Here is the story:
Calvin College’s board has denied the request of an African American professor to worship at a Baptist church. If Denise Isom continues to attend her primarily African American congregation, Messiah Missionary Baptist, she will be taken off tenure track and given a one-year term to end after the 2008-2009 school year.
Faculty members at Calvin are required to be members of a Christian Reformed Church (CRC) or a church in “ecclesiastical fellowship” with the denomination. Isom, an assistant professor of education, was aware of the rule when she joined Calvin in 2003, but believed she could apply for an exception. Calvin, which has a student body that is 94 percent white, has previously granted exceptions, usually to faculty members whose spouses are ordained in another denomination.
Isom spent several years visiting some of the more than 100 CRC congregations in the Grand Rapids area. While several CRC churches are beginning to reach out to the African American community, none are “there” yet, Isom wrote in her request. “I need a place of worship that is already consistent with my culture and able to grapple with issues of race in ways which make it a respite, a re-charging and growing place for me, as opposed to another location where I must ‘work’ and where I am ‘other.’”
Calvin’s board decided that upholding the school’s denominational requirement was necessary for Calvin to remain a Reformed institution. “Nearly all Christian colleges and universities that distanced themselves from their founding denominations and theological traditions eventually also drifted away from being Christian in any meaningful way,” Bastian Knoppers, chair of the Calvin College board of trustees, wrote in a statement.
Shirley Hoogstra, vice president for student life at Calvin, which has 4,200 students, said the college’s leadership is discussing a solution to the problem. No decisions have been made yet, however. Provost Claudia Beversluis also said the board would move up its scheduled 2009 review of faculty requirements, but she didn’t know if any change would come soon enough to help Isom.
The Isom decision sparked heated discussions and a staff and student prayer vigil at Calvin, with many wondering how the school can reach out to diverse communities while remaining rooted in the historically Dutch CRC.
“Diversity is still relatively new to Christian universities,” said Pete Menjares, associate provost of diversity leadership at Biola University. “We are still figuring out how to do this.”
On predominantly white campuses, Menjares said, support structures such as home, family, and church become even more important to minority faculty and students. “Our colleges still very much reflect our churches, which are monocultural,” he said.
While diversity is a worthy goal, universities should keep it in perspective, said John Bowling, president of Olivet Nazarene University in Illinois.
“Any Christian college or university has an obligation to remain loyal to its core values and constituencies and to maintain theological coherence,” Bowling said. “To override those commitments could be a disservice to the university in the long run.”
Here are my thoughts:
The first thing that comes to mind is she knew what the rules were before she started. Here is the quote:
Isom, an assistant professor of education, was aware of the rule when she joined Calvin in 2003, but believed she could apply for an exception.
So while I can definitely understand her desire to worship at a “culturally relevant” church she knew what her employers requirements were before she took the J-O-B. What makes matters worse for me though is the fact that this woman is a Christian. As a Christian you are obligated to be loyal in the workplace rather if it is a Christian workplace or not. So to even allow this thing to go this far and for her to speak publicly about it is “SIN”.
Now I know I am going to catch so flack because of that last word but we have to call a spade a spade. What she did was deceptive. You don’t come in agreeing and shaking hands while the entire time you have an ulterior motive. Her motive was to go to a black church. She already knew that the CRC denomination is about 110% white! She already knew that the student demographics were 94% white and she knew that the staff was about 99% white. This wasn’t an epiphany this was an agenda. I don’t think her motives were impure but she “believed she could get an exception”. This is unacceptable.
Finally if this goes any further than it has, it will defame the name of Christ and cause unnecessary heartache to the staff and faculty at Calvin College. Calvin College was upfront with their requirements and their prerequisites, this woman knew those clearly. To take this to court violates Paul’s clear commands in 1 Corinthians 6 when he says:
6:1 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!
Paul makes it clear “no lawsuits amongst Christians”. Furthermore he asks a question “why not be defrauded”? This is the million dollar question. Christ was taken advantage of for our salvation. Philippians says “he humbled himself taking on the form of a servant”. So we must ask why is it that our rights are more important than our testimony? Peter says “like a lamb being led to the slaughter”. Christ didn’t say a word when falsely accused by the Jews, when slapped and spit on and mocked by the Roman guards, when flogged and hit in the head with a staff. When put on a purple robe and mocked. When nailed to a cross which He created the wood for, the metal for the nails, the ground it went into and the people who nailed Him to it. Christ says “forgive them Father”. He bore our wrath and we (she) can’t humbly endure perceived wrongs?
