In preparing to speak at Baylor last night on the topic of my recent Huffington Post article, I pondered an important question: If I am going to be critical of Baylor’s policy on gays and lesbians, what alternative should I suggest? Criticism without an idea of reform, after all, is just yelling.
My main criticism of Baylor’s current policy is that it is not principled. In short, the school asserts that it has rules which only allow sex within marriage for both faculty and students, but these rules are (outside the dorms) unenforced. Student athletes are largely given a pass, for example, even when fathering children, and the biblical mandate that remarriage after divorce is adultery is wholly ignored. Most importantly, unmarried straight students who want to be sexually active move off campus, with little fear that they will be caught in fornication. Gay students living off campus have a higher level of fear.
The result is that Baylor sends two problematic messages. First, there is the widespread (though possibly incorrect) belief that the policy will be used to arbitrarily punish student gays and lesbians. Second, there is the correct perception that if you are gay, you need not apply for a job with Baylor (though heterosexuals do not have their sex lives examined in the same way).
In contrast to Baylor’s policy of having strict rules and then not enforcing them, let’s look at two more principled alternatives.
The first I call principled exclusion. BYU (a school I admire and enjoy visiting), for example, has a rule of principled exclusion of those who engage in extra-marital sex, and enforces these rules evenly and actively. Most notably (and properly, by their principles), BYU kicked one of their best players off the basketball team right before the NCAA tournament for violating the sex rules. This is a key point: As BYU well knows, a principled intolerance requires sacrifice by the institution, not just by the students of faculty who would be sanctioned. Importantly, the same rules must apply to all, straight or gay, athlete or not.
The second model is inclusion, which is what we have at St. Thomas (and, from what I understand, is the policy at Notre Dame). I describe this model in the Huffington Post article.
Either of these is far closer to Christian principles than an arbitrary, rarely enforced policy like Baylor's, which can give far too much play to prejudice. This problem was articulated well (in a different context) in the first three opinions in Furman v. Georgia (1972).
Which should Baylor choose? Or is the current model of strict rules and uneven enforcement fair?
As a BYU and Baylor grad, I prefer BYU's policies. If you'd like to understand the reasons for BYU's policies, I'd refer you to the following links:
ReplyDeletehttp://lds.org/study/topics/chastity?lang=eng
http://lds.org/study/topics/homosexuality?lang=eng
http://lds.org/study/topics/family?lang=eng
Whom would Jesus exclude? Lepers, tax collectors, Samaritans, children? Who falls outside the loving embrace of God, creator of the universe and evey living soul?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAsh-- I do think there is, for many students, the perception of real danger if it becomes known that you are gay (though it varies widely, and hopefully is changing), and I did base this on evidence: The emails I got from my own former students who described exactly that. I believe them. Whether that fear has a genuine basis or not, Baylor needs to alleviate it.
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of that fear (merited or not) would be alleviated by recognition of a student group and the hiring of gays and lesbians as faculty.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear Waco Farmer,
ReplyDeleteMy gay neighbor whose apartment was across from mine at the corner of 4th & Bagby sure seemed to live in fear. If he wasn't fearful, I'm not sure why he hid behind my truck and looked around first before kissing his boyfriend goodbye....
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHere's my three cents having attended Baylor as an undergraduate and at law school. The impression I got was that Baylor wasn't really that interested in policing its human sexuality policies, as applied to any type of sexual orientation. There were no auditors at fraternity or sorority parties, and no monitoring of students who lived off campus to see if they were having sex outside of wedlock or with a partner of the opposite sex. Maybe others have had different experiences.
ReplyDeleteI would be interested in examples of what Baylor has done to students when it becomes aware of a homosexual or bisexual student or of a student having sex outside of marriage. The only concrete example I know of was that of a male homosexual who either was expelled or had his scholarship revoked from Truitt Seminary. I don't know if he was open about his sexuality or challenged the administration's stance on these issues. I know of no adverse consequence as applied to students having sex out of wedlock.
I do agree with you that Baylor does turn a blind eye to its student athletes, particularly the football program. There is a certain amount of hypocricy there.
As to faculty and staff, I'd agree that your chances of getting hired if you're openly homosexual or bisexual is not that great. I'd be surpirsed if the administration asks that question in its interview process though. I also know that Baylor also looked (and probably still looks) to hire Christian faculty, and you were at a disadvantage if you were not religious, and that that question was asked in interviews.
As to change, I don't know that those in power view leniency towards homosexuals, bisexuals, or sex outside of marriage to be compatible with what Southern Baptists (or Baptists to the extent there is a difference) believe, and therefore would not advocate change. I'm not an expert on Baptist dogma though, so I could be off on that point. I know there is certainly a good amount of people who believe that "sinners" should be loved and included as exemplified by Jesus's actions and teachings.
I think it's an important issue for Baylor to grapple with and I applaud your efforts to do so. Perhaps there are professors currently at Baylor who have the courage to raise these issues.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSexual identity has pretty well been proven to be a genetic condition, like color, hair, eyes, height, etc.
ReplyDeleteWhy someone should be expected to change or ignore their hardwired orientation boggles the mind. As well demand that all blacks become white, or that Rick Perry become a practicing homosexual. The entire premise is ludicrous.
For a religion that professes love and acceptance for all who enter into a relationship with Jesus Christ, the christian church has a very poor track record!
Lee
I don't know about hypocrisy with student athletes Michael. We both knew someone in college that had a baby and still attended and graduated from Baylor. And she was not married. And I doubt she was the only example.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with Michael. I went to Baylor for 7 years. I had several gay friends in undergrad, and I had several gay friends in law school. I also had a whole host of friends that were engaging in coitus with the opposite sex. I never once, in the entire time I went to Baylor, experienced any enforcement of the morality codes in the Baylor Handbook. We used to joke about them actually. They also prohibit drinking, but I don't see Baylor PD at Scruffys every Friday night to roundup offenders of that rule either. They know the handbook is being violated, and they just don't watch very closely.
For example, in this article from the February Lariat this year a female student identifies herself as gay. And she was trying to organize a group dealing with gay/lesbian issues. And yet, I'm sure she graduated without incident.
http://baylorlariat.com/2011/02/25/3595/
Baylor is a school that projects one image to the outside world, but in my experience is pretty much like any other college in terms of social issues when you're actually on campus. A bit more conservative, yes, which in my experience can make some overly emotive liberal students act dramatic about the "oppressive" administration. But the reality is that the administration has better things to do than worry about who is kissing who.
As a student at St Thomas I can speak primarily to our culture. As a Catholic Law School no student of whatever sexual identity is confused about where the Diocese stands on the issue of homosexuality. Yet, as a Christian school the issue of sexual identity is left between student and God. As followers of Jesus we can only hope that our fellow sinners find lives of love and peace.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that a Christian institution condemns certain behavior is in keeping with religious beliefs. The idea that a Christian institution ostracizes and provides no outlet for support and guidance is not. There is a great distance between promoting a lifestyle and excepting the reality that the lifestyle exists and that people in the community are suffering in judgment from the community. I suggest that their unaddressed suffering is the greater affront to Christianity.
Baylor mis-characterizes Christ's teachings if they chose exclusion over inclusion. And frankly Baylor doesn't have to reform the Baptist church to change its policies; they just have to behave like a place that understands that young, intelligent, vulnerable people go there start their lives.
@ Lee:
ReplyDeleteHow do you reconcile your statement with the APA's position on causation (below)?
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx
Other Kendall
Baylor's supposed intolerance is overblown; I am an atheist (and said so on my application) and they still let me attend. The only time it was an issue was a discussion with one of my fellow undergrads that didn't understand how I could be an atheist.
ReplyDeleteThe culture isn't that generally open and accepting of things that deviate from the norm. But its not oppressive either. It's par for the course for small-city Texas. If you want cosmopolitan, go to one of the big cities, or better yet, out of state.
What I can't understand is why a gay or lesbian person would want to associate with an organization that makes it so blatantly clear that they are not wanted and not welcome there. Baylor may be a lot of things, but tolerant and accepting of all students it is most definitely not. For me, the question is less a matter of "what should Baylor do with regards to gay students," and more "what does Baylor have to offer gay students that they can't find at a more tolerant place?"
ReplyDeleteI realize this has nothing to do with your question, but it's always been something that's crossed my mind when the Baylor/gay students issue is brought up.
Justin - you took the words out of my mouth. Especially since Baylor is a private univesity.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne can be pulled into all kinds of debates about what the bible says about homosexuality, about the rights of private institutions, about being true to Baptist traditions, about the nature of homosexuality (nature/nurture), about students self-selecting more embracing schools … all worthy debates … yet it strikes me the core question is this, “is it Christian to exclude anyone from HIS table (and particularly so for those that identify as Christians/believers)?” There are no asterisks/qualifiers associated with the Second Commandment. None. Christ was an outsider from the lowly provinces, and the vast majority of his ministry was to and with outsiders … to those that were socially invisible and that stood at the margins. His ministry was not about tolerance, about qualified or conditional love, rather about an inclusive love beyond words. He was the stranger on the road to Emmaus that the two apostles failed to “see” and acknowledge until they invited him in at the end of the day and broke bread with him. How often do we all fail to acknowledge Christ in the other … and fail to acknowledge Christ in those that are different and strange to us? The issue is not to vilify Baylor, rather to raise a fundamentally important question for any institution that claims to be Christian, as Baylor does.
ReplyDeleteHi Mark,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate how you meted the options. I propose that Baylor and private institutions may follow the model of "principled exclusion" while all public institutions should follow the model or "inclusion." I also agree that no institution should delineate strict rules but enforce them inconsistently.
I meant to write, 'the model [of] "inclusion."'
ReplyDeleteAnyway, after reading Anonymous : 12:49 AM, I see that Baylor allows atheist students, so this is more complicated than I thought at first glance. Assuming that post is accurate, then Baylor should allow all interested atheists into the student body without excluding homosexual and bisexual atheists. Perhaps Baylor could stick to principled exclusion for faculty only or faculty and seminary students only.