Search News


Browse Archives

News

Baylor Dismisses Gay Alumnus From Advisory Board

November 10, 2005

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Many colleges would be thrilled to have an alumnus as loyal as Tim Smith.

He graduated from Baylor University in 1983, with a degree in accounting, worked his way up in the business world, picking up a Harvard MBA, working with a venture capital firm, and running a technology company. In the last decade, he has personally given about $65,000 in gifts to Baylor, and he raised another $60,000 to endow a fund in honor of a business colleague and the colleague's wife -- the couple had met at Baylor.

For the last nine years, Smith has given an annual talk in an entrepreneurship class, and for the last five, he has served on the advisory committee for the business school.

But this fall, he received an unexpected call from the business dean telling him he would need to leave the advisory committee because he is gay.

"It makes me very, very sad. Here is a university that I love and that has done a lot of very good things for me. So it's sad, being rejected like that," Smith said. "Also I feel very angry. My money was good enough for them and my time was good enough for them. I haven't changed, but they find out I'm gay and that disqualifies me. That's just wrong."

While Smith is out as a gay man, he says he is "in no way an activist" and never talked about being gay at business school meetings because it never made sense to do so. "We were talking about the curriculum, how to make sure the business school reflected the real world of business. I never thought it was relevant," he said.

Smith's undoing at his alma mater apparently came when a professor asked him why he was moving from Dallas to Charleston. Smith assured the professor that the move would not affect his ability to help the university, and that he was moving to be closer to his partner. Smith said that he heard from the professor that their conversation later came up in a chat between the professor and the dean, Terry Maness.

Maness released a statement explaining why Smith needed to stop advising the business school. "Recently, I asked a member of our advisory board to step down because of his alternative lifestyle," the statement said. "We must be sensitive to the position of our affiliated denomination, the Baptist General Convention of Texas, which has, on previous occasions, stated that a homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with most Baptist interpretations of scripture."

Smith said he would find other places for his philanthropy and his time now. And he said he does not feel any personal bitterness toward Maness, who Smith said faces unfortunate pressure to adhere to anti-gay policies. "No dean at Baylor is ever going to get fired for getting rid of a homosexual, but he does risk his job for retaining one," Smith said.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Baylor Dismisses Gay Alumnus From Advisory Board

  • Was this inevitable?
  • Posted by BJS on November 10, 2005 at 5:43am EST
  • After reading a number of these (red kicks blue, blue kicks red), one is left with the thought: was this inevitable? Being gay in a Baptist college crowd? Look what happens when a Republican is exposed in academia -- he/she gets the same treatment. At least Baylor is private -- no public funds are used, in the seemingly-inevitable legal proceedings.

  • Baylor Dismisses Gay Alumnus
  • Posted by MDS on November 10, 2005 at 7:08am EST
  • Utter nonsense, BJS! What "outed" Republicans have been dismissed from university boards or advisory committees? If Baylor wants to be true to its homophobic principles, it should return all the "tainted" money given and raised by its gay alumnus.

  • Posted by Larry on November 10, 2005 at 11:50am EST
  • I, too, think that BJS just made it up. What is interesting about this situation, as reported, is it means that there are some people on Baylor’s board who really don’t like gay people, and should just come out and say it! None of the usual (questionable) justifications for saying “my best friends are gay but...” apply. He wasn’t seeking civil recognition of his union. He wasn’t even suing anyone.

    So, let’s all be honest: some people hate gay people. Those people that hate gay people should shout out their hatred loudly and proudly, rather than conceal it in vague denunciations about “the institution of marriage” and originalism.

  • Replace "Republican Party" with "Conservatives"
  • Posted by Andrew at Stanford University on November 10, 2005 at 1:22pm EST
  • Just another reason I made a bumper sticker for my car that says: "The Republican Party is Hateful, Intollerant, Hypocritical, Fiscally Irresponsible, and Ethically Bankrupt."

  • Pink Money
  • Posted by normalvision , Prof. of English (ret.) on November 10, 2005 at 1:23pm EST
  • If Baylor was honest and consistent in upholding its beliefs, the institution would give Mr. Smith his donated money back.

    Wanna bet?

  • Don't ask, don't tell
  • Posted by BJS on November 10, 2005 at 1:24pm EST
  • "What “outed” Republicans have been dismissed from university boards or advisory committees?"

    Merely stating facts, people --

    Case in point: Regular military marches in gay rights parade with own uniform -- he/she is out. Don't tell -- status quo.

    Not taking position -- just stating facts. If you have problems with facts -- might want to find another field, like talk show host on Air America or Fox Radio.

