Homosexuality Is Key to Some College Scholarships

CNSNews.com ^ | January 21, 2002 | Michael L. Betsch

[tdadams]

(CNSNews.com) - Need money for college tuition? A group of employees from telecommunications giant AT&T will help pay the bills of students who identify themselves as homosexuals.

Grades and extra-curricular activities don't count as much as sexual orientation for this type of financial help.

The scholarship comes from the AT&T Foundation's LEAGUE, which is an acronym for Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay & Transgendered United Employees.

LEAGUE is one of seven "Business Resource Groups" at AT&T, serving as a homosexual advocacy resource for the telecommunications giant, its customers, shareholders, colleagues, families and the global community.

For the past six years, LEAGUE at AT&T Foundation has awarded a handful of $1,500 academic scholarships to self-identified homosexual youth. LEAGUE Foundation spokesperson Charles Eader noted that applications have doubled every year since the fund was launched.

And for those homosexual students who have demonstrated leadership in promoting diversity and understanding in the community, the LEAGUE Foundation offers a $2,500 scholarship dedicated to the memory of Matthew Sheppard, whom it considers a model of courage.

Sheppard, who was homosexual, was tortured and beaten to death by two men on Dec. 28, 1998 in Wyoming. He was 21 at the time.

LEAGUE Foundation said it hopes Shepherd's memory will inspire lesbian, bisexual, gay & transgendered applicants and recipients of scholarships to persevere against anti-homosexual intimidation both in and out of the classroom.

According to Eader, applicants must be high school graduates; identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered; have achieved a cumulative grade point average of at least 3.0 on a 4.0 scale; be actively and substantially involved in community service; live in the United States; and have been accepted to attend an accredited college or university in the United States.

But conservatives are outraged by the notion that homosexuality is being rewarded by corporations such as AT&T.

"It's sad that teenagers are being deceived about sexuality and recruited into a lifestyle that is unhealthy and immoral," said the Family Research Council's Kristin Hansen. "It's definitely evidence that homosexual activists are organized at many facets of society -- in the corporate world, in schools and in the media."

Eader noted that LEAGUE Foundation is funded wholly by donations and does not receive any financial support from the AT&T corporation. AT&T allows LEAGUE Foundation to conduct its communication and planning activities -- including phone calls, faxes, and emails -- on corporate premises. However, Eader noted that LEAGUE and LEAGUE at AT&T Foundation "are 2 different and distinct, even though related, organizations."

Membership in the AT&T Business Resource Group LEAGUE is reserved solely for AT&T employees. According to Eader, any homosexual advocacy group or its members may become part of the 501(c)3 LEAGUE at AT&T Foundation charity . This charity also "welcomes financial support from the larger LGBT community and its allies," according to the group's Web site, which is hosted by AT&T.

"The level of organization is not a surprise," Hansen said of LEAGUE's wide-open membership requirements and financial practices.

Eader said homosexual scholarship recipients who have been outspoken in their communities are encouraged to continue such activism when they get to college, but he said they have no obligation to do so. Eader added that the names of scholarship recipients remain anonymous, no matter what path they choose to follow.

But scholarship recipients are not discouraged from performing acts of "community service." In fact, Eader said LEAGUE and its supporters would benefit from having a fresh voice on campus promoting the homosexual issues and diversity.

Hansen said LEAGUE's scholarship offering is just another example of incentives encouraging behavior. "And if there's money available," she added, "it legitimizes a behavior."

[mn12]

As I said in a previous post, love the sinner hate the sin.

Wait a minute.. Don't you also want to throw all homosexuals in jail?

War is Peace... Hate is Love...

[MHT]

United Airlines made a big deal of how they wanted to be the "Gay" Airlines a couple of years ago--and now they are on the brink of bankruptcy. K-Mart did just what Liberal Rosie wanted--and whether or not it is appropriate for Rush to connect the dots of gun sales to bankruptcy--they, too, are nearly an economic footnote.

Following the left-wing agenda gets companies into trouble. It is one thing to hire people without discrimination and end up with a few homosexuals who do whatever they do in private and don't push a political agenda. It's another to promote homosexuality in youth through unnecessary programs as lures. In expanding deviance, not diversity, ATT is signing its own death warrant.

[tdadams]

The HOMOSEXUAL Militants have made it clear that if anyone expresses an opinion contrary to theirs then you are wrong, stupid and they will attack you in any way possible.

You're incorrect to assume that any of us who disagree with you are homosexual militants. Speaking for myself, I am a libertarian who believes that America offers freedom and happiness for every citizen (not just heterosexual Christians), and the Constitution protects everyone equally. I defend my beliefs based on principle, not necessarily out of a vested interest.

In my opinion you are wrong, but still entitled to your opinion. Where you cross the line is when you insist that others must live a life of morality as you see it. You're free to live your life, but you're not free to dictate how others should live, not matter how you try to obfuscate and argue that peaceful and private homosexuals are somehow violating your rights.

I don't think you're stupid, but possibly ignorant. I don't mean that in the pejorative sense, but literally. Look it up if you don't understand me. I'm not sure what made you feel like you're being "attacked." I think you're being too sensitive. This is a debate forum. If you can't handle it, you don't have to come here.

They are the most militant of all groups I have seen which shows me how truly scared they really are.