So I close with this question?
Do we really want to be like Christ? I don’t think so!
Dang, you got on that fast! Thanks!!
Would I be wrong to say that things seem a bit confusing to me still? From what I could gather, she was trying to go to a WHITE COLLEGE and expecting it would conform to her background in Black Culture. Am I off in saying that?
So while I can definitely understand her desire to worship at a “culturally relevant” church she knew what her employers requirements were before she took the J-O-B. What makes matters worse for me though is the fact that this woman is a Christian. As a Christian you are obligated to be loyal in the workplace rather if it is a Christian workplace or not. So to even allow this thing to go this far and for her to speak publicly about it is “SIN”.
Hey b and r,
I agree wholeheartedly with the above statement. However, Dr. Isom acknowledges this (church membership policy) and states that she felt they she may have been entitled to an “exception”, based on the school’s exceptions for other colleagues that have attended churches outside of CRC.
Thus, because the school had a verifiable record of exceptions, she is justified to complain. If Calvin had never granted exceptions and had stuck to their guns, she would have no basis for argument other than trying to establish a precedent by being the first to get away with it.
The fact that Calvin grants exceptions have been established and as a consequence, the sister saw the crack that they left wide open and went straight for the gusto… She is saying that they change the rules when they want to and she is right…
Thus, it would behoove Calvin to set forth rules and guidelines that are both clear and concise so that there is no room for “exceptions”…
Calvin set their ownselves up for this one and should make sure that all bases are covered in the future.
Oh yeah, the racial aspect has also thrown another monkey wrench in this thing…
If the exceptions were made for white professors only, she has a bonafide reason to holla the “D” word, discrimination because she is African American and has been denied the same rights .
Possible scenario:
1. White professors are/were granted exceptions
2. Black professor is not granted an exception, nor have “any” Black professors been granted exceptions. Thus, “all” Black professors have been denied exceptions
To all that is listening, if this is indeed the case
THIS SIGNIFIES A MAJOR PROBLEM!!!
I admit that most institutions don’t fully realize the extent of the policies that they develop. However, being ignorant is no excuse and can be very costly. I think instances such as these serve to educate and change policies. I will give Clavin the benefit of the doubt and say they never fully considered the far reaching effects. The good thing about this is that they will learn a lot–:-)
There are really people out there who are trained to look for the little “slip-ups” which means that everyone should be proactive in making sure (like my late, great grandmother used to say), they have all their duckies are in a row…
Now I know I am going to catch so flack because of that last word but we have to call a spade a spade. What she did was deceptive. You don’t come in agreeing and shaking hands while the entire time you have an ulterior motive. Her motive was to go to a black church. She already knew that the CRC denomination is about 110% white! She already knew that the student demographics were 94% white and she knew that the staff was about 99% white. This wasn’t an epiphany this was an agenda. I don’t think her motives were impure but she “believed she could get an exception”. This is unacceptable.
Good one b and r cause it ties in to previous posts dealing with the majority white/minority black church issues. I think this is important because it does imply that there has to be a loss of culture to comply.
Because of every word, you have admitted that she agreed to the rules because she joined and you are absolutely right. I addressed the exception in the previous post). Here, I am simply trying to hammer home the fact that this is common and some of us don’t want to agree to the rules so to avoid these types of situations, we simply stay clear of them.
Lol@G!
Let Righer explain…
See, “what had happened was…”–:-)
She didn’t try to “change” anything. She merely looked at the schools records of granting exceptions and applied for one because they (Calvin) have a record of granting them.
Now the article says that the school “usually” grants them because a spouse may be ordained in another denomination. However, this leaves room for the question, what are the other reasons for exceptions? “Usually”, does not mean ‘at all times”.
Based upon this, the sister asked for an exception. She acknowledges the fact of the CRC policy, but says that because others have been granted exceptions, she believes that she too is quite possibly entitled to one.
