Student Expelled For Coming Out

[zacxdreyer09]

He's not out of town... just not answering phone calls about this issue... you want to talk to him then I would suggest not telling the secretary on why you are calling. hehe!

[Mia14]

I'm impressed with how quickly the community is reacting to this horrible incident, but I wonder if we're going about this correctly.

Maybe it's not right to bombard the man's personal cell phone with angry calls. It's not that I'm not driven to action by what happened to Jason, but I wonder if such a personal intrusion goes along with the message of nonviolence that is central to Soulforce. I knwo I would certainly consider it violent if someone was to use my cell phone to contact me about issues I was trying to avoid. I know we need him to hear us, but I think the best way is through his secretary. I remember the webpage we have dedicated to not hating our adversaries and I think this is starting to drift into a bad territory. I think everyone's very passionate about Jason's impossibly unreasonable expulsion and maybe our judgement is being clouded by emotions.

Please, try to remember that this president is a person just like you and he's not evil or bad, just acting on behalf of misinformation. He doesn't deserve to be treated any worse than one would treat Jason - we merely need to help provide him with our information about homosexuality and help him to understand where we are coming from so that he might make a different decision.


To those who have not yet read our credo about adversaries, please use the highlighted link above or go to http://www.soulforce.org/article/679.

[Venari]

Originally Posted by zacxdreyer09

He was then handed a letter and read a section of the hand book that says, and I quote...

"Any student who engages in or promotes sexual behavior not consistant with Christian principles (including sex outside marriage and homosexuality) may be suspended or asked to leave the University of the Cumberlands."

Originally Posted by zacxdreyer09

Oh, and about that bit from the hand book, it was added this year! Jason was about to finish his sophmore year there... he had decided to to there before that was put into the handbook!

Kentucky Revised Statutes

OK playing devils advocate here goes... (please dont flame me back)

Sadly Jason is technically in the wrong in this situation. First he did attend University of Cumberlands before they fully had a rule that a student could be dismissed. But the fact remains he entered into a same sex relationship after the rule was in place. Additionally from his online profile, Jason, and the profile of his boyfriend, Zac, it is clear Jason willing and boldly broke the rules provided by the school. As such the school is completely in its right, I didn’t say was right, to dismiss Jason from the university.

I do not have my BAR license for KY but from spending this time to review the state laws and conferring with a friend who practices in KY sadly the school was completely in their legal right to dismiss Jason. I faced the same thing I worked for a Christian out-reach center and I had "not disclosed" for my sexuality but I had a blog post about struggling with the issue of homosexuality and that was enough to fire me. Sadly the law is stacked against GLBT people in cases like this... so any efforts in that direction will, most likely, prove fruitless.

What will be most useful it to be open to the merits Jason brought to the school and how his dismissal was, is not illegal, unethical by the school. That is if they based their decision on the content of the page and not investigating further.

As I said, I am only playing devils advocate here. Working for the same system that would make a decision like that and with a background in law that is how I know a response will be formulated, and legally I know its pretty "bullet proof."

But Jason and Zac I pray God will give you the courage and strength to stand for what is right and may His presence give you the peace you need when times are hard.

-Venari

[Venari]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Phone away my friends. Let your voices be heard.

I respectfully disagree as well. There is a line between "relentless Nonviolence" harassment. Frakly repedetly calling someone and leaving messages, or bulk e-mailing, gets pretty close and if not corsses that line.

Calling him once a week and leaving a message, or writing once a week, is understandable. But honestly one needs to be careful that your "non-viloence" becomes harassment. Also suck actions can be taken to a counter point of what your trying to acheve... as in the old line "I am being attacked by Satan so I must be doing that right thing."

-Venari

[NathanATX]

Originally Posted by Venari

I respectfully disagree as well. There is a line between "relentless Nonviolence" harassment. Frakly repedetly calling someone and leaving messages, or bulk e-mailing, gets pretty close and if not corsses that line.

