashcroft got the job he was applying for.
Sorry, but that does not constitute a religious attack. As you said yourself, it is approriate to inquire whether a person can enforce a law that conflicts with his beliefs.
In fact, Ashcroft has made it clear that he will go against the mandate of the people of Oregon and prosecute doctors and users of medical marijuana as well as our assisted suicide law.
Both of these were voted in by the people of Oregon, and now he is going against state’s rights.
Now… I wouldn’t venture into that cess-pool of a mind to try and mine out what he is thinking(not to mention I might be trapped into hearing yet another of his songs), but I would have to wonder if his intolerance and desire to ignore the chosen will of the electorate might stem from his rigid views.
If I were to apply for the position of Executive Director of Exodus International, the notorious ex-gay ministry, would they be justified in asking me for my views on the morality of homosexuality? And for rejecting me as a candidate, not on the basis of my qualifications, but because I didn’t believe that what they were doing was morally proper or in most cases effective?
How does my stance differ from Brown’s, if it does? How does the hypothetical stance of Exodus differ from Stanford’s stance, if it does?
The question is if all prospective AGs are asked this question. I doubt that any AG has supported every law. Most cops can rattle off a list of laws they think are stupid. Would this question be asked of a Jewish or Atheist candidate? Has it ever been asked before?