So, the problem lies with Calvin; they said one thing on paper, but did something all together different when they started granting exceptions, which they shouldn’t have done. This has been clearly shown in this instance, which has served to open up a can of worms for them that seems to be escalating at a very rapid pace…
Righter is going to watch this one closely–:-)
and applied for one.
Oh yeah G,
Dr. Isom’s request for exception seeks permission to attend a Black Baptist church, outside of the CRC arena.
This was done based upon her assertions that there have been other professors that have been granted exceptions to attends churches outside of CRC. She is simply requesting the same and is not trying to re-invent the wheel…
Hey Laura,
I read the issue here and would love to dialog further. Where is the church blog that you mentioned? I clicked on your name but didn’t see a reference to the article.
Thanks–:-)
Lionel, thanks for posting on what appears to be a very difficult issue. In my mind, this case really hinges on the previous exemptions granted. If they have been granted for many different reasons, than I would feel more sympathetic to Isom. However if they only granted them in extenuating circumstances (like the ordination of a spouse in another denomination) I would be more sympathetic to Calvin. Either way, both parties probably could have avoided this by being more honest in the beginning. Like you said Lionel, Isom should have known at the beginning that her chances of finding an african-american church would be very difficult in that denomination. She was given no guarantee that she would be allowed an exception and therefore faced the reality that she might have to worship at a church she would not like. As I understand the situation, Calvin did not hire her and then change the rules. They were already in place before her hire. Having said that, how in the world does Calvin think they will diversify their faculty with this type of rule in place?
Finally, Lionel, I appreciate your emphasis on the cross. We would all do well to remember Christ’s sacrifice when we have conflicts with our brothers and sisters.
http://blog.mlive.com/grpress_extra/2007/10/isoms_letter_to_calvin_preside.html
http://blog.mlive.com/grpress_extra/2007/11/calvin_responds_to_isom_inquir.html
http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/search.php?query=trustees
http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/article.php?id=3206
http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/article.php?id=3162
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
——————————————————————————–
Need more information?The law:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
The regulations:
29 C.F.R Part 1605
We also have information on:
Employment Discrimination Based on Religion, Ethnicity, or Country of Origin
Questions and Answers About the Workplace Rights of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians, and Sikhs Under the Equal Employment Opportunity Laws
Questions and Answers About Employer Responsibilities Concerning the Employment of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians, and Sikhs
You may also be interested in:How to File a Charge of Employment Discrimination
Mediation at EEOC
Training and Outreach
Information for Small Employers
Have a Question?Ask us! Contact us by phone (toll free) or email, or check our FAQs.
Religious Discrimination
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.
Under Title VII:
Employers may not treat employees or applicants more or less favorably because of their religious beliefs or practices – except to the extent a religious accommodation is warranted. For example, an employer may not refuse to hire individuals of a certain religion, may not impose stricter promotion requirements for persons of a certain religion, and may not impose more or different work requirements on an employee because of that employee’s religious beliefs or practices.
*****Employees cannot be forced to participate — or not participate — in a religious activity as a condition of employment. *****
Employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. An employer might accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices by allowing: flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers, modification of grooming requirements and other workplace practices, policies and/or procedures.
An employer is not required to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs and practices if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employers’ legitimate business interests. An employer can show undue hardship if accommodating an employee’s religious practices requires more than ordinary administrative costs, diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees’ job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, causes co-workers to carry the accommodated employee’s share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law or regulation.
Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Generally, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.
Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees. An employer can reduce the chance that employees will engage unlawful religious harassment by implementing an anti-harassment policy and having an effective procedure for reporting, investigating and correcting ***harassing conduct.
It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on religion or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII.***
Statistics
***In Fiscal Year 2007, EEOC received 2,880 charges of religious discrimination. EEOC resolved 2,525 religious discrimination charges and recovered $6.4 million in monetary benefits for charging parties and other aggrieved individuals (not including monetary benefits obtained through litigation). ***
Charge Statistics: Religious Discrimination
——————————————————————————–
This page was last modified on March 4, 2008.
Return to Home Page
http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html
This school is a place employment and is therefore bound by the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) laws.