    As to Baptist convention, Boston Catholics, Methodist leadership -- another social-cultural reality: it is their personal belief that heterosexuality is one matter and homosexuality is another. To the end, they will stand on their position.

    Unfortunately, some people can't accept that and think they have the right to abuse the party --

    http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1080568316.shtml

    Yet more evidence for the need to charter education out of the public litigation arena.

  • Hello, Larry Summers!
  • Posted by BJS on November 10, 2005 at 1:24pm EST
  • Looking for non-leftists, hounded in and out of academia? Try these (data not checked):

    http://www.nas.org/

    http://www.academia.org/

    http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/

    http://www.thefire.org/

  • It's a Baptist school
  • Posted by Sheila Crowe , Liberal Christian on November 10, 2005 at 1:25pm EST
  • It's a Baptist school; Baptists adhere to Biblical principles. The Bible (God's Word)defines appropriate sexual relationships as between a man and a woman with the covenant of marriage between them. The Bible is pretty clear on this. Because of this, they could not keep him on in any advisory capacity. That's the way it is.

  • Posted by EJP , compatibility with scripture on November 10, 2005 at 1:40pm EST
  • Do you think Baylor has ever dismissed someone from their board for coveting the possessions of others? because that's also an abomination. Deuteronomy 7:25 "thou shalt not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein; for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God."

  • no specifics from BJS
  • Posted by Larry on November 10, 2005 at 2:23pm EST
  • BJS, Since you did not present a single name, I think that you still made it up. Providing links is no substitute for providing the specific names of Republican faculty or advisors that have been expelled because of their political affiliation. (Of course, it is quite possible that this fellow was a Republican and gay, but was only expelled because he is gay.)

    Shelia, The Bible is somewhat ambiguous about these issues, but, as we can see, not all religious institutions think the bible requires them to expel gay people – and some think that it requires them to provide them with health benefits ! Since it is impossible to get an objective reading of what constitutes the “correct” religion, I think that people should proudly declare that they don’t like gay people – even if they are discrete about it – and stop hiding behind a bible (which they selectively quote from).

  • The Christian Dichotomy Disguised as Ideology
  • Posted by Vince , EEO/AA Coordinator on November 10, 2005 at 3:22pm EST
  • I suppose IF homosexuality were a sin, Christians at Baylor would have the inherent abiltiy to "Love the sinner and hate the sin." Was dismissing Smith an act of love. I think not. So, homosexualiity, as matter of life and not choice, its "acceptable" to hate the person. Makes me wonder... What would Jesus REALLY do? He probably wouldn't apply to Baylor and if he did, he'd probably be dismissed for not wearing trousers!

  • Sinners need not apply
  • Posted by huntly on November 10, 2005 at 4:51pm EST
  • I'm with Sheila: everyone who violates a single tenet of the old or new testament should be shunned by all Christian people and banned from their schools and administrative positions.

    That would include:

    Artists & photographers ("You shall not make for yourself a graven image")

    Football players ("Remember the sabbath day")

    Soldiers ("You shall not kill")

    Divorcees w/new spouses("You shall not commit adultery")

    The Secretaries of State, Defense, and Homeland Security ("You shall not utter a false report")

    George W. Bush ("You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor")

    White people, straight people, Christians, oh, and everyone else ("You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him")

    Congratulations, Sheila, you're the new Advisory Board of Baylor University!

  • wow
  • Posted by Sheila Crowe , Liberal Christian on November 10, 2005 at 6:49pm EST
  • Thanks for that appointment, Huntley, but it wouldn't fit MY lifestyle.

    It's funny what people have assumed about me from that short post. Maybe it's because I used the "G" word, capitalized and everything.

    I never once said that I am in agreement with Baylor's business school. I merely said that I'm a "liberal Christian" and talked about some of what Baptists stand for. Never agreed or disagreed with Mr. Smith's removal. You guys are a funny bunch (and, no, I am not assuming you are all men). I'm guessing you thought my use of the word "liberal" in front of my label was tongue-in-cheek?

    The Bible takes a definitive stand on lots of issues; it's not really all that ambiguous.

    Baylor is a Baptist school; Baptists believe that the Bible is God's Holy Word. Why is everyone so shocked and appalled that they would reject Smith after revealing that he is gay?

    For the record, I don't hate gay people and I am not promoting the Baptist belief system or any other as the "true" religion; Christianity works for me.

    And I suppose it would depend on in what form the coveting was acted out as to whether the "coveter" should be dismissed from the advisory board. People can covet (which, as EJP pointed out is also a sin) but not act upon it. EJP, you might have been better off quoting the "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" scripture instead.

