Apparently, Stanford interviewed a Nebraska assistant coach for their head coaching position and told him they weren't hiring him because of his negative beliefs about gays.

Religious Beliefs Present Hurdle For Coach

Nebraskan: \"Don't Discriminate Against Discrimination\"

Letters To the Editor from Stanford Athletic Department

Editor (Ieva M. Augstums) E-mail: editor@dailynebraskan.com
General E-mail: dn@unl.edu

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Cyd at Outsports ]

Bravo to Stanford! Let him go coach at Brigham Young or Oral Roberts. If the dude is going to be that "in your face" with his religion on a job interview, it seems pretty likely that it might impact how he treats players and students.

Hmm. This is a bit of an ethical dilemma. On one hand, the coach is quoted in the article as saying:

[quote] "If I'd been discriminated against for being black, they would've never told me that," Brown said. "They had no problem telling me it was because of my Christian beliefs. That's amazing to me."

---

I don't think this is quite the same. I don't think he was "discriminated against" because he was Christian, but that because his Christian beliefs conflicted with the student body, staff, alumni, and (possibly) members of the team.

If he was a Black person who thought Whites were "wrong" he probably wouldn't have been hired either.

Still, one hopes that it was the overall quality of all the candidates for the position which led to the hiring of someone else. I don't think this was the only determining factor. Religious beliefs in itself shouldn't be a determining factor for a job in which religion plays no part.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: canmark ]

Does coach Ron Brown also want to ban women from campus during their period, legalize slavery, etc. etc.

The views about biblical interpretation that some people have never cease to amaze and confuse.

Still it is what he does, or has done, that should determine how he is treated. What is his record with respect to his treatment of gay people he knows or has worked with? Does he simply shun them?

My favorite take on biblical interpretation is this letter to Jerry Falwell from an "inquiring mind".

[quote]Originally posted by canmark:


If he was a Black person who thought Whites were "wrong" he probably wouldn't have been hired either.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: canmark ]

---

What? Given the paucity of Black coaches in NCAA Div. 1 teams, this is ridiculous--he probably wouldn't have been paid more than lipservice as a Black man no matter what his beliefs.

I really wish people would stop using the particular situation of Black people in this society as a handy analogy. There are some of us who are Black and homosexual, and while the forms of discrimination we face are similar, I can tell you that I've faced far more outward, vehement racism than I have homophobia, but I'd like not to face any. Most institutions would not hesitate to hire a conservative Christian, while very few are hiring Blacks OR open homosexuals as head football coaches, so his comments are idiotic. He needs to look at the Christian Gospel more carefully and follow the tenets of his Savior, who discriminated against NO ONE.

I'd be curious to find out what the experiences of the Nebraska team was under his leadership. Was he a Bible-thumper in practice? Did he favor some kids over others? Given his beliefs he could not treat a gay football player with any respect.

Fantomas wrote:

"Given the paucity of Black coaches in NCAA Div. 1 teams, this is ridiculous--he probably wouldn't have been paid more than lipservice as a Black man no matter what his beliefs"


Sorry - you're dead wrong there. Two of Stanford's last three head coaches - Denny Green and Tyrone Willingham - were both black. I was there when they hired Willingham and the Athletic Department made it very clearly they were ONLY interested in another black coach - which they then hired.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Cyd at Outsports ]

I am very surprised that the official from Stanford that communicated to Brown the reason why they did not hire him handled it in such an irresponsible manner. Anybody who carries a high position in any organization should understand the sensitivity and care that must be given when interviewing canidates and thereafter offering reasons for declining to hire someone. I would imagine there were other reasons besides just their concern for his religous beliefs that he could have easily pointed to. I am not a lawyer, but I would think the Stanford official left his university open to a discrimination lawsuit. I just expect more from a university offical, espcially a Stanford person who represents one of the top academic and intellectual institutions in the world. (I can see Cyd's head getting bigger as he prodly reads my last comment)

With that said, I must admit I have mixed emotions as to the fairness to this individual for having his beliefs be a cause for an employer to dismiss him as a canidate even though I strongly disagree with his predjudice. Maybe a line of questioning concerning how he would handle a situation in which a meember on his football team is one that obviously contradicts his beliefs, such as homosexuality. If the content and context of his answer, as well congruent body language to what he is saying were to display that it would not interfere with how he would coach this player, then maybe a greater determination would be made whether it was a real issue or not.

Bottom line, if one's race, sexual orientation or belifes and value systems do not interfere with how they perform their job, nobody should be dismissed for consideration for a job based on the above conditions.

I just proof read what I wrote in previous message.... sorry for the many typo's!!

Given how Dwight Slater brought a lot of attention to the Stanford program and how he felt he was treated, I would expect anyone interviewing for the Stanford head coach position to expect a question on how he would deal or interact with an athlete who said he was gay.