I added this last piece to say that “Christian” institutions have a moral obligation to uphold the law and thus, should not discriminate on any of the following:
Discrimination by Type:
Facts and Guidance
Age
Disability
Equal Pay
National Origin
Pregnancy
Race
Religion
Retaliation
Sex
Sexual Harassment
http://www.eeoc.gov/
Righer you said:
“This school is a place employment and is therefore bound by the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) laws.
I added this last piece to say that “Christian” institutions have a moral obligation to uphold the law and thus, should not discriminate on any of the following:
Discrimination by Type:
Facts and Guidance
Age
Disability
Equal Pay
National Origin
Pregnancy
Race
Religion
Retaliation
Sex
Sexual Harassment”
Should a Christian College higher a Muslim?
Hey Righter,
What if your job gave an exception to someone would it be required to give it to all employees?
Hey Righter, it’s actually our church’s message board, which is a private board for its members to discuss various topics. I appreciate your input and will pass it along!
Thank you for the question b and r and for allowing me the time and space to address the issue.
This is an opportunity to look at other areas of discrimination because we mainly discuss issues that apply to race and gender only. As such, I have included all of the categories were discrimination is unlawful due to Federal guidelines in the previous post.
I’ll be honest and say that my first post did not address the religious aspect because I overlooked it until I read the EEOC page. From there, it became apparent that this may indeed create a problem for Calvin.
We must begin to address the issue of the Christian school. I agree wholeheartedly that as a school that holds to Christian ideals, Calvin does in fact have the right to ensure that they are followed by students, faculty and staff.
However, once the school (or any place of employment for that matter) decides to become an “employer”, it must also follow federal regulations that prohibit discrimination or face negative consequences. Thus, Calvin may have been wrong for instituting such a policy to begin with in the legal arena, although the basis of Christianity is at hand.
So, its mission is multifaceted in that it has an obligation to remain and enforce Reformed Theology, it must be diverse in its hiring and admissions policies and thirdly, it must not discriminate on any level while doing the first two.
After researching the issue, I do see where strides have been made to ensure compliance with the Reformed Theology and hiring/admissions practices. But, it is struggling to understand that its policies have an underlying “tint” of discrimination. This is why this is a good case-it will open up some eyes as to what can and what cannot occur in the workplace.
I looked for other instances where this has occurred but couldn’t locate any. So, we may end up with a defining decision, either way it goes. However, I think that situations such as these serve to broaden understanding.
I will tell you that people are sent to infiltrate organizations just to ensure that EEO is being followed. Not to say that this is the case, I have just discovered policies in one day of reading that are very questionable in the eyes of the law. With that being said, I have to believe that others have seen what I saw and this is why we are having this discussion.
Moreover, it must be understood that the current EEOC laws have not been designed to protect “employer” rights; although they do (employers) have other means of recourse. Thus, the laws have been designed to protect “employees” and no matter what their religious preference is, the have the right to work and practice religion as they please.
Here is another example taken from the EEOC website:
Anger at those responsible for the tragic events of September 11 should not be misdirected against innocent individuals because of their religion, ethnicity, or country of origin. Employers and labor unions have a special role in guarding against unlawful workplace discrimination.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination based on religion, national origin, race, color, or sex. At this time, employers and unions should be particularly sensitive to potential discrimination or harassment against individuals who are – or are perceived to be – Muslim, Arab, Afghani, Middle Eastern or South Asian (Pakistani, Indian, etc.).
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-relig_ethnic.html
Notice how the additional verbiage has been added in regards to Muslim after 911. Thus, do you think Calvin could argue that they won’t hire a Muslim because they are a Christian school in light of this? Well, they did but somehow they felt they were entitled to what they refused, an “exception” to the rules…
I know that they know the law, but they somehow believe they don’t have to follow it because they are Christian, which I assert to be “un-Christian”…
We’ll see if any information comes out that says they have the legal right to do this-I haven’t seen any as of yet.
With that being said, I assert that Calvin has no “legal” argument to deny the employment of a Muslim. Better still, no employer does and the fact this is a school that holds to Christian ideals is sort of weak in a court of law.
What I have presented is law, not something I made up. And based upon the law, I have to make logical decisions that are in line with it or I too will be in violation. You say, “How can Muslims work at a Christian school” and I say “I don’t know”…
I do know that if a Muslim applies for a job and is subsequently denied the right o work “any where” because he/she is Muslim, he/she has a right to file a grievance that could result in monetary compensation based on Federal law.