Calling him once a week and leaving a message, or writing once a week, is understandable. But honestly one needs to be careful that your "non-viloence" becomes harassment. Also suck actions can be taken to a counter point of what your trying to acheve... as in the old line "I am being attacked by Satan so I must be doing that right thing."

-Venari

I don't think anyone said to call him repetitively.

I called his office once and will probably call his cell phone once.

Bulk emailing is fantastic tool to use to get out information and it does help.

Last week, a friend of mine sent me an email. She was a student in a Houston High School. She told of a friend of hers that came in to class crying because he had just been suspended. He was out sick the day the immigration protests took place and the attendance clerk asked him if he was hispanic. She gave him an unexcused absence because he was hispanic he "was at the protest." And he was given a 3 day suspension.

I sent an email to: The principal, the Superintendent of the school district, the ACLU, the Society for the Advancemet of Mexican Americans and a local TV station.

Long story short, he was back in class the next day.

There may not be a clear legal avenue to help Jason Johnson with his situation at the University of the Cumberlands, but the court of public opinion is VERY powerful. Illuminating injustice is an important part of a non-violent response to injustice.

For someone who has experienced the trauma of discrimination and emotional/spiritual violence, you seem very concerned with the well-being of the perpetrator. We are not attacking a specific person, we are sending a strong message that their violent words and actions will be publicized in the hopes they will have a change of heart and take steps towards reconciliation.

[Joe Brummer]

Sorry to be a party pooper here, but are we really following the philosophy of nonviolence here?

Are we sending emails and phone calls just to complain?

Are we asking questions and gathering information?

Are we educating both sides on all the facts on the issue?

How do we go about trying to negotiate, before all of this direct action of calling and emailing?


History and nonviolence have taught us that if we don't follow all of the steps of nonviolence, you haven't made you adversary into an ally, you have only alienated him from the conflict and made a new enemy.

Do you really think these things will help the man see the truth or just frustrate him into not wanting to negotiate.

I have to disagree with Nathan, I usually agree with you, but yes, you are attacking this man.. Calling his cell phone, bombarding him with emails of complaints that do not offer solutions.

We have to ve more concerned with the well being of our adversary. That is the whole spirit of nonviolence. If you are more concerned about you and taking your agressions out on the person instead of the problem, you are not being nonviolent. In fact, you are activily participating in violence.

Nonviolence is a new way of thinking, it is a new way of seeing conflict and a new way of seeing those to whom we have conflicts. In our old way of thinking our CONCERNS are about us and our AGRESSIONS are towards the person. We see only how the problems affect “us”. We are not concerned about the person, our adversary. We are conerned about us. We see the person as the problem, we are blind to the real problem, that which lies underneath causing the conditions with which we disagree.

When we try to fight violence with violence it only creates more violence. All of our energies go at the person doing what we call evil never adressing the real issues that caused anyone to act the way they do. If someone calls us a name, and we respond by calling them names, they now want to respond with more names. Where does that end? If we were to respond to what the person has done (call us names) and not them, we are addressing the real issue.

With Nonviolence our CONCERNS and AGRESSIONS become reversed. Instead of being concerned about the problem, we are concerned about the person. Instead of our AGRESSION being directed at the person, they are directed at the problem. It is a way of reaching out to others to solve conflict without destroying each other. Nonviolence requires us to love. Nonviolence requires us to direct our anger at the problem not the person.

I refer you to the third principle of nonviolence as explained by MLK:

This method is that the attack is directed against forces of evil rather than against persons who are caught in those forces. It is evil we are seeking to defeat, not the persons victimized by evil. Those of us who struggle against racial injustice must come to see that the basic tension is not between races. As I like to say to the people in Montgomery, Alabama: “The tension in this city is not between white people and Negro people. The tension is at bottom between justice and injustice, between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. And if there is a victory it will be a victory not merely for 50,000 Negroes, but a victory for justice and the forces of light. We are out to defeat injustice and not white persons who may happen to be unjust.”