I believe Stanford has a nondiscrimination policy that includes orientation. An unfavorable answer would probably mean the potential coach would probably represent a legal risk to the athletic department and the university . Stanford is one of the most respected universities in the country. It got that reputation by getting a student body that demanded a progressive university. In order to keep attracting the best students and faculty, and thus, the research dollars, Stanford is not going to hire someone(especially a head coach in an authority position) who could cause a fracas and potentially alienate the people who contribute to the university.

MikeOC, did you actually read the entirety of the article in Thursday's Daily Nebraskan?....if so, I find it hard to believe how anyone could think that Ron Brown still merited consideration to become the head footbal coach at a major university, given the diversity of players, students, faculty, alumni, and fans that he will encounter on a daily basis....this is the same man who in 1999 called homosexualty "a sin" and admitted "hating and sometimes harassing homosexuals as a child"....and, more importantly, based upon EVERY comment Brown has made regarding this head coaching opportunity, it is clear that his beliefs have not changed one iota, despite that fact that one would have hoped a man of Brown's age and "experience" would have matured somewhat over the past 15 years in Lincoln....is the administration at Nebraska that closed minded to retain an employee for that time period who clearly violates normal codes of decency and understanding for his fellow man? -- and then has the audacity to use his "christianity" as a crutch to "justify" his abhorrent bigotry and discrimination!

Despite what a previous poster mentioned on this thread, the analogy to any other minority class whether it be race, gender, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation IS most definitely relevant in this instance given the circumstances and the position he was applying for....if a candidate for any prestigious high-ranking position at one of this country's elite universities admitted hating a group of people (fill in your class here - blacks, females, jews, Italians, you get the idea) and attributed that hatred and discrimination to his "religious beliefs" would that candidate be viewed in the "sympathetic" manner that Brown is obviously seeking?....I applaud the AD and President of Stanford for displaying the courage and humanity to publicly state that those beliefs will NOT be tolerated by ANY employee of the university, even it is at the expense of fewer victories on the gridiron (a philosophy that the administration in Lincoln apparently does not feel they have to adhere to).

What is also disturbing by Brown's "case" of "discrimination" is his repeated statements that anyone who has an opinion about gays contrary to his would be violating their basic Christian beliefs....give me a break!....does he not think there are millions of homosexual Christians in this country and around the world?....and who is Ron Brown to be the sole interpreter of the scripture and tell us who we should discriminate against and who we should hate and harass (as if those actions and emotions should apply to any class of people)?....every time he opens his mouth, Ron Brown is beginning to make Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson sound like members of PFLAG!.

Brown's statements include:
"I don't believe homosexuality is biblically correct";
"Any institution that claims to be inclusive like Stanford is going to have a problem with an outspoken Christian";
"They (Stanford) seemed to have no notion of squelching or eliminating one because of his representation of Jesus Christ";
"If I want to interview for a head coaching job, should I erase my religious beliefs off my resume?"

To answer Brown's last rhetorical question, the answer is yes if those "religious beliefs" advocate clear discrimination and hatred of a class of people for no valid reason whatsoever....these are the same type of beliefs and statements that Hitler and the Nazi's used to "justify" the hatred and abominable treatment of Jews barely one generation ago!....the class of citizens may be different but the fact that an individual dealing with young student-athletes on a daily basis would publicly voice such reprehensible beliefs in the name of Christianity is unthinkably horrid....let's only hope the outcry for his dismissal at Nebraska is long and loud and that any "threat" of legal action by Brown against Stanford is laughably dismissed.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: gamecock ]

Well said, gamecock, far more articulate than I could have done; and same for the rest of the posters above, on both sides of the issue.

Frankly, I expect the high standard at any public university and I expect more from private institutions for they are not beholden to public monies for yearly funding (via the legislation).

And while I have no particular affinity to the goings on at Stanford, I am pleaed that Brown was not hired. He can eat and $hit corn in Nebraska for the rest of his life and I could not be any happier, unless of course, he has a gay family member and is forced to come to terms with his awful, narrow and restrictive interpretation of his "good book".

Just a gentle reminder. According to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a):
"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer-
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

Notice: "religion" is a protected class. You cannot refuse to hire someone because that prospective employee has Christian beliefs and you ASSUME that means he/she will then discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. That's prejudice. Just as it would be if the generalized assumptions were made on the basis of race, sex or national origin. Even if something is true in 9 out of 10 cases of individuals within that protected class, you can't discriminate on the 10th for that reason.

Now, if something was elicited in the interview that indicated a current intent to discriminate (and I think that sexual orientation is a protected class under California state law) ... that's different. That's evidence. The fact that he held a certain belief as a child is not such evidence. Neither would be a sincerely-held religious belief on the issue of gay marriage ... that is not the same thing as an intent to discriminate against gays under his charge. Unless he ran a wedding chapel, it's got nothing to do with whether he would be a fair supervisor to a gay employee or a gay athlete.