On the contrary, I think you are the one that is really scared because, as I stated earlier in this thread, you see the tide of public opinion turning away from your point of view. You see yourself losing power and you're desperate to cling to it. You're scared.

I find it very interesting that they have so freely expressed their liberal ways on a conservative news forum,

You can dismiss my beliefs as "liberal" if you like, but you'd be wrong, unless you're talking about "classical liberalism." Then you'd be close. Otherwise, I think you're again trying to be pejorative by labeling me liberal. It's cheap and shows you have little ability to defend yourself without lobbing insults.

but unlike them I feel it is a free country and they can express their opinions.

I won't go so far as to say you're lying, but as you showed us in post #20, you seem to have a peculiar definition of "freedom." Apparently, everyone is free to do as they like, as long as you approve.

I'd love to see one single post where you've gotten the impression that I feel it's not a free country and/or you can't express your opinion. You're saying things that are purely reactionary and baseless. It borders on paranoia in my opinion.

[tdadams]

I'm glad you've gone through and read the whole thread. Gives a good idea of just much of a wannabe tyrant this WWJDN is, doesn't it?

I'm amuzed at how he keeps talking about how militant those who disagree with him are, but at the same time he apparently can't see how much his own opinions reflect the most oppressive regimes throughout history that have committed some of the most egregious and unspeakable human rights abuses.

But of course, most of those regimes came to a point where they stopped seeing their enemies as humans with rights, something else I'm seeing glimpses of from WWJDN.

[NittanyLion]

I'm amuzed at how he keeps talking about how militant those who disagree with him are, but at the same time he apparently can't see how much his own opinions reflect the most oppressive regimes throughout history that have committed some of the most egregious and unspeakable human rights abuses.

Likewise. What always amazes me is there are so many people who want to institute their beliefs via the force of government, but never stop to think that they're cultivating a force which can be used against them as well. In the process, everyone loses rights and the government gains power.

[EdReform]

"United Airlines made a big deal of how they wanted to be the "Gay" Airlines a couple of years ago--and now they are on the brink of bankruptcy. K-Mart... ATT is signing its own death warrant."

Here's another one for your list of companies: Levi Strauss to Send Students to Homosexual Conference

[tdadams]

Following the left-wing agenda gets companies into trouble...In expanding deviance, not diversity, ATT is signing its own death warrant.

Companies go out of business because of bad economic decisions, not bad cultural decisions. Anyone who thinks their boycott toppled an airline or Kmart has serious delusions of grandiosity. It reminds me of a rather crude joke about an ant making love to an elephant.

[OWK]

I sure hope you aren't a teacher.

Got something against people knowing the difference between verbs and adjectives?

[ag2000jon]

Excuse me? Why is he considered a model of courage? I know he endured a lot of pain before his death and that is inexcusable, but don't call him a model of courage. To be in the position to be beaten to death, I believe he had been drinking with the two guys and had 'hit on' one or both of them. Sounds like he wasn't acting very smart to me. Don't get me wrong, he didn't deserve to be beaten to death, but I think its disgusting the way these folks are trying to lionize this guy.

I agree 100%...good post

[Dr. Good Will Hunting]

Just remember, right is stronger than wrong, good is stronger than evil...

[RnMomof7]

I would suggest that Christians and social conservatives not contract with AT&T..I have not given them a dime in years because of their stand on womens issues..this just adds one more layer..I think the next time I get a call or mailer I will let them know why!

[wwjdn]

Don't you also want to throw all homosexuals in jail?

No actually I don't, but I do want their behavior to be illegal, then if they insist on making it a public issue and they get arrested... they are to blame.

[wwjdn]

In other words, you've changed your position? In #5 you stated, "I say jail all openly homosexuals if they refuse to go back to normal moral lifestyle." Now you're saying homosexuals don't need to be jailed; I'm glad you've seen the error in your earlier thinking.

Yes, I was angry in my earlier post because of all the slamming I was getting by a very small minority of immoral people who want it their way only. I want this behavior to be illegal (as it has been for thousands of years), much like not wearing a seatbelt, they can choose to ignore the law but if they get caught or flaunt their abuse they pay the price as with any other law.

[wwjdn]

Nope, I just have better things to do than have my english critiqued.

[Antoninus]

So you think locking them all up is a good idea? Better check the definition of sodomy in your state. You and your wife may be guilty. I don't think it's the government's business what someone does in their own house, given that they are a consenting adult.

Funny, I didn't see that anywhere in the post you're responding to. I notice that you avoided the question. WHERE IS THE RIGHT TO SODOMY IN THE CONSTITUTION?

This is all very ssad...

[Antoninus]

EVERYTHING is allowed.

Including the right of the states, local governments, and the people to declare certain acts and lifestyles anathema and against the law without federal interference. Whatever happened to that right??

[Antoninus]

We have a Constitution that sought to severly limit the role of government in the everday lives of American citizens.

You people conveniently forget that the Federal Constitution preserves the rights of the individual states and the people to determine such issues for themselves. Thus, if a state decided to outlaw homosexual practices, like sodomy, that would be acceptable under the Constitution.

As far as I know, no one on here is calling for a federal law to ban homosexuality. You are arguing against a straw man. But then again, that's the only chance you have in such an argument.

How ssad...

[Antoninus]

But you can't dictate your religious values to others under the aegis of law. That's a theocracy. Whether you call it a theocracy or not doesn't change the fact that it is a theocracy.

What's your position on Proposition 22 in California?