[Joe Brummer]

Originally Posted by Daniel

I respectfully disagree. Strongly in fact.

You rightly point out that one should not confuse the message with the motivation. But I do not see why SoulForce's message should be modulated for his personal comfort. If personal comfort was the deciding factor there would be no 'direct action.'

Change is never easy or, for that matter, pleasant.

And let's be practical here: the guy is going to shut off his phone at some point (if he hasn't already), but in that small window of opportunity- for him to get the message- he will.

Phone away my friends. Let your voices be heard.

Think about this, he will sut off his phone and stop listening, what has been acomplished? Have you made your enemy an ally?


Sadly, I question whether Soulforce is doing enough to teach it's members the true meaning of nonviolence.

[pnggrad79]

Maybe I need to be educated on this nonviolence thing- In my mind, nonviolence means not using physical means to protest an injustice. What it is however, is using other means to protest an injustice. When I saw the movie Gandhi-there was plenty of overt displays of protest-his hunger strikes, the march to the ocean to protest the salt tax, etc. When I saw the pictures of the march to Selma and the diner sit-ins and the children being escorted into Little Rock High School-they were all overt protests to a blatant injustice. I wouldn't deem phone calls violent by nature. They may be irritating and overbearing, they may invade much needed privacy, but violent? If Jason doesn't want phone calls and just needs time to chill and get his head together, then we need to allow him that space. He will reach out when he is ready. He has just been through a major ordeal with much backlash to come. When need to be in prayer for him, and support him.

[Joe Brummer]

There is physical violence, but also non-physical violence. Anything we do that diverts our concerns at the problem, and not the well-being of our adversary may be violence.

Phone calls can be violent, if your intent is to annoy your adversary into change. That is violence. We need to make change through nonviolence means. Letters are good, phone call are good if done in the right time and the right manner.

First we need to gather more information, educate, and then "self purify" to make sure our direct actions are nonviolent.

[NathanATX]

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

Sorry to be a party pooper here, but are we really following the philosophy of nonviolence here?

Are we sending emails and phone calls just to complain?

Are we asking questions and gathering information?

Are we educating both sides on all the facts on the issue?

How do we go about trying to negotiate, before all of this direct action of calling and emailing?


History and nonviolence have taught us that if we don't follow all of the steps of nonviolence, you haven't made you adversary into an ally, you have only alienated him from the conflict and made a new enemy.

Do you really think these things will help the man see the truth or just frustrate him into not wanting to negotiate.

I have to disagree with Nathan, I usually agree with you, but yes, you are attacking this man.. Calling his cell phone, bombarding him with emails of complaints that do not offer solutions.

We have to ve more concerned with the well being of our adversary. That is the whole spirit of nonviolence. If you are more concerned about you and taking your agressions out on the person instead of the problem, you are not being nonviolent. In fact, you are activily participating in violence.

Nonviolence is a new way of thinking, it is a new way of seeing conflict and a new way of seeing those to whom we have conflicts. In our old way of thinking our CONCERNS are about us and our AGRESSIONS are towards the person. We see only how the problems affect “us”. We are not concerned about the person, our adversary. We are conerned about us. We see the person as the problem, we are blind to the real problem, that which lies underneath causing the conditions with which we disagree.

When we try to fight violence with violence it only creates more violence. All of our energies go at the person doing what we call evil never adressing the real issues that caused anyone to act the way they do. If someone calls us a name, and we respond by calling them names, they now want to respond with more names. Where does that end? If we were to respond to what the person has done (call us names) and not them, we are addressing the real issue.

With Nonviolence our CONCERNS and AGRESSIONS become reversed. Instead of being concerned about the problem, we are concerned about the person. Instead of our AGRESSION being directed at the person, they are directed at the problem. It is a way of reaching out to others to solve conflict without destroying each other. Nonviolence requires us to love. Nonviolence requires us to direct our anger at the problem not the person.