You and I both know that the “feds” don’t play–
I understanding your argument based upon a Christian worldview and on that, you are absolutely correct. However, there are other things to consider simply because this Christian school is an employer and as a consequence, it has to comply with the EEOC regulations in “all” categories, not just some.
In conclusion, I’ll leave you with a question b and r;
Should there be punishment for breaking the law, regardless of the religious affiliation?
Thanks Laura,
I’ve written so much on the subject here that I was actually considering copying and pasting! lol
My question is, why would a Muslim want to work in a Christian college in the first place?
Hey Righter,
What if your job gave an exception to someone would it be required to give it to all employees?
If this occured, it would no longer be an exception because it has been opened up to the entire group.
However, “all” employees have the right to request exceptions based upon previous instances where exceptions had been granted
Hey Dtg–you gotta ask the Muslim! lol
Seriously, I think b and r was stating a “worse case” scenario for discussion, which is good…
As I understand the situation, Calvin did not hire her and then change the rules. They were already in place before her hire
Righter asserts that Dr. Isom never requested a change, she requested an exception, based upon the school’s history of granting them.
To say that she shoulnd’t have requested an exception is in itself,discrminatory because Calvin has indeed granted them in the past.
On the other hand, I totally agree with your assessment of Calvin’s inability to diversify based upon current policies
Billy you said:
They were already in place before her hire. Having said that, how in the world does Calvin think they will diversify their faculty with this type of rule in place?
I think you raise a really good question. The problem is if their view of diversity conflicts with their doctrine which takes precedent. If their position is that we want to uphold doctrinal faithfulness (rather we agree with that doctrie or not is not the question) then we have to tip our hats to them and say their conviction is one to be praised. I am all for diversity but Christianity is not the secualr world. Doctrine counts and in seminary this should be of extreme importance.
I wouldn’t want a Reformed guy teaching eschatology at DTS and I wouldn’t want a Dispensation brother teaching Eschatology at Westminster. It goes against the very premise and doctrinal foundation of the Seminary.
Righter, I may be wrong, but my understanding was that if an organization does not receive federal funding it is not subject to federal standards regarding anti-discrimination policies. Otherwise, how could any private institution require its professors or students to sign a covenant or adhere to certain policies? I’m thinking not just of places like ultra-conservative Pensacola Christian College which forbids just about everything you could imagine, but also of places like my (moderate at best) American Baptist alma mater, which prohibits extramarital sex (including of the homosexual variety) among other things. Surely this is a “discriminatory” policy.
I too would like to see a list of exemptions granted to professors, and the reasons behind them — perhaps this would shed some more light on the subject.
Is this REALLY racism? I just don’t think we have enough background info to know for sure — and I lean toward “NO” in a big way. Racism is a big, mean, ugly word, and to call an organization like Calvin which is nothing if not biblically faithful (besides being passionate about the arts and all sorts of other wonderful things) “racist” without examining if that was really the bottom line — that seems sloppy.
BTW, Righter, I am NOT accusing you of the above at all… that word has just been thrown around a lot.
The question to me is UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES and to what degree have they granted exemptions? If other folks (women profs whose husbands pastor elsewhere, for example) have been allowed to attend reformed baptist congregations, that’s a bit different than, say, a Full Gospel Fellowship or an Apostolic Temple or something! Just theologically, they (meaning the board or whoever’s making the decisions here) ought to be able to use discretion about what they’ll allow. Nobody’s being granted an exemption to attend a Wesleyan, Methodist, or UCC church, THAT I can guarantee!
I don’t think they were saying, “You can’t apply for an exemption.” I think they were saying, “You can’t have an exemption for that church.”
1. Righter, I may be wrong, but my understanding was that if an organization does not receive federal funding it is not subject to federal standards regarding anti-discrimination policies. Otherwise, how could any private institution require its professors or students to sign a covenant or adhere to certain policies? I’m thinking not just of places like ultra-conservative Pensacola Christian College which forbids just about everything you could imagine, but also of places like my (moderate at best) American Baptist alma mater, which prohibits extramarital sex (including of the homosexual variety) among other things. Surely this is a “discriminatory” policy.
