ACU Policy

[jackodave]

The quote below seems to be a little disingenuous regarding Abilene Christian University.

Reitan added, "The fact remains that students can still be kicked out of ACU because they are gay. As long as that can happen, this campus is not a safe space for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students. There are still a lot of issues to talk about here. We hope our visit is only the beginning of this discussion."

According to the official school policy (linked directly from soulforce.com) a student cannot be kicked out for being gay, but for engaging in homosexual behavior. But not just homosexuals...the descriptive phrase sexual immorality includes straight people as well. Seems like a fair policy to me.

[awediot]

Before this debate takes off again, can you elaborate on homosexual behavior. It is broader than homosexual 'activity'. How do we behave? Can we hand hold and hug as freely as heterosexuals?

[dr__dawggy]

Originally Posted by awediot

Before this debate takes off again, can you elaborate on homosexual behavior. It is broader than homosexual 'activity'. How do we behave? Can we hand hold and hug as freely as heterosexuals?

___________

Here is what ACU's policy says.

"2. Section Two violations. These violations will result in a minimum disciplinary response of probation on the first occurrence or suspension/dismissal on the second occurrence, with additional conditions or alternative requirements. They include, but are not limited to, the following:"2-14. Cohabitation and/or sexual immorality, including homosexual behavior."

You raise an interesting question about whether this policy is interpreted evenly...that is, would holding hands or hugging between same sex partners be viewed in the same way as similar behavior between heterosexuls? Did the Soulforce staff or riders put this question to ACU administrators? I ask because I don't know the answer.

This much is clear: Immoral sex acts between an unmarried student and a partner of the same or opposite sex will land you on probation or get you kicked out of ACU.

What exactly would Soulforce like to see ACU do in terms of policy change? Remove any reference to sexual immorality? Clarify that homosexual behavior refers to sex acts and does not include hand holding or hugging? Remove any reference to sexual immorality only as it applies to homosexual behavior?

I am confused about why this policy is discriminatory as it is stated. I understand that if it is applied unequally it discriminates against LGBT students, but is there evidence that this is so or is this simply an assumption? As it is written, the policy is certainly restrictive but does a statement restricting sexual behavior make it discriminatory if it is applied equally to unmarried same or opposite sex couples?

Lots of questions....all of which center on what specific changes in ACU would you like to see happen?

[dr__dawggy]

Originally Posted by awediot

Before this debate takes off again, can you elaborate on homosexual behavior. It is broader than homosexual 'activity'. ?

I was just trying to imagine the reaction if ACU changed the language of its policy from behavior to activity, which would permit a student to be kicked out for "acting gay." Yes, words matter, but in this instance I am not sure the fix is a change from behavior to activity. Just my two-cents worth.

[Jamie McDaniel]

We had a similiar discussion with a student from Lee University.

I am glad that ACU is not so prejudiced that the school would expel a homosexual student merely for their sexual orientation. However the school certainly practices discrimination if their definition of "homosexual behavior" includes things that heterosexual students can do as couples. Examples being hand holding, kissing, or sex between partners who have taken a vow of lifelong, committed, marriage.

I am guessing that ACU, like most schools, has a small married population. Most of the students are single. But for the students that make a lifelong commitment to each other, the very act that would previously have got them expelled is now celebrated. Unless of course it is two gay students, then their marriage is not recognized and the school would expel them both. That's discrimination. If conservative Christians can't understand how that is unfair, I am glad that middle America is certainly coming around.

Actually, many conservative Christians are also coming around. But then fundamentalists label them "liberal evangelicals."

[themattperry]

I know that this won't really solve all problems ... but I think a good first step at many of these colleges would just be to get rid of all references to "homosexual" anything in the rules. It seems to me that we have a clear, strong argument for getting rid of this explicitly discriminatory language. The problem of unequal treatment of marriages is another, more subtle problem. It just seems to me that a clear, easy message we could bring is just "stop singling us out" ... don't refer to glbt people IN PARTICULAR when you make your rules ... make rules about sex all you want, but just don't single us out for special restriction.

Getting rid of that language and all of the absurd and unfair circumstances that it brings up seems like a good start to me.

Then, of course, we need to tackle marriage.

[Jennifer5]

Matt I think said it all.... I can't think of anything I could possibly add... as long as it's stated seperately it's discrimination.... take care of that..... the same-sex marriage will be next well said