homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:07 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:59 pm 
Offline
Is now cool
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 3495
Home Schooled: Yes
Last I checked, they also had separate sidewalks for men and women, and you could get in trouble with your RA for holding eye contact with someone of the opposite gender for longer than five seconds.

But unfortunately, if we're going to start boycotting schools for being overly-restrictive and having huge sex scandals, just about every Christian college would be boycotted for nationals.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:16 pm 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1379
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
Sidenote: I personally find it super hilarious that BJU has such restrictive rules on media and in general, but that Bob Jones himself was a huge fan of Shakespeare, which has a TON of objectionable material BJU should technically ban based on their mindset.

But I digress. If I'm reading the handbook correctly, I think all those rules and regulations only apply to enrolled students at the university, Shayne. Not sure how BJU would go about enforcing a complete and total ban on music, above-PG movies, and computer wallpapers they deem inappropriate among the Stoan populace. If they try to do that and/or throw out competitors because of their rules on BJU students...that would probably be the biggest scandal of Stoa's 6-year existence, and I would be quite upset personally, either if BJU ejects them, or Stoa, or both. But I doubt that's going to happen. Could any NCFCA people from 2009 confirm or deny this?

Also, speaking of 2009...for all the people who are still fuming over BJU:

+X wrote:
But unfortunately, if we're going to start boycotting schools for being overly-restrictive and having huge sex scandals, just about every Christian college would be boycotted for nationals.


Yes, they have restrictive rules and a very bad history. I don't deny or downplay that at all or at all approve of their past and present actions. The handbook is quite oppressive and stifling indeed. Still...I don't have any nicer way of saying this, but...get over yourselves. It's just a facility. Stoa was able to get a good deal at BJU, and that's where NITOC is this year. Sorry. By your guys' standards, practically every higher institution of learning should be banned from consideration for hosting NITOC.

inb4 rage comments spam me, calling me a combination of names

_________________
http://www.ebsd.us/

As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. -Psalm 42:1


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:58 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
+X wrote:
But unfortunately, if we're going to start boycotting schools for being overly-restrictive and having huge sex scandals, just about every Christian college would be boycotted for nationals.
Eh? To pick a random example, '07 Nats was at UMHB, which (AFAIK) has no major sex scandals and a mostly pretty sensible student handbook.

You'll probably find something to disagree with in pretty much every university's policies, but honestly, places like UMHB and Baylor are worlds away from BJU.

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:40 pm 
Offline
Tsarcastic
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 3512
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Under my own vine and fig tree
+X wrote:
Last I checked, they also had separate sidewalks for men and women, and you could get in trouble with your RA for holding eye contact with someone of the opposite gender for longer than five seconds.

But unfortunately, if we're going to start boycotting schools for being overly-restrictive and having huge sex scandals, just about every Christian college would be boycotted for nationals.


We could always have Nationals at Concordia University, Irvine where they treat students like adults. But then again I'm biased.

_________________
"It is not possible to choose between injustice and disorder. They are synonyms." -- Nicolás Gómez Dávila

~IM_R


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:17 am 
Offline
Forerunner
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:45 am
Posts: 1090
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Locations are too mainstream
Funny story: My anatomy teacher went to BJU and said since dancing is banned there, the drama department just calls it "Choreographed Movement."

_________________
NCFCA debate and speech alumni
Former homeschooler
Joel Thomas
Liberty University


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:32 am 
Offline
Guardian of the Black Room
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:05 am
Posts: 878
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: 127.0.0.1
ShaynePC wrote:
I was being semi-sarcastic about applying the rules to Stoans. Haha they would never do that, since the whole idea of having the tournament there is to get students to come.

Isn't it common practice for competitors to shake hands before a match? ::gasp:: There might be contact between unmarried men/women! :lol:

_________________
"The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits"
- G.K. Chesterton


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:52 am 
Offline
Tsarcastic
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 3512
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Under my own vine and fig tree
anorton wrote:
ShaynePC wrote:
I was being semi-sarcastic about applying the rules to Stoans. Haha they would never do that, since the whole idea of having the tournament there is to get students to come.

Isn't it common practice for competitors to shake hands before a match? ::gasp:: There might be contact between unmarried men/women! :lol:



And to think! It may be between a white woman and a black man! Oh mah lawd, I do declare I have the vapors!

_________________
"It is not possible to choose between injustice and disorder. They are synonyms." -- Nicolás Gómez Dávila

~IM_R


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2015 6:47 pm 
Offline
Evil Democrat
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:23 am
Posts: 3334
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Advancing the gay agenda
Dang this hits me right in the childhood. I remember the outrage on this board about BJU. This is incredibly ironic.

_________________
josephsamelson.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2015 9:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
But unfortunately, if we're going to start boycotting schools for being overly-restrictive and having huge sex scandals, just about every Christian college would be boycotted for nationals.