I too would like to see a list of exemptions granted to professors, and the reasons behind them — perhaps this would shed some more light on the subject.
Is this REALLY racism? I just don’t think we have enough background info to know for sure — and I lean toward “NO” in a big way. Racism is a big, mean, ugly word, and to call an organization like Calvin which is nothing if not biblically faithful (besides being passionate about the arts and all sorts of other wonderful things) “racist” without examining if that was really the bottom line — that seems sloppy.
BTW, Righter, I am NOT accusing you of the above at all… that word has just been thrown around a lot.
Hi Laura,
I welcome the dialog and don’t worry about being offensive as an open dialog is necessary.
Righter, I may be wrong, but my understanding was that if an organization does not receive federal funding it is not subject to federal standards regarding anti-discrimination policies. Otherwise, how could any private institution require its professors or students to sign a covenant or adhere to certain policies? I’m thinking not just of places like ultra-conservative Pensacola Christian College which forbids just about everything you could imagine, but also of places like my (moderate at best) American Baptist alma mater, which prohibits extramarital sex (including of the homosexual variety) among other things. Surely this is a “discriminatory” policy.
Righter:
A lot of jobs don’t receive federal funding but still have to adhere to the law. This is a common misconception that keeps showing up over and over again in cases of discrimantion. By that, it is often said, “but we didn’t receive federal funding and therefore don’t have to comply”
Yeah, right…
An important fact is being consistently missed, this was a place of employment. As such, it has to abide by the rule or “sing to the piper”. I realize that this is a Christian school, but the fact of the matter is that it is exempt from Federal statutes because of it. This is where the real grey area is. Many believe that religious affiliation somehow gives them speacial priveledges, oh dang, I hear myselg being repeated from a previous post…
I know that your Christian ideals won’t let you separate the two entities, Christian school and place of employment, but it has to based upon the precepts of the law. I adhere to the Christian faith as well, I just know that I have to follow the law while doing so.
As far as having folks sign stuff, I think that many are in violation and are either unaware or unconcered of the consequences. Just because someone asks someone to sign does not make it legal, which is why most contracts should be signed with an attorney present.
As far as the policies that you have listed, I have found none of the listed on the EEOC’s page. As such, in the eyes of the EEOC, they surely are “not” discrminatory as it does not consider such matters because it was not designed to do so. I have taken the liberty to list the categories again for your review..
Discrimination by Type:
Facts and Guidance
Age
Disability
Equal Pay
National Origin
Pregnancy
Race
Religion
Retaliation
Sex
Sexual Harassment
http://www.eeoc.gov/
Is this REALLY racism? I just don’t think we have enough background info to know for sure — and I lean toward “NO” in a big way. Racism is a big, mean, ugly word, and to call an organization like Calvin which is nothing if not biblically faithful (besides being passionate about the arts and all sorts of other wonderful things) “racist” without examining if that was really the bottom line — that seems sloppy.
Righter:
Well, Laura, it depends on how the school granted exceptions. If they only granted them to white professors then yes, it is. There is nothing sloppy about reporting the law. I know that new information and concepts can be upsetting, but this situation is what it is. I have only presented “what can happen” scenarios (based upon the facts presented in the article and Federal law) and I have not pulled the “race card”, yet…
As a matter of fact, I “stumbled” upon the religious aspect and I am leaning more towards discrmination in this arena more so than the racial category as a result. However, I will say that I have not ruled out anything because it is much too early. On the other hand, I haven’t formed conclusions either. As I stated earlier, I will watch this issue as close as possible and comment when new updates occur.
Bottom line, Righter thinks that Calvin needs a “quick fix” round about now before somebody else catches them in the blind which results in dire consequences. In addition, I think they need to hire a team of legal professionals to “train the trainers”, if you will so that they will become fully aware of any implications that can result from their current policies, which are full of holes.
b and r this would work in a place where no one was paid. But based upon its hiring capabilities, they have to conform to the law.
Yes, this does put them in a bind. However, they are going to have to develop strategies that ensure that the reformed view is kept, without violating the ascribed law.
Herein lies the difficult part…
Righter agrees that the “exception” question is still undertermined.
