Posted on 11/02/2005 9:11:30 AM PST by exDemocratbutnotRepubican
Recent news coverage regarding a Duquesne University judicial affairs case and the proposed creation of a Gay Straight Alliance has resulted in misleading information about the case itself, the judicial affairs process and code of conduct, and the proposed alliance. The following information is designed to provide basic clarity on these issues.
The Judicial Affairs Process and Code of Conduct All Duquesne students are bound by the Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Conduct. If a student’s behavior on or off-campus violates the code of conduct while he or she is associated with the University, the behavior could be brought to the attention of the Judicial Affairs office. A hearing may result, and a student may be sanctioned as a result of code violations. Duquesne’s code of conduct indicates that students have the responsibility to respect the rights, dignity and worth of other individuals.
Judicial Affairs Case
The judicial affairs case recently reported in the media was initiated by several students who brought a complaint to the Office of Judicial Affairs. The students alleged that another student’s references to homosexuals in an online “Facebook” entry appeared to be a violation of the Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct. As is the normal protocol when an allegation is made, the Judicial Affairs Office investigated the issue, which resulted in a hearing and sanctions against a student. This particular case was the result not of opposing the proposed Gay Straight Alliance or opposing homosexuality, but rather the use of the term “subhuman” and inflammatory language in a “Facebook” entry. Had the language used not been undermining to human dignity, the issue most likely would not have been brought to the attention of Judicial Affairs.
The student referred to homosexuals as subhuman, which is against the following tenet and article of Duquesne’s code:
Basic Responsibilities, section D-5
The responsibility for acting in a manner which promotes an atmosphere of learning, free expression and respect for the rights, dignity and worth of every individual in the University community.
Article IV, University Standards C-6 Harassment or discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin or citizenship status, age, disability, or veterans status.
Sanctions
The sanctions for the code violations included taking the offensive material off the site and writing an essay regarding the Catholic Church’s official teaching related to the dignity and respect to be shown for all human beings.
The University has not implied or discussed expulsion as a consequence in this case.
Free Expression
As a private, Catholic institution, Duquesne University supports opposing viewpoints and expression, as long as those viewpoints are not communicated in a way that is degrading and/or demeaning to the dignity and worth of others and reflects the Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Conduct. A basic tenet of Catholic teaching is the inherent dignity of all human beings. Opposing another’s actions or viewpoints does not negate the responsibility to treat each other with respect and dignity. Paragraph #2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
Background on the proposed Gay Straight Alliance: In September, President Charles Dougherty, Provost Ralph Pearson, and Executive Director of Mission and Identity Fr. Tim Hickey received a proposal for the creation of a Gay Straight Alliance on Duquesne’s campus. Due to the clear implication on the University’s Catholic identity and mission, President Dougherty convened a special committee to examine the issue. Fr. Tim Hickey is leading the committee of students, faculty, staff and administrators, which is examining the issue in light of our Catholic identity and mission. This is a complex, sensitive issue that must be considered carefully.
Contact Information: 412-396-6050.
Perhaps they could also include the Catechism's opinion on the grave disorder of homosexuality... but I suppose that's just changing the subject.
why not call it the "Straight Gay Alliance?"..sounds like a party-line vote, eh?
Since it is not acceptable to call queers 'subhuman' I'm sure that b***f***ers and sodomites would be allowed since those are simply accurate descriptive terms.
You need to do a spell-check on your screen name.
I would agree normally - but I am beginning to wonder who are those people in congress who call themselves "republicans".
"Repubican" could be more descriptive?
"Since it is not acceptable to call queers 'subhuman' I'm sure that b***f***ers and sodomites would be allowed since those are simply accurate descriptive terms."
As part of the management of the Georgia Tech radio station I was a defendant in an ACLU action on behalf of two of our disk jockeys, since the DJs were also my fraternity brothers I recused myself.
The station would run promos for just about any non-profit.
Basically the DJ's played the song "Back Door Man" as as the background for a AIDS charity promo and then said something lie "hope all you homos are having a good time B***F***ing tonight."
Under pressure from the Dean of Students, the program manager fired the DJ's (without my involvement). The ACLU opened a case on their behalf and forced the school to reinstate them.
I got pretty throughly beat up from all sides.
I already said on the first thread that I think "subhuman" was an inappropriate word to use. Disordered, sinful, evil, all would be more appropriate.
This presumes that he used "subhuman" to describe homosexuals, and not homosexual acts, which we still don't really know for sure. But using the word to describe homosexual acts also would have been foolish, because as we can see the word can so easily be taken out of context.
On the other hand, I have a serious problem with "Article IV, University Standards C-6," which forbids "Harassment or discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin or citizenship status, age, disability, or veterans status." I don't believe sexual orientation belongs on the same list with those other items.
I don't believe it should be allowed to harrass homosexuals, but I cannot see how it can be proper to forbid discrimination between homosexual and legitimate sexual expression.
This stems, obviously, from political codes. But it's confusing and improper to lump homosexuality together with being black, Hispanic, female, or Italian, for instance. To pretend otherwise is to fail to discriminate among various kinds of discrimination, proper and improper.
Thanks, I missed an L
From what I recall from an earlier post, I thought he referred to the acts as subhuman, not persons. There is all the difference in the world, and the school needs to look carefully at exactly what he said rather than taking the usual gay activist position that statements about acts and persons are the same thing.
Again Duquesne University muddied the waters. Would you mind providing the exact "offensive" quote which Mr. Ryan Miner used?
Homosexual agenda players have very distinguished history of truth distortion. For them, it isn't what was said, it's their perception of what was said.
Cheers,
OLA
I think Fr. Hickey needs to do a research paper of his own:
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.
I consider this universities administrators subhuman bureacratic drones unworthy of a sign dollar in donations or a single second of tenure consideration.
This was a jaming effort by homosexuals to protect the GLSEN recruiting club, GSA. Homosexuals serve no purpose.
If you read the schools response you will see that tthey are considering the request to form the club. They haven't decided yet.
Wait and see.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.