    Also for the record...and because you all seem to be so interested...here is the standard that I try to live up to:

    (Gal 5:22-23) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; against such there is no law.

    It's a good thing to strive for. I'm not hiding anything.

  • Shocked and Appalled
  • Posted by huntly on November 10, 2005 at 9:33pm EST
  • No one's "shocked" by the actions of Baylor University, Sheila--we're appalled. Appalled at the hypocrisy; appalled at the self-righteousness; appalled at the startling lack of sophistication displayed by "liberal Christians," "compassionate conservatives," or what have you, in reading, interpreting, or applying their own scriptures. Notice how the bible is always "clear" only on issues that suit the conservative social agenda, but mysteriously unclear when it comes to interpreting those prohibitions that good Christians violate on a daily basis. Somehow gays and liberals are the only ones who need to be held accountable to scripture, while the administrators who make these decisions have managed to stay clear of "sin." Please...sell me some beachfront property in Arizona while you're at it! When good Christians start holding their own leaders (and themselves) accountable to the same standards that they apply to others, then maybe the rest of us will take such "principled" stands as the one Baylor has taken a little more seriously. Ask George Bush to step down, then tell me it's okay to dismiss gay people from their well-earned positions in our schools, churches, and communities.

  • Define "clear"
  • Posted by david on November 11, 2005 at 11:07am EST
  • Sheila wrote:
    "Baptists adhere to Biblical principles. The Bible (God’s Word)defines appropriate sexual relationships as between a man and a woman with the covenant of marriage between them. The Bible is pretty clear on this."

    The Bible (God's Word) also defines appropriate sexual relationships as between a brother and sister (Cain and his wife), a father and his daughter (Lot, Jacob), a man and his servant (Abram, Jacob), an unruly mob and one's daughters (Lot, again), a man and his daughter-in-law (Judah -- or maybe the appropriate sexual relationship in this case was with a prostitute, since that's how Tamar disguised herself), etc., etc. The problem is not that the Baylor Baptists could find a scriptural rationale, it's that they would claim the particular passage(s) they took out of context are evidence that the "Bible is pretty clear on this" (your thoughts, I know, not theirs -- although I'm sure that's their feeling, too), when they don't agree that the Bible is clear on many things it really IS clear on, which don't match their particular biases.

  • Discrimination everywhere?
  • Posted by BJS on November 11, 2005 at 11:19am EST
  • Just for the record:

    I recently applied to teach at a small religious college. Follow-up materials noted (in small print) that members of their faith received prefential treatment in hiring (like in Canada).

    Should I be upset? Set off furor that involves Larry's law firm? (I bet his pocketbook would like that.)

    Nah. Life's too short.

    And when you're untenured and without a contract -- engaging in a pissing match would end your career, before it began.

    I'm sure there are those who are about to say, "yeah, but this is about being gay .."

    IMHO, I don't think anyone cares about you being gay, until it starts costing them money (e.g., litigation, additional benefits) or their personal beliefs are demeaned. Example: Mary Cheney -- I don't care that she's gay.

    Given the aforementioned -- did you really think other people -- the Baptists, Boston Catholics -- were NOT going to push back? Just say, "OK, we're going to do what you say? We'll just give up 500 years of religious/cultural thought."

    C'mon -- is that realistic?

  • David
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on November 11, 2005 at 1:12pm EST
  • David, did you bother checking which ones of these relationships were considered good?

    Cain's was accepted for lack of alternative, Lot's daughters and the mob was an attempt to prevent the murder of his guests - it otherwise would not be appropriate (in biblical context, it demostrates the length Lot is willing to go to uphold hospitality), and Judah is cursed by his father and "in the sight of the Lord" for his actions.

    Second, even if you were to believe these actions were appropriate (which seems to fly in the face of the evidence), the Baptist church likely disagrees. As the University is a Baptist one, it is their cultural values, and no one elses, that is relevant to their decisions.

  • Ol' Lar never lets facts get in his way
  • Posted by BJS , Supreme Commander at "Larry is jejune" campaign on November 12, 2005 at 5:27am EST
  • "BJS, Since you did not present a single name, I think that you still made it up."

    Larry -- there were dozens of cases of "blue kicks red" in those URLs. Your issue is, you never read anything that diverges from your university exec-mgt/client mind-set. Your command of facts have been challenged several times, and you have never responded in a commanding, authoritive manner. You just attack with your own view of the facts.

    If, as the poet Garth Brooks notes, "tommorrow never comes," I hope to have actually seen a reply from you that indicates that you actually read and thought about what someone else has written.

