Ontario has voted 'no' to accrediting Trinity University Law P

[Wilber]

So you think law societies should be in the business of penalizing people for acting within their rights. Kind of goes against what the law is supposed to be about wouldn't you think.

[Peter F]

So you think law societies should be in the business of penalizing people for acting within their rights. Kind of goes against what the law is supposed to be about wouldn't you think.

Nope. Law societies accredit places that they think deserve accrediting. The Ontario society didn't think they should accredit a university the descriminates above and beyond the norm to determine who gets to attend thier law program.

And, by denying that accreditation, they are not punishing anyone.

[Wilber]

Nope. Law societies accredit places that they think deserve accrediting. The Ontario society didn't ty should accredit a university the descriminates above and beyond the norm to determine who gets to attend thier law program.

And, by denying that accreditation, they are not punishing anyone.

They are making moral judgements that have nothing to do with their mandate to evaluate a schools ability to turn out qualified graduates. If that is not trying to punish I don't know what is.

[Peter F]

The same can be said of the school itself - inhibiting access to prospective students based on irrelevancies required by the covenant in that the requirements of the covenant have nothing to do with a students ability to succeed or fail in thier studies.

And it most certainly is a moral judgement and, reading the transcripts of the deliberations shows that most of the members were seriously concerned

with giving a 'stamp of approval' to a university that willfully seeks to limit access based on religous grounds - specifically only married hetrosexuals can engage in sex and all others must not.

Lets not forget that it was the university that sought approval from the LSUC- not the other way around. And they sought that approval so they could

plump it up on thier web page "we are approved by the law society of Upper Canada!"

The university has no need for the LSUC's approval to offer law degree's.

[Bryan]

Nonsense. I have a friend whose perception has changed between lesbian and straight several times.

That's what I just said.

[Bryan]

well, actually they really do expect everyone else to follow it - thus the covenant.

Not even remotely true. It's an open invitation to people who already believe in those stated principles to be able to study in a non-hostile environment. No one who does not believe in them in being forced to even walk in the front door -- they have plenty of of other choices.

[Peter F]

Yes, its an open invitation to those who already believe.

To those that dont believe (and in good concience wont sign the covenant) - They are not allowed in.

[Bryan]

Yes, its an open invitation to those who already believe.

To those that dont believe (and in good concience wont sign the covenant) - They are not allowed in.

Please cite an example of someone not being allowed in.

[Peter F]

I have no access to such things. Can you perhaps cite an example of someone being allowed in who refused to sign the covenant?

Perhaps this covenant thing is some sort of myth.

[Bryan]

I have no access to such things. Can you perhaps cite an example of someone being allowed in who refused to sign the covenant?

Perhaps this covenant thing is some sort of myth.

It's something you're certainly attributing a lot of myths to.

If you cannot provide an example of anyone who has actually been NOT allowed in to Trinity, you have no grounds to make the claim that anyone is not allowed in. It's your claim, defend it or retract it.

[-1=e^ipi]

That's what I just said.

no you said that perception of orientation is orientation. Which it isn't.

[Bryan]

no you said that perception of orientation is orientation. Which it isn't.

Are you just arguing for fun? I said their perception is their orientation. How they view their own sexuality is what their sexual orientation is, by definition.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Bryan

[Peter F]

oooh. I found it. There is in fact a covenant

see TWU submission to the Law Society of New Brunswick of January 4 2014

The president of TWU Bob Kuhn says:

"The stumbling block to the approval process appears to be once clause in the university's Community Covenant.

We have attached the full Covenant for your reference." etc.

There follows the full Covenant titled

" Trinity Western University

Community Covenant Agreement

Our pledge to one another"

There follows the covenant broken up into numbered sections:

1. The TWU Community Covenant

Wherein it states at the third paragraph, and I quote (italics mine):

" The Community Covenant is a solemn pledge in which the members place themselves under obligations,

on the part of the institution to its members, the members to the institution, and the members to one another.