I refer you to the third principle of nonviolence as explained by MLK:

This method is that the attack is directed against forces of evil rather than against persons who are caught in those forces. It is evil we are seeking to defeat, not the persons victimized by evil. Those of us who struggle against racial injustice must come to see that the basic tension is not between races. As I like to say to the people in Montgomery, Alabama: “The tension in this city is not between white people and Negro people. The tension is at bottom between justice and injustice, between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. And if there is a victory it will be a victory not merely for 50,000 Negroes, but a victory for justice and the forces of light. We are out to defeat injustice and not white persons who may happen to be unjust.”

I can see that didn't do a very good job of offering a solution in my email. Any suggestions? I could have also stated that my understanding of the situation was not from personal experience and invite him to clarify what actually happened.

I'm not bombarding him with emails or calls. One email to him... and to everyone at the university I could locate an address for. One email for local media and churches. I think by sending the email to everyone in the region, it invites people to confront injustice... not a specific person.

My personal intention is to open a dialogue with him or any of the recipients of the email. I called him because I wanted to talk to him.

I'm relatively new, as are most of us, to learning and practicing non-violence... so I realize I have much to learn.

[Joe Brummer]

I truly believe the best hope gays and lesbians have to win rights and stop the violence against us is nonviolence. I believe the only hope for the world these days with all the video games and movies teaching our kids violence as the way to solve their conflicts, is nonviolence.

Nathan, I would so urge you and others to read the 17 steps journey, not just once, but again, and again. Don't just apply it to gay rights, apply it to everday life. Nonviolence isn't just about social change in large settings it is about building the "Beloved Community".

I have tons of resources on my website about nonviolence.
You could also visit the King Center where you can do an online course in nonviolence for free.

Being completely nonviolent is much to strive for, and may never happen for most of us. Even Gandhi and King never claimed they could be completely nonviolent. THe world has not gotten to this place by completely evil people and it will not be save by completely good people. Only people.

[NathanATX]

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

I truly believe the best hope gays and lesbians have to win rights and stop the violence against us is nonviolence. I believe the only hope for the world these days with all the video games and movies teaching our kids violence as the way to solve their conflicts, is nonviolence.

Nathan, I would so urge you and others to read the 17 steps journey, not just once, but again, and again. Don't just apply it to gay rights, apply it to everday life. Nonviolence isn't just about social change in large settings it is about building the "Beloved Community".

I have tons of resources on my website about nonviolence.
You could also visit the King Center where you can do an online course in nonviolence for free.

Being completely nonviolent is much to strive for, and may never happen for most of us. Even Gandhi and King never claimed they could be completely nonviolent. THe world has not gotten to this place by completely evil people and it will not be save by completely good people. Only people.

I have gone through most of the soulforce and the King center info.... and plan to keep going through it. I definitely agree with you that the values of compassion and non-violence are absolutely key to creating a healthy & loving community.

Other than making the changes we mentioned...

Presenting information and asking for clarification
Providing some alternatives to the behavior

Is there anything specifically out of line with non-violent principles?

I think these things happen because all too often the perpetrators of the violence are shielded from the impact of their words and actions.

For example: I spoke about this on Saturday at a college student glbt conference. The session was titled "Loving those who persecute you" and was intended to give the "how to" answers for dealing with homophobic abuse & discrimination. Lucy Wilkes, the leader of the local PFLAG, shared a situation that she didn't know how to handle.

She has four children, three of whom are gay. Lucy's straight son's wife disinvited Lucy's lesbian daughter's partner to their son's one year birthday party. (confused? )

Lucy was heartbroken and told her daughter-in-law that she understood her feelings, but that she felt it wasn't right and wouldn't support her decision. She said the rest of the family was not coming to the birthday party if one member was not invited.

Lucy thinks she did the right thing, but she has tremendous guilt and is feeling responsible for all the subsequent drama.