    - 30 -

    P.S.: IHE, thank you for the advertiser-supported bandwidth

  • Still no specifics.
  • Posted by Larry on November 12, 2005 at 10:59am EST
  • BJS, I am not sure what you mean by “responding in a commanding and authoritative manner” but you still refuse to provide the actual name of one person who was dismissed solely because he was a Republican or straight or whatever passes for “bad” these days in the world that you think exists in some states. Therefore, I don't think you know a single name, since you have not written one. URL don't count.

    (Long ago, I learned to never click on a URL, unless I am told exactly what that URL will prove, in advance. So, for example, you would have to tell me. “For example, Joe Jones was fired from his position as a visiting professor of Chemistry at Yankee College, because, in a statement in the following URL, the President Smith declared 'Professor Jones' Republican-party membership is not compatible with our school's mission.” Then you would need to provide the URL of Professor Smith's statement.)

    This Baylor situation is somewhat unique, as the school was up front and honest about why they were kicking him. Most of the time, people are kicked, and then a month or so later figure out that they were kicked not because of the low quality of their work or the inability to get along with their colleagues, but because of “anti-Republican racism.” (I admit that “not playing well with others” is subjective, but it is, for better or worse, a valid reason to deny remove someone from most positions.)

  • The world, according to ol' Lar
  • Posted by BJS , Bored at Larry's intractable legalisms on November 12, 2005 at 8:30pm EST
  • Someone pops-off as frequently about FIRE as ol' Lar -- and doesn't recognize their URL?

    Dang .. ol' Lar must be right. Academia is filled with nothing but right-wing Republicans who have managed NOT to see Mr. W.A. Churchill, Dr. Shortell, Dr. Crystall, Dr. Hettle, et al.

    So -- all those ridiculous statistical studies about soft-side academia being 95% comprised of myopic left-wingers -- what a scam! Silly me -- and darn that ol' IHE for printing all those covert Bush Administration PR statements.

    Maybe ol' Lar ought to go into comedy -- like the old Jack Benny character ("I'm thinking, I'm thinking").

    Thank you, IHE advertisers, for your bandwidth support. Mrs. Calabash, I'm coming home!

  • can't you name just one person ?
  • Posted by Larry on November 13, 2005 at 9:50am EST
  • BJS, Still no specifics. The first name you mentioned, a Mr. Churchill was not fired for being a Republican. You have not named a single person who was fired because he was a Republican. URLs don't count. Why?

    Listing URLs is a classic trolling device. Unless you explain what the URL is there to prove – in this case the 1) name; and 2) motivation for dismissal – I think that you are just providing links to vague complaints about academe. (And I can generate those on my computer. And, let's face it, Churchill has been blamed for everything and anything by now.)

    But, if you are going to link to a specific statement from a university official saying “We don't want any Republicans here after sundown” (preferably on the school's own website) or some sort of document which would state that, then, by all means, go ahead.

  • Ol' Lar's yappin' about FIRE in IHE
  • Posted by BJS , Havin' too much fun at Ol' Lar's expense on November 13, 2005 at 2:23pm EST
  • Hey, Lar -- in case you forget, your favorite playmates' URL is:

    http://www.thefire.org

    And to trace back you, about FIRE, here's a rough cut --

    http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Larry&num=100&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=FIRE&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=insidehighered.com&as_rights=&safe=images

    Have a nice day, with your supervising counsel, managing partner, and client counsel.

  • One of a million
  • Posted by BJS , Ol' Lar's best pal at Small College on November 14, 2005 at 7:13am EST
  • Dang .. I'm feeling sorry for ol' Lar .. it must be hard, charging Mid-Size University $275/hour for this kind of work .. so, folks, here's one in a million ..

    http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/06/28/indiana

    BTW: he's quit. Too many Republicans there for him to make a difference -- NOT!!!

  • Posted by Larry on November 14, 2005 at 8:17am EST
  • BJS, The story you give is, like many, based on conjecture from a spurned party about why they were denied tenure – only, as IHE points out, Mr. Bradford wasn’t even up for tenure. People are dismissed from positions all the time. Sometimes for financial reasons. Sometimes for lack of ability or performance. Indeed, usually when someone feels they shouldn’t have dismissed from any position they think of any possible reason they might have been fired. (Or their supporters do this for them.)

    In Baylor’s case, they came out and admitted it. I have been challenging you to find a dismissal of someone for the stated reason that: he was a Republican.

    You gave a bunch of links to stories that were either irrelevant, or where people cook up some view about why they don’t have their job after the fact.

    In Bradford’s case, like many others, there are conjectures, conspiracy theories, and the usual amount of misguided journalism.

