Appalling

“Free” Methodist Church?

Christian liberal arts education?

Hardly “christian"...certainly not liberal...what a crock. They should be ashamed.

E. Ponimus, at 8:30 am EDT on March 14, 2007

On The Other Hand ...

There follows the entirety of an InsideHigherEd comment by Julie Nemecek, at 8:25 am EST on February 7, 2007 ... oh yes, with a short note that I added.

“Hanging Tough

Joanne and I have decided to not ride off into the sunset but ‘hang tough’ for three reasons: (1) I love the work and my co-workers, (2) if we leave bigotry wins again, and (3) we truly feel God’s prompting and presence in the battle to see this through. I know the last may sound hokey, but that is also part of the transsexual, feminist, activist, Christian woman I am! :) [On the other hand, if Spring Arbor will cough up a bundle, then (1) my co-workers will get along just fine without me, (2) I’m willing to let bigotry have its small victories, and (3) I was mistaken, what I though was God tickling me back there was just my empty billfold bouncing around in my back pocket ... I mean when I was a man.]”

Frizbane Manley, at 1:01 pm EDT on March 14, 2007

re: E. Ponimous

Does Spring Arbor not have the right to define “free” and “Christian” as it sees fit ("free” in this context has nothing to do with what you imply it should, unless you’re just being ironic)? Or is it acceptable to practice a different kind of oppressive totalitarianism that excludes points of view on the ethics of sexuality that differ from those held by the prevailing subculture of the academy.

Spring Arbor’s action may have been no more onerous than those taken by other universities in response to actions that in their context are offensive or controversial. It’s their view of ethics, not their actions, to which you really object. That’s fine, but just be honest about it.

The real question for the higher education community is whether we can tolerate institutions whose morays differ from what currently prevails. Moral indignation about actions taken by people who have a different view of morality just begs that question.

Contrarian, at 1:06 pm EDT on March 14, 2007

priority change

I hope all sides of this discussion would agree that in the U.S., freedom for and freedom from religion is a principle we hold very dear.

Those outside of the SAU community are not able to have an insider’s view into this situation and its ramifications for our community, any more than a person with traditional gender can have an insider’s view of the discrimination a transgendered person faces. While legally SAU may not qualify for being a religious institution, those who are a part of the community consider it that way, and I believe Julie Marie would at some level.

No one can know the motives of Julie Marie but herself and God. The public can only view what has been circulated by the media.

1) SAU provided gainful and fulfilling employment for Julie Marie for 16 years. The media has repeated over and over again the profound competence this woman has as an educator and dean and the impact she has had on SAU. I have not seen statements about her appreciation for what SAU has provided for her. 2) When SAU initially learned of Julie Marie’s struggles and when she was most emotionally vulnerable, they could have chosen to manipulate the situation and ended her employment quietly through making her job difficult and creating a situation in which she chose to resign. Instead, an attempt was made to accommodate her in what appears to have been good faith. That she could not live with the accommodation is another argument. 3) Her initial self-proclaimed motives for fighting SAU’s decision were to raise consciousness against discriminatory practices 4) The process involved took place behind closed doors with secrecy agreements on both sides. 5) The outcome was a financial settlement benefiting Julie6) Her reaction that has been circulated by the media is one of great joy for her personal gain

Many of is in the Spring Arbor Community hope Julie is successful in fighting discrimination. We also hope she takes more care not to damage religious freedom even if it stands in the way of her personal beliefs.

Opposition to discrimination of any kind would mean that a fundamentalist Christian male with equal qualifications would need to have an equal chance of being president of the National Organization of Women as a woman with progressive political views.

It really doesn’t make sense. Some situations require discrimination based on political/religious views. Many would consider perceptions of gender that an authority figure will be teaching and modeling to be one of those views.

If Julie has the level of professional competence that has been reported in the media, she will not be denied her livelihood and will be able to find other employment.

Spring Arbor Community Resident, at 9:20 am EDT on March 15, 2007

“constitutional responsibility” ??

Mr. Prether, What constitutional responsibility does SAU have?

Larry, at 2:05 pm EDT on March 15, 2007