The article states the school “usually” grants exceptions based upon spouse’s ordination elsewhere.
However, I would really be interested in learning the basis for the previous exceptions that did not fall into the “usual” category as it would shed a lot of light on my perspective.
Righter corrects her own error:
Calvin is not exempt from federal employment law because it is a Christian school
I don’t think they were saying, “You can’t apply for an exemption.” I think they were saying, “You can’t have an exemption for that church.”
Now Laura, this may be where the race card is eventually pulled (if it ever is) because it was a Black church.
Just an opinion though–:-)
Hey Laura I agree I don’t think this is an issue of race.
RIGHTER,
Let me say this. There is a story about a little boy who cired wolf. He did it so many times that when the wolf finally came his sceams for help were drowned about by all of the false calls earlier. At the end the sheep die the boy is embarassed and the owner of the sheep our out of money.
If blacks continue down this pattern of crying wolf sooner or later those arounds us will have deadened ears and when injustice, unfairness or blatant racism happens the victims will be ignonred because the screams of “racism” have so deadend the ears of those who really do care. Lets not help the little boy cry wolf by giving him a bull horn and a stage. Lets keep our eyes on the sheep and not the little boy.
Gm b and r,
Righter will agree that the race issue has not really come to the forefront as of yet. However, if Calvin has granted exceptions in an unfair manner which has a racial element, then it does.
The “possible scenario that I gave in which this “might” be an issue (please read that post and pay close attention to the verbiage that I used) is as follows and I will take the time to further explain.
1. White professors have been granted exceptions
2. This African American professor has not been granted an exception. In addition, “no” African American professor has “ever” been granted an exception after applying
Now, if the exception granting has been done in this matter, it can be said that the exception policy has been instituted in a manner that constitutes racial preferences. Thus, a charge of racial discrimination is warranted.
Notice I didn’t say that it did because I truly don’t know at this point. However, it is in the “back” of mind because I have thoroughly read this lady’s letter to the school (and the school’s corresponding response) and it is clear that both she and the school knows “something” that I do not…
In regards to the church attendance, if white professors have been granted permission to attend other white churches outside of CRC but African American professors have “never” been granted permission to attend African American churches (even if they had been granted exceptions to attend churches outside of CRC that are white), then it can be said that the school is instituting policies that prevent African Americans from attending African American churches, if the exceptions are drafted so that there are only approved for “white church attendance”. And I’ll tell you something else because it gets better…
If white professors have been granted permission to attend white churches that are outside of CRC but have applied for exceptions to attend African American churches outside of CRC and have been denied because exceptions to attend African Americans churches are “never” approved, they too (white professors) have the right to file a grievance based upon Federal Law.
See, the listed categories sometimes have cross sectional views which is why careful analysis to necessary in instances such as this. This stuff is “way” to deep to be making generalized comments. Thus, careful research is necessary because most of the comments on blogs don’t mean a hill of beans in a court of law because they are simply opinions that have no merit. What matters is how laws are drafted, implemented and imposed.
Please stay with me b and r and Laura, I am not “saying” these things have occurred. I am saying that there is a possibility and I have provided federal law to show the violations “if” any of these things happened. If they have not, Calvin is most certainly in the clear…
Now EEOC law is tricky. If “one” African American professor at Calvin has “ever” received an exception, Dr. Isom has “no” race argument.
Now, to make this even more complicated and fun (lol) I will say that there is also another “possible” scenario in the area of Sex Discrimination:
1. Male professors have been granted exceptions
2. This “female” professor is not granted an exception and there has “never” been a female professor that has been granted an exception.
Should Dr. Isom decide to follow this line, she will come up short if there has “ever” been a female, regardless of race, that has been granted an exception.
It is important to note that the same would hold true if Dr. Isom was a male.
We all have to remember that we must always be cognizant of “all” of the categories listed in regards to EEOC so that these issues are not raised. With that, Calvin and every other employer is responsible for drafting policies that serve to ensure that they do not violate “any” of these categories.
I am sorry b and r but I cannot state at this point that it (race) is not a factor because I do not know. However, I will say that it may end up being one. I have not formed any conclusions but I have stated the facts as they have been presented in the article, as well is from the EEOC. With that being said, you and the other readers can consider me to be in a neutral position until more evidence, either way, is presented.