    So, the hunt continues: who was fired, because the president said they were a Republican.

    (For most people I know “Democrat” and “Republican” don’t mean too much, so I don’t understand your obsession with it. People donate to both parties, and rarely identify themselves with one or the other. Instead, parties are ways to communicate complicated issues to the masses. But, I realize our different views of the importance of political parties may be cultural.)

  • Posted by Virginia Murr on November 14, 2005 at 11:47am EST
  • I find the idea that anyone can be dismissed from a position based upon sexual orientation to be so far beyond acceptability that I am nearly speechless! Religious beliefs aside, what will happen in this country if our opportunity to contribute time and talent to others is limited by the judgment of others about our personal lives. If anyone is to be excluded, the people who should be excluded are those that would further the hate agenda, that would teach college students that the Christian religion is about being exclusive and that they should reject others. Please refer to all of the red print in the Bible that clearly shows Christ to be inclusive of all people. What a sad report this is.

  • 1/1,000,000, Pt II
  • Posted by BJS , Still Ol' Lar's best pal at the laughing-gas tank on November 14, 2005 at 10:05pm EST
  • Dang, Lar .. 1,000,000 posts about Dr. Bradford, former U.S. Army Reserve ..

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=William+Bradford+law+indiana&btnG=Google+Search

    .. and you're possibly the only one, who's implied he could be a non-Republican .. dang ..

    Lar .. what else can be said? You're super-human .. your boss, your supervising counsel, must be satisfied (or exhausted, or both) ..

    Next time O.J. or Scott Peterson gets in trouble, they should call you .. "if there's no recording, they'll be out by morning .."

    Also: be sure, Warner Bros. pays you, for use of your persona for Wile E. Coyote ("road runner/the coyote's after you/road runner/if he captures you, you're through")

  • Posted by Larry on November 15, 2005 at 7:10am EST
  • BJS, I generally don’t use Google. If you want to provide a statement from a college official which states that they fired or disciplined someone because they are a Republican, go ahead. You did not. You insulted me.

    Maybe this speaks well of Baylor. Maybe they have the guts to say they are firing someone because of his homosexuality. This isn’t new. Baylor, in my mind, is full of bigots. It is honest, and much easier for their lawyers to defend than a ham-handed coverup (but it probably will never come to a lawsuit, anyway.)

  • 10 Minutes From Crawford
  • Posted by Matt from Atlanta/Waco , A Reverend, Queer, and Formerly of Baylor at Formerly of Baylor University on November 18, 2005 at 9:06am EST
  • Mr. Smith's dismissal has nothing to do with being a Republican; Baylor once boasted the largest College Republican chapter in the State of Texas. Furthermore, I know only a handful of professors there who are not either social conservatives or Republican. This school celebrates the "Right."

    As for the Bible and gays: the notion that Christian Scripture is "clear" on this or any issue isn't completely honest. All things, from the Constitution to the Bible to the meaning of CNN/USA Today Polls, require interpretation and the acknowledgment of a "margin of error." At the end of the day, some interpretations are correct, some incorrect, but on this issue, the Bible must be debated.

    Herein lies the problem as far as Baylor is concerned: the University is unable to allow for dialogue on this (and many other) issues. For a university to be truly a university, it must allow its students, alumni, professors, and others the freedom to come to positions of conscience (i.e., that being gay is okay).

    Ironically, the whole denomination has its roots in celebrating the freedom of individuals to come to positions of conscience. Baylor's own website confirms this heritage, and then removes students, alumni, professors (though this one hasn't made news, yet) and Starbuck's coffee cups that attempt to defend positions of conscience. Rather than engage in debate, they'd rather deny the existence of any challenging perspective.

    And that, my friends is the real sad thing about all of this: Baylor just isn't serious about that little thing that makes education possible--academic freedom--nor is it serious about its heritage as a Baptist institution--insofar as it burns folks at the stake for exercising their conscience.

  • Exercise in futility?
  • Posted by R.A.S. on November 20, 2005 at 5:31pm EST
  • Regarding this:

    "Rather than engage in debate, they’d rather deny the existence of any challenging perspective."

    IMHO, a reality-based view:

    If the Boston Catholics that I know are any indication, that is a statement in futility.

    IMHO, the Pope is NOT going to debate sexual preference -- he's got hundreds of years of tradition, doctrine, and interpretation behind him.

    It would be like expecting him to debate abortion or birth control -- not going to happen for decades.

    This Culture Wars II situation is really resource-draining. To wit:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/national/20christian.html

    Faith is one matter -- facts another.

    P.S.: IHE -- thanks for the advertiser-supported bandwidth. You stay classy.