In making this pledge members enter into a contractual agreement and a relational bond. "

etc.

2. Christian Community

3. Community Life at TWU

" In keeping with biblical and TWU ideals, community members volountarily abstain from the following actions:"

follows a series of bullet points, the fifth reading:

"Sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman " with a footnote directing one to Romans 1:26-27 and Proverbs 6:23-35

4. Areas of Careful Discernment and Sensitivity

with sub headings:

Wise and substantial Self-Care...

Healthy Sexuality

under which is found:

" A biblical view of sexuality holds that a person's decisions regarding his or her body are physically, spiritually and emotionally inseperable."

and " Further, according to the bible, sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage between one man and one woman,

and within that marriage bond it is God's intention that it be enjoyed as a means for marital intimacy and

procreation."

etc.

Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco...

Entertainment...

5. Community and Accountability

" This Covenant applies to all members of the TWU community, that is, administrators, faculty and staff employed

by TWU and its affiliates, and students enrolled at TWU or any affiliate program." ...

" Students sign this covenant with the commitment to abide by the expectations contained within the Community

Covenant and by campus policies published in the Academic Calendar and Student Handbook." ...

" The university also applies formal accountability procedures to address actions by community members that

represent a disregard for this covenant. These procedures and processes are outlined in the Student, Staff

and Faculty Handbooks and will be enacted by designated representatives of the university as deemed

necessary."

Then follows the signature section:

" By my agreement below I affirm that" ....

third paragraph:

"I have carefully read and considered TWU's Community Covenant and will join in fulfilling it's responsibilities

while I am a member of the TWU community."

end of covenant

So, it seems to me that in order to be admitted to TWU as a student one must sign the Covenant. It is in fact a necessity of enrollment.

You are claiming that this Covenant has no bearing - is not a condition of enrollment and never has been - and nobody is required to sign it.

On the basis of what the University has published I would say that your position is without foundation.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Peter F

[Peter F]

I'd like to note that in the LSUC discussions the biggest hangup the 'bench' had was with the universities Covenant particularly in regard to the sexuality thing. Over and over again various benchers brought up the sexuality clause in the covenant as the only hangup they had. Thier position was that it was the sexuality clauses that was causing them to with-hold approval.

In the Submission from TWU to address the questions from the bench, if Bryan's position were true, TWU could simply have explained that the covenant was not a necessary condition of enrollment, thus taking the wind out of many sails.

But no, TWU said nothing at all to counter so obvious a misconception.

and that would be because Bryan is mistaken and agreement to the Covenant is in fact a condition of enrollment at TWU.

[Bryan]

You are claiming that this Covenant has no bearing - is not a condition of enrollment and never has been - and nobody is required to sign it.

You are arguing with a straw man, because that is not what I said.

[Peter F]

You are arguing with a straw man, because that is not what I said.

Your challenge was: "you have no grounds to make the claim that anyone is not allowed in. It's your claim, defend it or retract it."

Post 338 and 339 defend my position. Deal with it.

[bleeding heart]

TimG,

I have no idea why you insist upon repeating that I'm "ignoring" the use of the word "sacredness"; in fact, I take that word as pivotal to the exceptionalism granted heterosexuality over homosexuality--a point they have been clear and unambiguous about, even as you pretend we "cannot know" whatever they could mean.

They know--and say so. Only you are left in the dark.

As to this point about us not knowing what they mean--or if they mean anything at all--by inserting "between a man and a woman" into their "sacredness" formulation...I already quoted you from the "FAQ" page, and included the link, in which they use the exact same phraseology ("Between a man and a woman") to explain that they consider homosexuality to be at odds with their explicitly literalist reading of Scripture (think "abomination," for example); their very religious mandate, in other words.

Mere coincidence, I suppose, as they add the same phraseology into their covenant; because superfluity in grammar is an important enticement to future students, I take it?