My point to her was that compassion is not always comfortable. I shared some buddhist teaching about understanding "the other" as a key to compassion. Compassion helps us to let go of the hurt and anger, but it does not mean we need to become a doormat.

Suffering is sometimes a part of a non-violent response, but only if it supports the cause of non-violence and isn't suffering for suffering's sake.

Within this university and the Southern Baptist world, I believe they are all pretty much shielded from the impact of their actions. They can destroy a gay person and not have to see the aftermath because they kick him out of their community and most likely shun his family as well.

I believe they need to see the aftermath of their actions. They need to know the pain & hurt they have caused. They need to know that others are becoming aware of the violence they have caused.

Not as a way of punishing or judging them, but to help them truly see "the other" and to be able to honestly evaluate their actions.

But like I said... I know I still have much to learn. Maybe I'm still way off base.

[Joe Brummer]

Originally Posted by NathanATX

I have gone through most of the soulforce and the King center info.... and plan to keep going through it. I definitely agree with you that the values of compassion and non-violence are absolutely key to creating a healthy & loving community.

Other than making the changes we mentioned...

Presenting information and asking for clarification
Providing some alternatives to the behavior

Is there anything specifically out of line with non-violent principles?

As far as this one is concerned maybe not. I am just sadden at some of the responses in this thread, not necessarily yours, but some. I was deeply concerned about the notion that we should not be worried about "the perpatrators well being" since that type of thinking is in direct opposition what Soulforce claims to promote and what I truly believe.

I think these things happen because all too often the perpetrators of the violence are shielded from the impact of their words and actions.

You are quite right about this, but that is where the step of educating parties on all sides of the conflict. Educating people doesn't always mean direct action. No direct action should take place until all of the facts of been collected and all parties have been educated on those facts. In this case I haven't really heard to colleges reponse or their facts. Without all the facts how can we educate people and show them anything.

For example: I spoke about this on Saturday at a college student glbt conference. The session was titled "Loving those who persecute you" and was intended to give the "how to" answers for dealing with homophobic abuse & discrimination. Lucy Wilkes, the leader of the local PFLAG, shared a situation that she didn't know how to handle.

She has four children, three of whom are gay. Lucy's straight son's wife disinvited Lucy's lesbian daughter's partner to their son's one year birthday party. (confused? )

Lucy was heartbroken and told her daughter-in-law that she understood her feelings, but that she felt it wasn't right and wouldn't support her decision. She said the rest of the family was not coming to the birthday party if one member was not invited.

Now here is where I will ask questions and gather information. Did Lucy sit down and gather all the info about why the partner wasn't invited? What was the reasons, was it to show disapproval or was their a fight. WHat are the facts and could they have been worked out in a negotiation? Maybe some agreement could have been reached where all parties are in a win-win situation. I don't have all the facts so I am only pointing out what I can based on what I know of it.

Lucy thinks she did the right thing, but she has tremendous guilt and is feeling responsible for all the subsequent drama.

My point to her was that compassion is not always comfortable. I shared some buddhist teaching about understanding "the other" as a key to compassion. Compassion helps us to let go of the hurt and anger, but it does not mean we need to become a doormat.

Suffering is sometimes a part of a non-violent response, but only if it supports the cause of non-violence and isn't suffering for suffering's sake.

I agree suffering is sometimes needed, but in a nonviolent resolution suffering should not come with guilt or shame. It should come with a sense of pride for standing up to injustice. Of course this is just my opinions and as you can see I sometimes have too many of those.

Within this university and the Southern Baptist world, I believe they are all pretty much shielded from the impact of their actions. They can destroy a gay person and not have to see the aftermath because they kick him out of their community and most likely shun his family as well.

I believe they need to see the aftermath of their actions. They need to know the pain & hurt they have caused. They need to know that others are becoming aware of the violence they have caused.

