I was being facetious with my example because in the one case I personally know of a gay kid beating up someone because he felt unsafe, there was an active campaign of hostility toward him and nobody did anything about it.
It’s not a good example because LGTBQ people don’t have to be getting actively assaulted to feel unsafe. Being harassed and threatened and not having the people in charge taking you seriously or even encouraging the threats and harassment is enough to make the situation unsafe.
My point is also that, even when a kid who is LGBTQ lashes out, it is likely because they’ve been experiencing ongoing hostility
I explained why I don’t like the use of the word “safety”. I was challenged to give an example. I did so. (FWIW, it wasn’t the one I was thinking of - that was Allison Stanger’s attack - but I was challenged to find one specifically involving someone who is gay.) Now I am challenged to find one who is gay and on a college campus. If I provide one, I will be challenged to find an even narrower example. And so on and so on. I don’t see a point in this. I told you what I think and why I think it. You don’t have to agree with it.
I find it interesting that nobody has shown interest in my second point: off-campus safety. It seems to me that this should be an important factor in determining what are the “Absolute Worst Campuses”. It is also probably more relevant. How many LGBTQ+ students are planning on going to Reverend Billy Bob’s Bible College? But if you step one foot off the campus of Ivy College or Big State U and you are taking your life in your hands? I think that is extremely important and relevant information.
Decidedly mediocre ones at that, with a couple of notable exceptions like BYU and Wheaton. No one is losing anything by scratching these schools off their list.
Why? Many colleges and the surrounding community are intertwined. Some campus police departments patrol the local areas. Are students supposed to never leave campus?
I agree both the campus and the surrounding community matter.
However, the article focuses solely on the campus and the institution’s stance on LGBTQ rights. All the schools chosen were placed on the list for the actions of the institution, not including the actions of the surrounding community.
Yes, but this is a difficult metric to assess, particularly since students in large cities have a great deal of flexibility in where they can go off campus.
UCLA students can hang out in queer-friendly places like Santa Monica and WeHo and never set foot in, say, South LA. A small college town like Kirksville is far more homogeneous.
Yes it does. If the school thinks that LGBTQ folk are “bad”, they not only do not care if these people are harmed, but will protect people who harm LGBTQ folk in the name of “religion” or “morals”.
I also have an LGBTQ child, and I can say that, when the administration of a school, college, or workplace are anti-LGBTQ, than no LGBTQ students or employee will be safe, financially, emotionally, or physically.
Do you believe that discriminating against a person based on the sexual orientation is right? You you think that calling out colleges which practice such discrimination is wrong?
Or do you live in the delusion that such discrimination is not happening.
As a parent of such a kid, I can, unequivocally and categorically, say that there is, and it is extensive and deep.
Besides, at least half of that list aren’t in the South, so what is your point anyways?
How can a school with discriminatory policies and outward bigotry not affect the student population in general? Wouldn’t those ‘ideals’ seep into the culture of the student population and create an environment that reflects those beliefs? And as a result, wouldn’t those students who are on the ‘wrong side’ of those beliefs be harmed, if not physically, at least mentally, by that environment? Being safe doesn’t just refer to physical safety. I’m guessing you don’t have any real world experience with this topic.
There are colleges on the campus pride index that give high marks to some colleges’ progressive policies, located in what I would call, possibly unsafe states for a trans student. I would never send my kid to one of those schools because of that fact. That doesn’t take away from the fact that there are schools themselves that are unsafe. Those are two entirely different conversations. One has nothing to do with the other. This post is about unsafe ‘schools’. We can choose to avoid areas where LGBTQ people would be unsafe. But it’s hard to avoid going to class on an unsafe campus.
Note that this verse specifies the death penalty for men who have sex with men (not women who have sex with women). Hostility against male homosexuality is often greater than against female homosexuality.
Note also that Leviticus 20 also specifies the death penalty for some other things like cursing one’s parents and adultery between a man and a married woman.
There is no shortage of evil in Leviticus, I agree. Most current Christians don’t follow God’s direct mandate for all of the crimes that merit murder in Leviticus, I agree. Still, it is this verse, and a few others just as vicious, that are the theological backbone of making the campuses referenced in this article hostile for LGBTQ youth.
I am reminded of a monologue by President Josiah Bartlet on The West Wing:
I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police? Here’s one that’s really important 'cause we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town: Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.
I should have typed “There are colleges on the campus pride index that are given high marks for their progressive policies…”
My previous sentence made no sense This is what happens when your emotions override your typing skills
This is nonsensical. When a psychologist, pastor etc. in a counseling session encourages open dialogue because it is a “safe” environment, do you believe that is in reference to impending physical violence? Of course not. It’s about a non-judgemental environment. But you know this, right?
Your statement was a provocation and I’m not sure why you felt you needed to share your definition.
When asked for an example of “a gay person proactively beating someone up because they ‘felt’ unsafe” you provided the example of Jordan Hunt, a male who kicked a female anti-abortion protester at an anti-abortion protest. It’s an odd example, because the protest wasn’t an anti-LGBTQ+ protest, and there is no indication that any anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment was even expressed. You seem to have chosen the example simply because Jordan Hunt happened to be gay.
You also claimed that Hunt “later defended his actions as necessary for his psychological safety.” Can you provide support for your claim?
Maybe I missed it, but I can’t find reference to anything remotely like this. He offered a lot of stupid excuses after the fact – trying to kick her phone, protecting the rights of women, fighting for the rights of others as did Susan B. Anthony, MLK, and Gandhi (seriously?) – but nothing about a self-defense claim because he feared for his physiological safety due to anti-gay sentiment.
It matters. If he wasn’t actually motivated by a fear for “his physiological safety” because of anti-gay sentiment, then the example fails. Finding a gay person who assaulted someone doesn’t remotely support your argument.
By the way, whatever his after the fact excuses, Hunt was arrested, charged, and convicted.
Seems like there is a lot of arguing about the definition of “unsafe”.
But at a college with official unfriendliness to whichever of L, G, B, T, or Q that the student in question is one (or more) of, the college experience is likely to be unpleasant at least, regardless of whether it is “unsafe” by whatever definition of “unsafe” one uses.
This is what happens when your emotions override your typing skills