As to the rest of your musings, I have already made it more than clear, in this very thread, that I agree they have the right to do as they are doing. That's their business, as far as I'm concerned. That in no way determines that I should not be pointing out their superstition-generated bigotry if it so pleases me to do so.

Edited May 3, 2014 by bleeding heart

[cybercoma]

It's something you're certainly attributing a lot of myths to.

If you cannot provide an example of anyone who has actually been NOT allowed in to Trinity, you have no grounds to make the claim that anyone is not allowed in. It's your claim, defend it or retract it.

the covenant is in plain writing. If it's not clear to you who they won't allow in and who they discriminate against, then there's not much else to say.

[cybercoma]

I wonder why this covenant doesn't also include a ban on shellfish, clothing made from different fabrics, and hair that has been cut at the corners. They seem perfectly fine with picking and choosing what parts of the Bible they want to be part of it. So they made the choice to exclude people based on their sexual orientation.

[Michael Hardner]

I wonder why this covenant doesn't also include a ban on shellfish, clothing made from different fabrics, and hair that has been cut at the corners. They seem perfectly fine with picking and choosing what parts of the Bible they want to be part of it. So they made the choice to exclude people based on their sexual orientation.

Christians don't generally abide by the Old Testament customs and advisements. When it comes to the New Testament, by the way, many of them also pick and choose which parts they will abide by. There are a great many Christians who take sin to be a private matter, and wouldn't feel comfortable in judging sinners the way that this school is doing.

But the law not only doesn't require you to abide by the Holy Books you purport to follow in every way, it doesn't restrict exactly which religions or how many, who established religions need to be to qualify for protection under the charter. I would feel comfortable if the law at least 'grandfathered' the right to discriminate to existing religions.

[cybercoma]

I would feel comfortable if the law at least 'grandfathered' the right to discriminate to existing religions.

did you read this before you posted this? Or are you just playing Devil's Advocate again?

[Michael Hardner]

did you read this before you posted this? Or are you just playing Devil's Advocate again?

What is your issue with it ?

[Michael Hardner]

Is it "ok" ?

[Wilber]

The same can be said of the school itself - inhibiting access to prospective students based on irrelevancies required by the covenant in that the requirements of the covenant have nothing to do with a students ability to succeed or fail in thier studies.

Irrelevant to you, not to them. A law society refusing to accredit a course on those same grounds also has nothing to do with a students ability to succeed or fail in their studies or the quality of those studies.

And it most certainly is a moral judgement and, reading the transcripts of the deliberations shows that most of the members were seriously concerned

with giving a 'stamp of approval' to a university that willfully seeks to limit access based on religous grounds - specifically only married hetrosexuals can engage in sex and all others must not.

So you have no problem with professional organizations using non professional criteria to rate courses. I do. If they don't use professional standards to accredit courses, their professional opinion becomes worthless. They become just another group of social activists.

Lets not forget that it was the university that sought approval from the LSUC- not the other way around. And they sought that approval so they could

plump it up on thier web page "we are approved by the law society of Upper Canada!"

The university has no need for the LSUC's approval to offer law degree's.

I believe that graduates have to be from an accredited school to belong to the law society. So while they may be able to practice, they wouldn't be able to be members no matter how good TW's school was. So much for Professionalism.

The Ontario and Nova Scotia societies are the odd men out on this issue. The other provinces have followed BC's decision.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/i-voted-for-trinity-western-because-of-the-rule-of-law/article18319508/

Edited May 3, 2014 by Wilber

[Bryan]

Your challenge was: "you have no grounds to make the claim that anyone is not allowed in. It's your claim, defend it or retract it."

Post 338 and 339 defend my position. Deal with it.

I stand by the quote you just posted. You have no grounds to make the claim that any one person is not allowed in.

A restaurant that does not allow smoking, is not disallowing people who smoke. They are not allowing that behaviour while patronizing their establishement.

TWU is not saying anywhere that someone who has or likes to do any of the things in the code of conduct is not allowed to enrol. They are only saying that those who go there agree not to do them while students. It's huge difference.