I 100% agree with you, but we always need to keep in mind this goes back to education on the facts. It is clear these Universities do not have the facts on the aftermath of their actions. Educating them takes time, but is neccessary to get them to the table to negotiate. We cannot force other to the table, we want them to come to the table willing. Direct actions must be used only to create tension and pressure to make the other party "want" to come to the table. We must ask ourselves: Does our direct action make the other party "want" to come to the table and solve the problem or is it just pissing them off. In the Birmingham boycotts and lunch counter sit ins, the business owners wanting to end the boycotts. They wanted to be at the table and find a win-win end to the conflicts. That must be the end result of out efforts with the universities. We need to have them "want" to be at the table, not force them to the table.

Not as a way of punishing or judging them, but to help them truly see "the other" and to be able to honestly evaluate their actions.

But like I said... I know I still have much to learn. Maybe I'm still way off base.

Nathan, we all have much to learn. I am still learning everyday as I try to make nonviolence a part of my every day life.

[Zerbie]

Interesting.

I will not and would not call the president's personal cell phone. I would call his office phone. Why? The decision we are complaining about was a business/professional decision. We are addressing him in his capacity as university president, not as (I forget his name), So n So in his personal life.

While one phone call might sound like it is not intrusive, have you counted how many active Soulforce members are listed on this site? Close to 300. IF each of us placed one call to his cell phone for a minute or two, that would be 300 phone calls. If every caller left a 2 minute message that would be 600 minutes of call time. And 300 calls to a personal phone number is way over the top. If it were me getting those calls, I would be furious at you for calling before even hearing a single word you say.

Why the heck not direct all calls through the Secretary? Say not a single calls get sthru to the prez. Secretary still says, "You received 300 phone calls today complaining about Jason's expulsion from school." Secretary can't get any other work done b/c of the volume of phone calls, office slows down for everything the prez wants done. He gets the message that there is significant dissent that way. Not through intrusion into his personal life.

I know I've just disagreed with several of you who I love to pieces. Hugs atcha.

[NathanATX]

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky...e/14313621.htm Vote in the poll!

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/14313631.htm

[Jamie McDaniel]

Dean's List Student Asked To Leave College After He Reveals He's Gay
Quote from University president: "There are places students with predispositions can go such as San Francisco and the left coast..."

Reaction grows to gay student's expulsion; Other Cumberlands Students Express Hurt, Confusion

[Joe Brummer]

Now that some more info has been gathered from the University. It would be a good time to come up with a direct action that involves the press. I would suggest that people flood their local papers with letters about this, as well as the local TV. The school at this point should see the "left coast" reaction to this event. It would also helped if it made more national headlines. Here in New England this hasn't made the news yet. It could.

Perhaps a march from the school to the state capital building to ask the legislature to stop the school's state aid would also be good. It appears their is support enough to make that kind of big. It would be good to notify the school first and give them a chance to negotiate, but if they refuse, I would suggest marching in protest. Then present the facts to the legislature and ask for action from them.

[themattperry]

The article below has little to do with the case at hand, but it does give a good amount of interesting background regarding the academic environment at Cumberland. President James H Taylor, it turns out, has been president of the University since 1980 -- an incredible tenure for a college president. The article, entitled investigates academic freedom at the College by examining the case of two different faculty members who were dismissed. I just thought it might be good background material on the institution, its environment, and its president.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...3/ai_n13635311

[zacxdreyer09]

I would personally like to thank everyone for their support and for their opinions and ideas. The story is about to break national news very soon! If not tonight!

Thank you all for your support!

Much love,
Zac

[trulyme212]

Its really great to see all this news coverage.....

I personally was intrigued by the comment made from one of the senators about funding.

He stated that it the state of KY was to continue funding schools such as Cumberland it would be as if the state was only aiding heterosexuals. I never thought about that.

Here's the direct quote.

"If the University of the Cumberlands does not change its policies and practices, we will have a state benefit that is only available to heterosexuals," Scorsone said.

Keep up the good work everyone!!