Bible Study Policy at UW System
Welcome to the University of Wisconsin.
Convicted rapists and murders can work here.
As long as they don't conduct bible studies!
Well, one part of this is about to change.
RA's get green light for Bible studyRead more of the story, including the full language of the new policy, at JSOnline.
The president of the University of Wisconsin System is recommending a new system-wide policy that would allow resident assistants to conduct Bible study in their dorm rooms as long as they do not coerce other students into participating.
The recommendation from Kevin Reilly, which will come before the UW System Board of Regents for a vote next week, follows a heated controversy at UW-Eau Claire, where a resident assistant was threatened with disciplinary action last summer if he continued to host a bible study in his dorm.
8 Comments:
Your are truly a simpleton. This is a complex issue that involves balancing the rights of employees to practice their faiths with the rights of students to be free of official pressure to participate in that practice.
Happily, many thoughtful people ofgood will examined the issue and found a way to accomodate everybody in a meaningful way.
You of course reduce the entire issue to bumper-sticker style nonsense. What's your point? UW favors rapists over god? The world is full of enough gibberish. You have a platform and you completely waste it ojn this type ofg garbage when you could offerthought provoking commentary instead.
My point, Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, is that the UW System is not run very well.
And yes, current policy did favor convicted felons and did not favor those who wished to conduct religious study.
(1) its usually illegal to refuse employment to someone because of a past conviction. This wasn't "favor," it was compliance with the law.
(2) Again, the RA thing had competing sets of rights involved, both of which are important. It needed to be sorted out and it was.
What is your problem?
1) The audit indicated the UW system did not have uniform screening policies. They were not even aware, in many cases, that they even had persons cnvicted of violent felonies in their employ. Moreover you can deny employment if their offense was related to the employment. Considering the number of 17, 18, and 19 year olds n attendance at the UW, and considering their are students struggling with substance abuse, an argument could be made that violent murders and rapists, as well as convicted drug dealers, could be denied employment.
Nevertheless, you can't 'deny' a felon anything if you don't even know the person is a felon.
2) It was clear in the RA case that there was no coercion. That it was a broadly defined and poorly applied policy.
My problem is that the UW System, which is accountable to all taxpayers, including myself, is not run very well.
Each year, costs for students continue to rise.
Both in state students and taxpayers are not getting the maximum value for their investment.
What's your problem?
My problem is that you reduce all issues, no matter how complex or decliate to frat-boy style sloganeering.
Why screen for a piece of information that cannot legally be the basis of an employment decision?
The problem with the RA set up is that RAs were deemed to be always on duty and served as something of an authority figure to other students. There was concern that this would create some pressue on those students to participate. That's real. You send a young person away from home for the first time. The kid moves into a dorm and often looks to the older authority figure of an RA for some guidance, etc. It is easy to see why kids in that situtation who practice a different faith or none at all would feel some pressure to conform, even if the RA is not trying to shove his belief on anyone.
On the other hand, the RA should be able to worship as he chooses. So we have competing concerns.
The most bizarre aspect of your rant is that you are so determined that UW sucks, your example is an instance in which UW solved the problem in a way that works for everyone, including religious RAs.
Wanna be an honest guy? This decision should've received an "atta boy" from you.
You engage in name calling and I am the simpleton?
You ask: Why screen for a piece of information that cannot legally be the basis of an employment decision?
I personally think UW students and their parents, for example, would like to know if the janitor in the all girls dorm is a convicted rapist.
But, like hey, what do I know. I'm just a simple frat boy.
During my sophomore year, my RA at the UW was a dedicated Christian and very involved with InterVarsity. He didn't coerce any of us. For those of us who weren't interested in studying the bible or whatever terrible things he did in his room, it didn't affect us.
My original point was that the UW preferred to protect students from the possible dangers of being exposed to religion, but not of the possile dangers of being exposed to convicted murders and rapists?
And the new policy did receive an 'atta boy' from me. I noted they solved the RA policy problem.
Ok, so its not that UW should violated the law by not hiring these people but that it should have kept parents and students advised of employees' criminal history. To what end? The only result would be confrontation, fear, and general disruption.
And, besides, is it really a good idea to make sure that felons, after they do their sentence, have no options for legit employment?
I am glad you had a nice RA. Can you concieve of anyone having an experience different than yours, someone who may not share the majority's religious views?
the bigger theme though is that you smear UW and thenn use a good, thoughtful decision as ammo. Its just dishonest and it dumbs down debate of an important issue.
Yes, you are a simpleton. Consider this statement:
"Each year, costs for students continue to rise."
Why has this occurred? Because the legislature (under both parties) and governor's of both parties have walked away from state support for the UW. Thiry years ago the state kicked in 50% of the UW-Madison budget. Today that figure is south of 20%.
There are two choices for the UW: Cut quality as state support falls or cut quality.
What's your choice, simpleton?
Post a Comment
<< Home