Yeah, they'd have to boycott schools like BJU, and Pensicola, and...uh...lets see...

Seriously though, this is an awful generalization to make that is a bit on the offensive side.

On a side note, I was told that this whole thing about inter-racial dating was actually put in place because parents of minority students at BJU didn't want their children marrying white people. Not sure this is true.

EDIT: just confirmed this with Andrew (Pumaman). So really, it was very silly of STOA to break off because of this rule. The minorities wanted it, so it's not exactly discriminatory against minorities. :P

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 06, 2015 6:25 am 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
Cyberknight wrote:
On a side note, I was told that this whole thing about inter-racial dating was actually put in place because parents of minority students at BJU didn't want their children marrying white people. Not sure this is true.

EDIT: just confirmed this with Andrew (Pumaman). So really, it was very silly of STOA to break off because of this rule. The minorities wanted it, so it's not exactly discriminatory against minorities. :P


Totally false, regardless of what the rumor mill has churned up. From its founding, BJU prohibited admission for black applicants due to the belief that interracial relationship was something not sanctioned by God, but then in the '70s they allowed married black students with black spouses to be admitted; the whole basis of the discrimination is their own belief and they only made the first change out of fear of losing tax-exempt status. Control-f "interracial" in this SCOTUS holding.

Some selections:

SCOTUS wrote:
Bob Jones University, while permitting unmarried Negroes to enroll as students, denies admission to applicants engaged in an interracial marriage or known to advocate interracial marriage or dating....The sponsors of the University genuinely believe that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage....The University continues to deny admission to applicants engaged in an interracial marriage or known to advocate interracial marriage or dating....The District Court found, on the basis of a full evidentiary record, that the challenged practices of petitioner Bob Jones University were based on a genuine belief that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage.


Further, see this Easter-Sunday sermon preached by Bob Jones, Sr. (the founder and first president of BJU) in which he details the "Biblical case" for segregation and blatantly claims that God does not intend, want, or approve of interracial marriage.

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 06, 2015 7:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
I just talked with Andrew about this. Actually, it's not "totally false." The LA Times writes:

Quote:
The policy arose in the 1950s when an Asian family threatened to sue after their son, a student, almost married a white girl, a school spokesman has said.


Also, even if this weren't the case, it was still kinda dumb to boycott BJU, because that policy was abolished years ago, and pretty much every college in the south used to have racism at some point.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 06, 2015 7:44 pm 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
Cyberknight wrote:
I just talked with Andrew about this. Actually, it's not "totally false." The LA Times writes:

Quote:
The policy arose in the 1950s when an Asian family threatened to sue after their son, a student, almost married a white girl, a school spokesman has said.


Reasons to doubt that:

1. The source is literally Bob Jones III
a. He has massive credibility issues
b. He has made tons of offensive, bigoted statements
2. The claim comes decades after the alleged inception of the policy
3. The claims comes at an incredibly heated time in university history during which the university is universally lambasted for the policy
4. The claim is said on live TV as Bob Jones III rationalizes the policy
5. There is no mention of such reasoning in any document produced by BJU or the courts, and there is no indication of such an occurrence in any statements outside of the anonymous statement
6. No such lawsuit would ever yield liability in court
7. There is documented (read: after hundreds of hours pouring over discovery documents in a legal case that reached the supreme court) reason to believe that the policy was made because of biblical beliefs
8. There is a history of racist policy prior to 1950
9. BJU admitted Asian students from its inception, but did not admit black students
10. In the '70s, the college adopted very detailed rules against interracial relationships (two decades after the alleged Asian-lawsuit incident)
11. In the '70s, the college only admitted black students who were already married to other black people

It's obviously just PR, face-saving material. The evidence overwhelmingly points to racist policies made by racist people at a racist institution. As to your last point, however, about boycotting BJU, I won't offer comment. However, if one were to boycott BJU, I'm sure their reasons for doing so would extend beyond a history of past racism.

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2015 12:49 am 
Offline
Forerunner
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:45 am
Posts: 1090
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Locations are too mainstream
+X wrote:
Last I checked, they also had separate sidewalks for men and women


Not a fan of BJU but this really isn't true, I've been there.

_________________
NCFCA debate and speech alumni
Former homeschooler
Joel Thomas
Liberty University


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2015 4:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
BJU's policy of racism is long held, deeply connected, and fundamentally part of who they are and where they came from.

You know, you can call their policies racist, but they aren't anything like what most people consider racism. It's not like they think certain races are superior to others or something. They just want to protect races and not have them mix, which is only slightly racist at best. Especially since minorities were the main ones that wanted it.

Quote:
Reasons to doubt that:

Aaand you give literally no reasons to doubt it whatsoever. I never disputed the fact that Bob Jones defended the policy on biblical grounds. I merely stated that the policy itself was created because the minorities wanted it that way.

Quote:
2. The claim comes decades after the alleged inception of the policy

So? The claim was still talking about the inception of the policy.