I will say this though b and r, you asked me if the school should hire a Muslim.
Now, based upon this statement, I assume that you are saying that the school should not because it is a Christian school. Before ya’ll jump off on the deep end, Righter does not ascribe to “any” tenets of Islam. However, I know that “the law” states that religious affiliation and ethnicity should not be factors that influence the hiring practices of “any” employer and “should not” be grounds for the denial of employment.
I know that you were simply providing an example but let’s say for the sake of discussion that this case involved a Muslim that was being denied “something” in the employment arena because they are “Muslim”. So b and r, not only are we talking about a religion (Muslim that practices Islam), we are also quite possibly talking about ethnicity, if the Muslim is let’s say of Middle Eastern heritage.
The EEOC category for this is “National Origin” and reads as follows:
National origin discrimination means treating someone less favorably because he or she comes from a particular place, because of his or her ethnicity or accent, or because it is believed that he or she has a particular ethnic background. National origin discrimination also means treating someone less favorably at work because of marriage or other association with someone of a particular nationality. Examples of violations covered under Title VII include:
http://www.eeoc.gov/origin/index.html
Thus, the question that you asked would probably fall under “two” categories, “religion” and “national origin”.
If you have a business that hired people and you refused to hire a Muslim because of their religion or ethnicity, you could very well be charged with discrimination based upon the aforementioned law. On another note, Calvin “must” also abide by the EEOC laws regardless of its religious beliefs because they too can be charged.
Thus, “all” employers, religious or non, “must” abide by the laws of the EEOC in order to avoid discrimination charges that can, as has been shown, fall into “several” categories and not just race.
Let’s start to think outside of the “race box” and let’s start to look at the other areas where discrimination can occur.
I challenge you and others to comb my posts for anything that says with all certainty that this has come down because of race. I have said this because I have only looked at a few “possible” angles but conclusions I have not made other than stating that Calvin has serious issues in regards to administration. This is evident because if it had indeed covered all bases, we would not be having this discussion.
As in previous postings, I am more concerned about the “religious” discrimination at this point because it seems to be the larger issue that is more in the forefront. Thus, let’s move this discussion forward in terms of Federal law and Religion.
If you take note and read my previous statements, I “did not” include a copy of the EEOC page that dealt with race discrimination; (and I could have “easily” done so), what I did was include the page on Religious Discrimination.
Should there be any updates that regard race (not from blogs but from the school and Dr. Isom), then I think we should discuss race in terms of the case only, not personal convictions.
Righter also believes that Dr. Isom was justified in crying wolf because Calvin, who made the mistake of instituting a policy that it failed to adequately uphold on a “consistent” basis when it begun to grant exceptions, was only applying for something that was already in existence.
Would you say that all of this could have been avoided if Calvin had a consistent system of administration? Well, it did not and poor management always ends up in the “problem category”
Righter is simply trying to make people aware of the legal implications for any employer, whether it be a Christian school or not. In addition, I am not limiting my discussion to race for this issue presents a myriad of issues that make for good discussion.
So, yesterday we talked about race, religion, ethnicity (the Muslim factor) and today we have added sex! Lol
This is getting really good!!!
Lastly, Righter did not make any of these laws so any and all complaints should be directed to the US government through ‘extensive lobbying efforts”–
We also know what is generally said about bureaucratic red tape…
http://www.calvin.edu/publications/manor/ask.htm
Q: I understand that Calvin regularly obtains grants from the U.S. federal government and that many Calvin students receive federal need-based financial aid. What regulations have you encountered as a result of accepting federal funds that would compromise Calvin as a Christian college? (Spring 2004)
A: Calvin and its students receive governmental funding from both state and federal sources. The state funding is primarily grant dollars for Michigan students and comes with no restrictions. It has dropped considerably in the past two years primarily due to a crisis in the state budget. The federal funding is primarily for faculty research grants or building construction programs and for Pell grants to needy students. Calvin has encountered no restrictions on its education, scholarship or religious commitments as a condition of accepting these funds. We carefully research all federal funding opportunities to ensure that they do not impede our Christian mission or the integration of faith and learning.
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religious_orgs_exemption.html