And if this were a public institution, you'd have the additional complication of protected first amendment activity: the free exercise clause and the free speech clause. You might have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the law used most commonly for seeking compensation in cases of police brutality), for deprivation of first amendment rights if he had been a victim of religious-based discrimination, or if there had been retaliation for engaging in protected religious activity.

I state no opinion with regard to the particulars of the Ron Brown situation. I find it easy to believe that the news reports over-simplified the matter and glossed over complexities that may hae been fully weighed by Stanford officials. I also state no opinion about what I believe is the morally correct decision in this matter ... I'm only saying what the law is. The letter of the law should never be confused with what is morally correct. My point is only this: the issue is not as simple as you think.

But if Stanford U actually told him that he wasn't being hired because he was Christian and that it wouldn't be acceptable to students and alumni to hire a vocal Christian ... that would be a major violation of federal law, Just like a company could never argue that it couldn't hire a black salesman because that wouldn't be acceptable to their customers, for example Cracker Barrel restaurants.

And don't claim that publicly expressing Christian beliefs alone is discrimination against gays and lesbians, sufficient to justify not hiring the candidate ... that won't fly in court ... y'know, that first amendment thing.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

CitT - How about this:

IMHO, one of the primary job qualifications for any Division 1-A head coaching position (whether published in the job description or "assumed") is to be a successful recruiter.

Understanding that I'm not asking you to comment on this specific case, would the consideration of the potential negative effects of a candidate's publicly spoken/written/published opinions (no matter what those opinions might be) on his ability to recruit student-athletes be permissible under the Code chapters you have cited?

- - - - - - -

So I wonder what Mr. Holy-Roller thought of Erotic E's out-of-wedlock child??????????


Edited for typo

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Wurm ]

I think the issue here is being muddied. He was not declined because he was Christian, but rather because his stated beliefs did not match the beliefs of the private institution.

If I owned a business with female employees, and a fundamentalist Muslim (just taking an example) came in with the best qualifications in the world, but told me that a he believed a woman's place was in the home, because that is what his religion preaches - I would be within my rights to not hire him: it would not be BECAUSE he is Muslim, but because of his beliefs and the potential harm to my organization his beliefs may cause.

If Stanford hired a man who openly said that homosexuality was wrong, it would become a cause celeb and he would quickly become one of the most hated men in the Bay Area.

[quote]Originally posted by Cyd at Outsports:
He was not declined because he was Christian, but rather because his stated beliefs did not match the beliefs of the private institution

---

The notion that a private institution can deny equal rights or equal access to anyone because of the beliefs the individual holds has been uphold by the Supreme Court. The Boy Scouts used that argument in their successful bid to refuse admission to any gay Scouts.

Good point, Munson Man. I guess what's good for the goose is good for the Stanford.

I don't have much sympathy for Brown. He explicitly stated a belief that goes against both the university's nondiscrimination policy and California state law, then he starts crying that he was being discriminated against because he was a Christian. Huh wha???

First of all, not all Christians are anti-gay. Plenty of Christians are very pro-gay, and feel that stance in no way conflicts with their religion. By the same token, there are plenty of nonreligious people out there who are virulently homophobic. An avowed Christian who had no problem with gays never would have had a problem. And a completely areligious (is there such a word? well, you know what I mean) candidate who spewed homophobia would have jettisoned immediately.

CITT, you make a good point that we don't really know whether Brown would actually carry his religious convictions into the way he would perform the job at Stanford. But come on ... the guy's on a JOB INTERVIEW. That means you put your best foot forward. That means you present yourself in the best possible light. If I were in Brown's position, a Christian who believed that homosexuality was morally wrong yet did not discriminate against gays/lesbians (yuppers, believe it or not, such people really do exist), I would have emphasized in my responses that I had absolutely no problem with gay men or lesbians, that I treated them with the same respect and kindness that I try to show to every human being. If pressed about my earlier statements, I would have insisted that religious beliefs should play no part in this interview, reiterated my strong opposition to discrimination, and explained that my Christian beliefs would never conflict with that. There are so many Christians who truly do abide by the belief that only God can judge, and just about every Catholic I know couldn't care less if you're gay or straight, regardless of what comes out of the Vatican. If Mr. Brown had responded that way, then the whole of issue of "anti-Christian discrimination" is a legitimate one. But the first thing he comes out with is "homosexuality is biblically incorrect"?!?! Sorry, but that's the kind of answer that sends chills down any HR Director's spine. Mr. Brown got what he deserved. If he and his fellow Christians want to cry "Victim!" over it, they need to get a clue.

Munson Man, you're right about the Boy Scouts of America. Private groups/institutions run into problems, however, if they depend on public funding. The BSA was willing to lose out on whatever public funds (which isn't much, I think) and access to public facilities (more significant, but still willing to make that sacrifice) in order to maintain its "no gays allowed" stance. While I'm not familiar with the intimacies of Stanford University's ledgers, I imagine it receives quite a bit of public funding and isn't willing to risk losing it. But in any case, it sounds like Stanford was well within its legal rights in this case.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: BoSoxRudy ]

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:

Munson Man, you're right about the Boy Scouts of America. Private groups/institutions run into problems, however, if they depend on public funding. The BSA was willing to lose out on whatever public funds (which isn't much, I think) and access to public facilities (more significant, but still willing to make that sacrifice) in order to maintain its "no gays allowed" stance.

---

Then they really ought to spend less time boo-hoo-hooing about not being able to have their cake and eat it too. They're still doing everything they can to suckle at the public teat.

For those of you who don't know, my day job is employment lawyer, predominantly representing employees in disputes with their employers or prospective employers.

WURM: No. You can't use the prejudices of your target audience/customers to justify employment discrimination. Could a school legally refuse to hire a black coach because white recruits might balk? No. Could a school legally refuse to hire a female because alumni contributions would drop? No. Lots of case law directly on this subject: you can't use the prejudices of third parties to justify your own refusal to hire based on someone's sex, race, religion or national origin. Now, if the school chose to do that, could they craft some innocuous-sounding explanantion to cover the private discrimination and get away with it in the eyes of the law? Of course. Happens 10,000 times a day.

CYD: Maybe you're right ... maybe you're not. It's not cut and dry. And the fact that you SAY that you're not doing it because he's a Muslim is irrelevant: no plaintiff in any discrimination case would ever win if that were the legal standard. The employer always SAYS that they're acting for reasons other than race or sex or national origin. But, as the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words. (And I'm not even going to get into the issue of "disparate impact" cases versus "disparate treatment," that's better suited for a law review article than a sports messageboard.)

Getting back to your example, are you discriminating against a Muslim or are you preventing discrimination from being inflicted on your female employees? Dunno. The right decision is what you can convince 12 jurors was the right decision. It's a real "damned if you, damned if you don't" dilemma that employers occasionally face under conflicting employment laws. Of course, this is Stanford and I think a northern California jury would let you err on the side of discriminating against the uber Christian. But what if this were Ole Miss? Or Montana State? How about U of Texas ... are your jurors going to be Austinites, or are they going to be Texans?

Now, if Cyd's theoretic Muslim has a history of actually implementing the opinion in question, you're golden. Go ahead and not hire him. You don't have to worry about the consequences. But if this is strictly a matter of an untested religious-based opinion, rather than actual manifested behavior ... I honestly don't know. (My recommendation: don't hire but make sure you absolutely avoid mentioning religion as a reason for the rejection.)

MUNSON MAN: Your Boy Scout analogy breaks down because this is an employment issue. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate on the basis of religion (as well as race, sex and national origin). Private or public: it does not matter. The federal employment laws forbid unlawful discrimination against members of protected classes by public or private entities. The Boy Scouts case was not litigated as a violation of employment law, but, if memory serves me right, as an issue of membership in a private club.

Again, I am not arguing what I think should have happened here to Brown. I don't have all the facts. I am definitely not arguing what I think the law should be. I am only stating what I believe the law to be. And my only point is this: if you were making the hiring decision, tread very carefully.

Let me leave you with this thought. How would you answer these two questions:
1. Would Stanford have violated the law if it had refused to hire Brown because his outspoken Christian beliefs would offend gay students (and gay athletes), creating a hostile environment and climate of discrimination?
2. Would BYU violate the law if it refused to hire an openly (and scandalously!) gay coach because his outspoken queer beliefs would offend the school's LDS students and alumni?
Under federal law only, I think the answer to #1 is YES, #2 is definitely NO.
Under California law, and the laws of several other states (including the Great State of Nevada), the answer to both questions is YES.
No place in America is the answer to #2 YES and #1 NO. You may think NO-1, YES-2 is the way it should be, but that's not the way the law actually is right now.

[Edited to add the hypothetical.]

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

[quote]Of course, this is Stanford and I think a northern California jury would let you err on the side of discriminating against the uber Christian. But what if this were Ole Miss? Or Montana State? How about U of Texas ... are your jurors going to be Austinites, or are they going to be Texans?

---

I went to the Ole Miss (University of Mississippi) website since I think they would be more prone to conservatism than Montana or Texas and found the following (quotes marks and emphasis are mine):

"THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI POLICY STATEMENT FOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
The University of Mississippi is a place where Equal Opportunity for faculty, staff, and students is welcomed and embraced both in spirit and in law. In addition to Equal Opportunity, the University reaffirms and voluntarily chooses to strengthen its commitment to the Affirmative Action Program which emphasizes recruitment, outreach, and inclusion as its primary strategies for achieving goals. Equal opportunity and affirmative action are methods by which a wealth of human resources can be developed within our society and community. A viable Equal Opportunity Program enables the University community to show respect and dignity for human relationships while improving the quality of life for University faculty, staff, and students. The University's policy ensures that all available employment opportunities are provided to qualified individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, sexual orientation, national origin, pregnancy, status as a disabled veteran or veteran of the Vietnam-era, or physical or mental disability. In addition, the University is committed to positive action to ensure equal opportunity."

Also I found a discussion of same sex sexual harrassment. Definitions of 'quid pro quo' and 'hostile environment' were given in the document prior to the following paragraphs. (quote marks are mine):

"The Supreme Court has ruled that a claim of either quid pro quo or hostile environment can be made under Title VII even when the alleged harasser and alleged victim are of the same sex. In same sex sexual harassment claims the complaining party must demonstrate that he or she was exposed to disadvantageous working (or academic) conditions to which members of the other sex were not exposed. Title VII does not afford a complaining party protection because of sexual orientation. Consequently, a same sex sexual harassment complaint, an alleged violation of Title VII, cannot be initiated because someone was harassed on the basis of their sexual orientation or effeminacy.

In determining whether alleged sexual harassing conduct warrants corrective action, all relevant circumstances, including the nature of the sexual advances and the context in which the conduct occurred, will be considered. Facts will be judged on the basis of what is reasonable to persons of ordinary sensitivity and not on the particular sensitivity or reaction of an individual."

Given the above, perhaps Ole Miss in not quite the stick-in-the-mud as generally might be believed.

Well, one thing's for certain. He was not discriminated against based upon the color of his skin. Stanford's last coach was black, and seemed to be highly esteemed by most (if not all).
Was it the religion? I doubt it.
Was it the fact that he is an avowed homophobe, and the job location was the bay area, which is scattered with gay/lesbian citizens throughout it's confines? I'd put the money on that.

He made known his leanings prior to the interview process. I see no reason why the folks at Stanford would not have every right to keep his mindset from creeping into California athletics.

One of the things I love about living out here is that institutions frequently take a stand against homophobia...even private institutions like Stanford. Bravo, Cardinal!

Helloo!! Who cares about the coach... Stanford is ALL about the band! LOL Just kidding! It was just getting to serious! Needed a tention breaker!

[quote]... But what if this were Ole Miss? Or Montana State? How about U of Texas ... are your jurors going to be Austinites, or are they going to be Texans?....
[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ][/QB]

---

Hey!!! Watch it, we're not all backward, gun wielding, biscut eating roughnecks here in Texas
Why just last week, we got the indoor plumbing to work. Hey, does anyone know what that middle knob between the other two is for? Now, I do like biscuts with gravy and hold true and remember what my mama always said, Save a horse, ride a cowboy...
Darrell Johnston, Troy Aikman, being the cowboys of choice.)

Ok, But Seriously...

If I am gathering the interview correctly, it was the coach who presented his religious beliefs during the interview. As a person who's conducted a good number of job interviews, I know the panel or person conducting the interview must have held their breath. A job interview is not a place to introduce your religious beliefs. It's also wrong of the coach to expect to be hired or expect the organization to look at him favorablely or more favorable because he claims to be a "Chirstian", which seems to be the case here.

The coach's religious beliefs may give him the right to discriminate and he say's it's his "Christian" beliefs that allow it, that's fine. He is very free to believe that and also very free to express it. Yet, if those beliefs translate into a professional attitude and are demostrated in the way he performs his job, then there's a problem if what is expressed violates the policies and procedures of the said institution. By introducing his beliefs during a job interview, he is stating how he would perfrom his job. The fact he also introduced the source of his statement of belief was his decision. It doesn't sound like the univeristy interviewer asked if the belief was relgiously based. Now, if the coach was pressed by questions on his religion or religious beliefs, then, that would be another matter. So, it's not the fact he claim's to hold "Christian beliefs" (which I am hard press to believe), but what is it about is his professional attitude that make him the less qualifed candidate for the job.

The coach is perfectly free to use his "Christian" beliefs to formulate his professional attitude and ethic. But the university must ensure the people they hire have a professional attitude and ethic that is in line with the policy and procedures of the univeristy. The coach's religion has nothing to do with it and I'm glad the university is smart enough to stay away from that aspect.

It sounds like the coach is tyring to muddy the waters by bring his "Christian" beliefs into play and trying to force the university to accept them as part of the employment condition. The coach could have said the same thing and based the remark upon scientific evidence and still be the lesser candidate becuase the resulting discrimination would violate the policy and procedures of the university.

It's the fact that the coach stated in a job interview that he feels "gays are wrong", it doesn't matter what that statement is based upon. The fact that the coach used the word "biblical" voluntarily does not protect him nor does it mean the resulting actions of such beliefs are protected or should be ignored in the hiring process. What's important is that the coach's remarks made during a job interview indicate he does view gay men/women differently and does not assign the same value to them. As a result, the gay athlete would not gain the same benefit and might even be hinder by his coaching. It is this reason that makes the coach the lesser qualified candidate for the job. His religion has nothing to do with it. The coach's "Christian" religion is his and his alone and is not the concern of the university. How he would do is his job is the concern of the university.

Remember, you can not, in hiring, discriminate against an applicant based upon the protected categories (those which have already been listed and I can never seem to remember all of them at the same time.) In everything else, you can. I've seen applicants written off because they were late for the interview, awsome interview, but disqualifed because of promptness. I"ve seen appplicants dismissed because they knew somebody in the field and the interviewer didn't like that person so, dismissed for assocation. So,
if the coach voluntarily made a statement that showed his beliefs would violate the university's policy and procedures, and as long as the university remains true to the said policy and not the relgion aspect, I don't see a problem.

The coach can try as he might to sue, etc... but if the university sticks to their argument for not hiring the coach for other reasons other than his "religious" beliefs,I think they'll be ok.

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: satxbuddy1 ]

Hey Sportsfans...
I would like to add my thoughts to this discussion. In my mind, everyone has thoughts, preferences, biases, and prejudices. It is a part of being human. When some one tells me that they don't have a prejudice bone in their body, or that race does not matter, or they never have racist or homophobic thoughts, I know that they are floating down the big river in Egypt. The important thing for me is how a person process their racist, religous, and homophobic feelings. As a black gay man, the people I trust the most can talk to me about their inner most feeling and perceptions about race and sexuality. The question for me, if I had the job of interviewing Coach Brown, would be would is he the best person for the position? Then knowing his position about religion and homosexuality, the question would be; has there been any evidence that his behavior towards his players or anyone in the academic community has caused anyone harm or in anyway been abusive? A persons feeling about me, I cannot control and I believe anyone has a right to believe whatever they believe. I know I have definate opinions and preferences about various issues. It is behavior that is the major consideration here. So, there you go ...I would be interested in feeback from you guys.

He interviewed to be the football coach, yes? Not the religious advisor, or counseler, or moralist, or f*cking bible toting advocate for Christian beliefs. He blew his interview by blowing his own narrow horn. It's an easy call. Stick to football, dude, and let other people choose their own religion, their own beliefs, and their own lifestyle.

With all due respect to your profession CITT (of which you are obviously very knowledgable on the subject of employment law) I believe that the American judicial system (and many in the legal profession - no offense intended) have clearly lost sight of what is "right" in the name of being "politically correct" or "judicially correct"....I know this is another subject matter entirely that merits its own discussion but we are operating under the same code of "justice" that acquitted O.J. Simpson due to lack of "evidence"?

Getting back to the subject matter at hand, I think SatxBuddy's recent post addressed the key issues clearly and succinctly....there is little doubt that Ron Brown (the CANDIDATE) brought up the religion/homosexuality issue during (and AFTER) the interview process, as I'm quite certain the Stanford AD (who was conducting the interview) had the experience and foresight not to bring up those issues during his "questioning"....Brown is clearly looking for an alibi and a forum to voice his reprehensible bigoted and discriminatory views....and as I stated in an earlier post on this topic, the mere fact that he is tying these indefensible statements directly to his "religious beliefs" is unfathomable....there are millions of Christians who don't adhere to such assinine beliefs of harassment and discrimination and for anyone to attempt to "justify" such conduct on "religious" grounds is an insult to the overwhelming majority of Christians worldwide....while many esteemed members of the legal profession may immediately cry "foul" on the basis of "religious discrimination" the central issue remains whether or not such blatant homophobia is actually an inherent part of the religion that Brown proclaims to follow so devoutly and, more importantly, how those views (which once again Brown chose to bring up HIMSELF during the interview process) would affect his ability to succeed and be welcomed into the community when he is dealing with a diverse group of students, players, recruits, faculty, alumni, and fans on a daily basis....if a candidate for a position at such an elite institution of higher learning vocally expressed his "hatred and harassment" of blacks, Jews, females, Italians (you pick the class but I think you see my point) and attempted to use his religion as the basis for such beliefs, would the same "legal support" be forthcoming?

There is little doubt in my mind that the ONLY reason Brown is not also bringing the "race card" into the equation here is due to the fact that he clearly would have no leg to stand on since more than one QUALIFIED African-American (namely Tyrone Willingham and Dennis Green) have held the head coaching position at Stanford in the recent past and have been reasonably successful during their tenure in Palo Alto, I might add....regardless of what some smooth-talking, silver-tongued lawyer may recite in defense of Ron Brown's indefensible words and actions, the Stanford administration should be lauded for having the courage to publicly vocalize what is RIGHT in the name of human decency, even if it supposedly contradicts some age-old Johnnie Cochran-esque legal "precedent" to the contrary....I have always been a fan of Stanford athletics for many years but my respect and admiration for that school has grown immensely as a result of the position that they have taken on this issue....I say let Ron Brown and his homophobic "fraternity" in Nebraska continue to surround themselves with "law abiding Christian" players and coaches who are accepting and apparently in agreement with his bigotry.

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: gamecock ]

I think the guy was right to speak his mind if that's how he feels. If he is a Christian, his beliefs should be more important to him than any job. If his beliefs conflict with the institution he wants to hire him, then he's seeking the wrong job.

[quote]Originally posted by Wurm:
So I wonder what Mr. Holy-Roller thought of Erotic E's out-of-wedlock child??????????

---

He's the running backs coach at Nebraska. Crouch isn't his problem

[quote]Originally posted by satxbuddy1:
If I am gathering the interview correctly, it was the coach who presented his religious beliefs during the interview. As a person who's conducted a good number of job interviews, I know the panel or person conducting the interview must have held their breath. A job interview is not a place to introduce your religious beliefs. It's also wrong of the coach to expect to be hired or expect the organization to look at him favorablely or more favorable because he claims to be a "Chirstian", which seems to be the case here.

---

Only a handful of people were in that interview room, and only they know how it went down. But I seriously doubt Brown brought up his religion and said, "There better not be any fags on the team 'cuase I just cannot abide fags." Rather, in light of the Dwight Slater case, one of my first questions would be about how he as a coach would deal with an athlete struggling with these issues. Of course my first question would be what skills he feels he can bring to the defensive side of the ball considering his career has chiefly been in offense. But soon after that I would have brought up Slater. It's not a hypothetical, and it is a legitimate hiring consideration. If a coach is supposed to be a leader and mentor of young men, as Brown obviously believes one should be, then a University that prizes inclusivity has a right to ask how any prospective employee would deal with issues of sexuality.

[quote]Originally posted by jqueer:


Only a handful of people were in that interview room, and only they know how it went down. But I seriously doubt Brown brought up his religion and said, "There better not be any fags on the team 'cuase I just cannot abide fags...
If a coach is supposed to be a leader and mentor of young men, as Brown obviously believes one should be, then a University that prizes inclusivity has a right to ask how any prospective employee would deal with issues of sexuality.

---

I think he used the term "biblically wrong" in the interview, I may be wrong on this but that is the term I've read him saying. In essesnce the coach in a nice, so-called Christian manner is saying:

"There better not be any fags on the team 'cuase I just cannot abide fags...

That pretty much caps how the coach would deal with issues of sexuality.

Coach Brown is having a difficult time evaluating his priorities objectively. He claims that he has to "obey God" and "can't straddle the line" between biblical truths and other aspects of life. But says that this is why he coaches football--to reach people and teach about the important things in life (i.e. his life, i.e. the bible). No matter how good of a coach Mr Brown may be, you can't teach anyone about real life if you dismiss real aspects about real people because of some outdated passages in a book. I think Mr Brown is playing fantasy bible football if he thinks his religious views are appropriate on the field. Stanford, more than any other football progam in the nation (because of Slater) should know that using anti-gay beliefs as a reason not to hire a coach is not only okay, but is a smart move. Whether they actually used Brown's religious beliefs in their decision is not important because the reality is that some jobs require do require certain beliefs.

[quote]Originally posted by satxbuddy1:
In essesnce the coach in a nice, so-called Christian manner is saying:

"There better not be any fags on the team 'cuase I just cannot abide fags...

---

For the record, my point was that I doubted Brown _brought up the subject_. I am not contradicting the implications of his statements. Rather I am suggesting that he didn't inject it into the interview but that it was a question put to him.

Regardless of who "brought up" the subject (and I would still put money on the fact that Brown HIMSELF raised the issue considering how outspoken he has been to publicize his "religious beliefs" since the interview) does it make his "beliefs" any less tolerable or inhumane, jqueer?....bigots and homophobes like Brown should have NO place in the field of education when they are dealing with our youth on a daily basis, regardless of what flimsy "legal rights" they may believe they are entitled to....to quote Jack Nicholson's Col. Jessup "(Mr. Brown), I don't give a DAMN what you think you are entitled to!..."

Look, I'm glad he didn't get the job.
I wouldn't have hired him.
I don't think any laws were broken, or Brown had his rights abridged.
All I was saying was that I thought satxbuddy1 had made an error of the facts considering the case.
I stand by that. If the Stanford interviewers were on the ball, they would have known about Brown's Christian affiliations and would have made his treatment of gay players and other students an issue during the interview.
Whether Brown would have brought it up if they didn't is irrelevant.
And finally, as I originally said, none of us were in the room (unless Cyd was an alumni representative on the interview panel) we can't _know_ what happened merely guess. And while we're all guessing on this point of trivia, we
re ignoring the true story which is at at least one division one NCAA college in America, a homophobe cannot get a job as a head football coach. Not quite the breakthrough that hiring a queer as a division one head coach would be, but a step in the right direction nonetheless.

[quote]Originally posted by jqueer:


For the record, my point was that I doubted Brown _brought up the subject_. I am not contradicting the implications of his statements. Rather I am suggesting that he didn't inject it into the interview but that it was a question put to him.

---

If a question was put to the coach, I think the interviewing panel or person has enough professionalism and compentence to address the issue from a professional standpoint and not a religious one. The coach is not saying he was asked about his religious convictions.

Even if the issue of gay atheletes arouse, it seema it was the coach that brought up the relgious convictions as the source of his belief. Which again is fine, but that' s not a concern of the interviewer.

The interviewer is looking to see if Coach Brown would treat all Stanford's atheltes the same and the answer one can surmise is no, not with an professionally stated attidtude that devalues a group of students because the coaches has a personal bias against the group and which came out in the interview. That makes him the lesser qualified. It doesn't matter if his attitude towards gays is from his religion, his science, or his bad date with the high school quaterback.

His professional stated stance on gays would indicate he could not comply with the schools code of non discrimination based upon sexual orientation. Given all other professional skils are equal, there are other coaches that can comply and be just as good or better coach than coach Brown at Standford and that makes them the better candidates for the job at that school.

satxbuddy1, I agree completely, and don't think anything I've said to this point on the subject contradicts that. In fact, you bring up an excellent point. Even if the school did ask him about how he would treat homosexuality in the locker room (well, homosexuals in the locker room), he could have deflected the question without reference to his religious beliefs and without compromising them. Much like I am often in the position of rationalizing a woman's right to choose, while I personally believe abortion is wrong (not murder, just wrong) because of strongly held religious beliefs. One of the prices we pay for living in a free society is that we do not get to impose our religious beliefs on others. If your religion requires of you that imposition, then I guess we do not live in a truely free society.

edited for a particularly embarrassing spelling lapse.

[ April 14, 2002: Message edited by: jqueer ]

Maybe he wasn't hired because he's a POSITION COACH! Not even a coordinator!! Maybe he needs to call a play or two before taking one of the top thirty to forty coaching positions in the country.

CITT, I think the university could put up a pretty vigorous defense that there's a difference between religion/creed and a specific, stated prejudice that is not inherent to the religion (there are plenty of pro-gay Christians, even pro-gay fundamentalists). He doesn't just say "I'm a Christian, I'm a Christian, I'm a Christian," you know? I'm sure he believes that Jews are going to hell (as are all of us who will die before accepting Jeebus) but you don't hear him saying that in a public forum, do you? Please don't tell him that if that were the statement he'd made and was under fire for couldn't be used as a reason not to refuse to hire him as the HEAD FOOTBALL COACH ... for which part of the job is being a symbol of what the university represents. No college, public or private, could be compelled to hire a man who said "Jews are going to hell." To me, that's the best analogy.

I'd also like to point out how much right-wing Christians use the language of progressives when it's convenient for them. The First Amendment is their friend ONLY when it's Christians who are being silenced (the American Center for Law & Justice HATES the ACLU, and yet uses case law established thanks to the ACLU in ALL its court cases). The immorality of discrimination is brought up when it's Christians who are losing their jobs, not when it's gays.

To me, many of them have this big ole persecution complex. I mean BIG! I'm like "dude, don't worry so much about it ... you're going to heaven! Just shut up and deal with it!" They LOVE the idea that "Christians" are a dispised minority in this country, even though polls say that 90+% of Americans are Christians. Gimme a break!

oh, what about that queer chick on campus who was like "yeah, there are several gays on the football team and they'd be uncomfortable with a 'phobe for a coach" ... DETAILS!!!

[quote]Originally posted by bridgeportjake:
oh, what about that queer chick on campus who was like "yeah, there are several gays on the football team and they'd be uncomfortable with a 'phobe for a coach" ... DETAILS!!!

---

I'd say, I want to be the back field in motion coach....

there's a front page article on this situation at the sf chronicle's web site....

www.sfgate.com

I grew up in Lincoln and came across Ron Brown on numerous occasions. I worked at a movie theater in high school and college and he stopped by for popcorn on a regular basis.
Let's just say he's a nice guy, but his opinion on homosexuality is dead wrong.
Not getting the job at Stanford? What a shocker!