Quote:
3. The claims comes at an incredibly heated time in university history during which the university is universally lambasted for the policy

And yet, a liberal news source quotes it as fact.

Quote:
5. There is no mention of such reasoning in any document produced by BJU or the courts, and there is no indication of such an occurrence in any statements outside of the anonymous statement

I don't know what anonymous statement you're talking about, but just because courts didn't talk about it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Quote:
6. No such lawsuit would ever yield liability in court

Because...

Quote:
7. There is documented (read: after hundreds of hours pouring over discovery documents in a legal case that reached the supreme court) reason to believe that the policy was made because of biblical beliefs

The only thing your evidence you presented said was that BJU defended it on biblical grounds, not that it was created for that reason in the first place.

I will look for actual proof that the LA Times quote is correct though.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2015 5:13 am 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
Cyberknight, I'm not going to have a line-by-line debate with you over that quote. I gave 11 points that could be extrapolated further to disprove the claim that the policy was made entirely on the basis of a lawsuit from an Asian-American family. An analogy for what you're doing is taking the person on trial at their word ("Actually I'm not guilty because...") despite mountains of testimony and evidence against them.

Your initial statement is remarkably dangerous to make and the fact that you persist in clinging to defending the Jones III quote as if it's gospel truth is disheartening. The point of critical thinking aptitude isn't to learn how to play the devil's advocate, it's about finding truth. There is overwhelming evidence of BJU's historical racism, despite the fact that the institution has made changes over the last 15 years. Furthermore, to suggest that races ought to remain separate (let alone on the basis of God's design) is an affront to the Godhead and destroys any progress towards racial reconciliation.

If you truly, truly want to work through this, I would be willing to do so because I consider racial reconciliation an important societal issue and an integral part of the American Christian life.

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 6:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
Cyberknight, I'm not going to have a line-by-line debate with you over that quote. I gave 11 points that could be extrapolated further to disprove the claim that the policy was made entirely on the basis of a lawsuit from an Asian-American family. An analogy for what you're doing is taking the person on trial at their word ("Actually I'm not guilty because...") despite mountains of testimony and evidence against them.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. You're evidence does not even conflict with mine! All your arguments are about how Bob Jones DEFENDED the policy for x reasons. I agree, they did. But what I'm saying is that, when they CREATED the policy, it was because minorities got mad. And yeah, no one would win a lawsuit like that I guess, but they still caved in to pressure from minorities.

Quote:
Your initial statement is remarkably dangerous to make and the fact that you persist in clinging to defending the Jones III quote as if it's gospel truth is disheartening

Ummm...what? I didn't defend anything Jones III said. What on earth? :?

Quote:
Furthermore, to suggest that races ought to remain separate (let alone on the basis of God's design) is an affront to the Godhead and destroys any progress towards racial reconciliation.

Agreed. I never said otherwise.

Quote:
If you truly, truly want to work through this, I would be willing to do so because I consider racial reconciliation an important societal issue and an integral part of the American Christian life.

So do I.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 6:14 pm 
Offline
Forerunner
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:45 am
Posts: 1090
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Locations are too mainstream
Cyberknight wrote:
They just want to protect races and not have them mix, which is only slightly racist at best. Especially since minorities were the main ones that wanted it.


I'm sorry but no no no no no no no.

"Protect Races" ?

"Not have them mix" ?

"Only slightly racist at best" ?

"Only created because a minority wanted it" ?

These two sentences are terribly misled.

_________________
NCFCA debate and speech alumni
Former homeschooler
Joel Thomas
Liberty University


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 6:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Oh my gosh, you guys are totally missing the point! I'm not saying I approve of the policy, or that it was a good idea, or ANYTHING like that.

ALL I'm saying is that this is not "racist" under any traditional, historical use of the word. When you call a college in the south "racist" that typically means they are anti-minority, and have policies that favor white people. BJU didn't do this. They just didn't want interracial dating because they didn't want races to mix. I AGREE it's a bad idea to do that, but I wouldn't call it "racist", because racism typically implies something a whole lot worse.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Definitions of racism Merriam Webster:

: poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race

: the belief that some races of people are better than others

Definition from Oxford:

Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:

Definition from Encyclopedia Britannica:

racism, also called racialism , any action, practice, or belief that reflects the racial worldview—the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called "races," that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral features, and that some races are innately superior to others.

There. Are we clear now?

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2015 8:15 pm 
Offline
Forerunner
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:45 am
Posts: 1090
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Locations are too mainstream
Cyberknight wrote:
They just want to protect races and not have them mix, which is only slightly racist at best. Especially since minorities were the main ones that wanted it.


1. Above was your own statement. Regardless of your definitions of racism, this is still a wrong statement.

2. Superiority of races is the underlying idea behind not mixing races.

_________________
NCFCA debate and speech alumni
Former homeschooler
Joel Thomas
Liberty University


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited