Apparently, it's still *legal* for schools to expel gay stud

[cowiz]

Of course it is. So is Ratskep. Why?

Was your banning reasonable?

I think I like you.

But don't hold me to that, it could change tomorrow.

There's always tomorrow, tomorrow's a day away..

[FBM]

As long as that law is still on the NSW books, they're within their legal rights. However, legal right doesn't imply moral right. But they have a right to see it wrong if freedom's to survive (I think that's from an old Steppenwolf song).

[JimC]

As I understand it, and it is confusing to me, in England private = public in the US.

Actually, it is the reverse. In the UK (and in Australia, for historical reasons), wealthy private schools are called Public Schools, with a capital "P".

I went to one, and am still trying to recover...

On the OP, and Seth's response...

I see the consistency in Seth's opinion of this, given his libertarian principles, and appreciate his lucid reasoning from those priciples. Let's remember, though, that those principles are opinions on the best way society should operate. I suggest that there is a core of truth there, and individual freedoms are important, but not so vital that they trump all other considerations. The rigid church morality found in some (but not all) wealthy private schools is worthy of attack, and also worthy of being controlled by governments, in a democracy which increasingly sees such anti-gay discrimination as being too damaging to society and individuals to be trumped by consideration of the rights of "private clubs".

So, brickbats to the NSW government, whose right-wing labour approach sometimes appears farcical...

[Rum]

In the UK it is illegal to discriminate, even in a private ('public') school because of sexuality, as well as because of religion, ethnicity and so on. I work in this area and it is something I know as a matter of course.

Linky:-

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/you ... d_training

[Robert_S]

If they want to have a small minded little club, that's fine. However; when they want the public to recognise their graduates as being somehow qualified, it becomes a different matter.

Do these schools receive any tax money or tax breaks? If so, then they should refuse all of it if they do not wish to meet a minimum standard of decency.

[JimC]

If they want to have a small minded little club, that's fine. However; when they want the public to recognise their graduates as being somehow qualified, it becomes a different matter.

Do these schools receive any tax money or tax breaks? If so, then they should refuse all of it if they do not wish to meet a minimum standard of decency.

Good point about the tax breaks or government money, which I am sure are there to an extent. I would predict that Seth would say that accepting government money negates your "right" to discriminate...

[redunderthebed]

It would be private club if they didnt get qualifications in a secular education system and funding from the taxpayer. Unless they want to stop both they have to maintain certain standards that the vast majority of society expect and the government at large.

[JimC]

It would be private club if they didnt get qualifications in a secular education system and funding from the taxpayer. Unless they want to stop both they have to maintain certain standards that the vast majority of society expect and the government at large.

Exactly right, Red...

As many here know, I teach at a catholic boy's school that receives government funding. This leaves me with a certain amount of internal conflict, but fuck it all, I'll be retiring soon anyway...

Thankfully, it is a school on the liberal wing of the church, generally leftish in politics, which quietly ignores many church prescriptions. Seth's vision of a monolithic catholic church with every right to enforce its Papal decrees is actually ignored by many pragmatic Aussie catholics...

We have quite a few gay students, and no ones bats a fucking eyelid...

And I can teach science with not a drop of religious qualification...

Abortion is probably the only sticking point - contraception is no longer an issue

[Seth]

If they want to have a small minded little club, that's fine. However; when they want the public to recognise their graduates as being somehow qualified, it becomes a different matter.

Do these schools receive any tax money or tax breaks? If so, then they should refuse all of it if they do not wish to meet a minimum standard of decency.

Good point about the tax breaks or government money, which I am sure are there to an extent. I would predict that Seth would say that accepting government money negates your "right" to discriminate...

Indeed. When you take the King's coin, you owe the King a duty of service. That's why I NEVER take money from the government. Ever.

There are a number of colleges in the US who refuse all federal subsidies and grants, including student loans, precisely so that they can be completely free to teach whatever they want without any interference from the government.

I think ALL schools should be this way. The federal Department of Education is entirely unconstitutional in the first place, and education should be strictly a state and local matter.

That's how true "academic freedom" is obtained.

[Animavore]

If they want to have a small minded little club, that's fine. However; when they want the public to recognise their graduates as being somehow qualified, it becomes a different matter.

Do these schools receive any tax money or tax breaks? If so, then they should refuse all of it if they do not wish to meet a minimum standard of decency.

Good point about the tax breaks or government money, which I am sure are there to an extent. I would predict that Seth would say that accepting government money negates your "right" to discriminate...

Indeed. When you take the King's coin, you owe the King a duty of service. That's why I NEVER take money from the government. Ever.

There are a number of colleges in the US who refuse all federal subsidies and grants, including student loans, precisely so that they can be completely free to teach whatever they want without any interference from the government.

I think ALL schools should be this way. The federal Department of Education is entirely unconstitutional in the first place, and education should be strictly a state and local matter.

That's how true "academic freedom" is obtained.

Do you mean all schools should be privatised? And how is the Department of Education "unconstitutional"? How can educational standards, particularly in the sciences, be met in such a system?

[Seth]

It would be private club if they didnt get qualifications in a secular education system and funding from the taxpayer. Unless they want to stop both they have to maintain certain standards that the vast majority of society expect and the government at large.

Exactly right, Red...

As many here know, I teach at a catholic boy's school that receives government funding. This leaves me with a certain amount of internal conflict, but fuck it all, I'll be retiring soon anyway...

Thankfully, it is a school on the liberal wing of the church, generally leftish in politics, which quietly ignores many church prescriptions. Seth's vision of a monolithic catholic church with every right to enforce its Papal decrees is actually ignored by many pragmatic Aussie catholics...

Good grief! When have I EVER said that? The US Conference of Catholic Bishops is a thorn in the side of the Vatican and trying to get them to obey the Pope is like herding cats. That's one of the reasons the whole sex abuse scandal occurred. After Vatican II, the USCCB liberalized the criteria for becoming an American priest, and they quit being careful about who they allowed into the seminary, and as a result, and quite predictably, pedophiles from all over flooded into the US church. The reasons are obvious: Catholic churches provided (at the time) nearly unlimited and confidential access to children under circumstances where authority could easily be abused to coerce children into sexual activity. The very confidentiality of the confessional, and the therefore intimate relationship between the priest and the child was an open invitation to pedophiles, and they seized the opportunity opened to them by the Vatican II's liberalization of the church. US church authorities and seminarians were simply negligent in screening applicants to the priesthood, and this was partly due to the strong leftist/democrat influences in the USCCB that took a much less conservative viewpoint towards sexual matters than the church's actual doctrines. This overall liberalization of the US church opened the seminary doors to canny pedophiles, which is a great evil and a blight that the church is going to be living down for a long, long time to come. And rightfully so. But that's all changed now, and the church has reversed course and is now one of the safest organizations for children in the US, far safer than any public school in the country, because there is now zero tolerance and substantial procedural protections in place to prevent such abuse.

The notion that the Vatican "owns" the Catholic church or is in temporal charge of everything every parish priest does is the sort of asinine nonsense that SNAP tries to foist off on the public in order to try to link the whole shebang together so they can extort money from the church for 50 year old sex-abuse allegations.

The practical fact is that "The Catholic Church" is nothing more than a relatively loose spiritual association of largely independent dioceses and parishes, and the temporal assets are generally owned by the diocese or parish congregants, not the Vatican. The Pope is nothing more than the spiritual head of the church, the spokesman for God, so to speak. He's not the CEO or even the CFO.

[Seth]

If they want to have a small minded little club, that's fine. However; when they want the public to recognise their graduates as being somehow qualified, it becomes a different matter.

Do these schools receive any tax money or tax breaks? If so, then they should refuse all of it if they do not wish to meet a minimum standard of decency.

Good point about the tax breaks or government money, which I am sure are there to an extent. I would predict that Seth would say that accepting government money negates your "right" to discriminate...

Indeed. When you take the King's coin, you owe the King a duty of service. That's why I NEVER take money from the government. Ever.

There are a number of colleges in the US who refuse all federal subsidies and grants, including student loans, precisely so that they can be completely free to teach whatever they want without any interference from the government.

I think ALL schools should be this way. The federal Department of Education is entirely unconstitutional in the first place, and education should be strictly a state and local matter.

That's how true "academic freedom" is obtained.

Do you mean all schools should be privatised?

Yes. Funds collected for education through taxation should follow the STUDENT, and should be in the form of a voucher that can be used to pay tuition at any school of the parent's choice. Private industry is fully capable of handling education, which should be funded by BUSINESS, which is the primary beneficiary of an educated workforce. Public schools should be sold to private companies who them compete with one another to provide the best possible education for the lowest possible price, and parents and students determine who wins and loses that market competition. This puts poor children in a much better position because they get EXACTLY the same amount of money as any other student, rich or poor, and can attend any school they wish.

And how is the Department of Education "unconstitutional"?

Simple. There is no authority to be found anywhere in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to make laws regarding education. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Under the 10th Amendment, all powers not expressly delegated to the Congress, which in this case means authority to regulate education, is vested in the States, or in the People.

How can educational standards, particularly in the sciences, be met in such a system?

States are perfectly capable of setting and enforcing educational standards, and did so for nearly 200 years before the Department of Education came along in 1980. Prior to that, Progressive influence was gradually infecting state and local education with more and more regulations intended to strip control away from the states and vest it in the federal government. Federal involvement started out in 1867 as an information-collecting bureau that was to assist states in creating "effective school systems." Congressional involvement in education from 1867 to 1941 was largely about grants of land and funding for universities, but during the FDR Progressive administration, the federal government began seizing substantial regulatory control of state-based education, and that process has continued unabated to today, where Michell Obama controls virtually every item of food that can be brought into any public school in the nation, through laws pass just a month or so ago.

But there is NO constitutional authority for centralized federal control of public schools. It's a state matter. Congress can provide subsidies and grants, but states are fools to take them, because the strings attached have become an inescapable web of regulations that places the federal government in control of virtually every public school in the nation.

This is both unnecessary and undesirable central planning, and the states need to sue the government over Obama's lunch regulations and boot the federal government out of education because when the central government controls education funding, it controls the curriculum, which means it can dictate propaganda over education, which is exactly what's happening with the collusion of the Marxists of the Frankfurt School and the Eco-fascists.

Education, and educational curricula are best left to the states, and to the local communities, where community standards will serve to prevent monolithic propagandistic indoctrination by the central government. Diversity of thought and teaching is necessary to prevent indoctrination on a wide scale. That's why states are best suited to regulate education. Yes, standards may vary somewhat from place to place, but that's far better than organized indoctrination, which is very, very dangerous to liberty and free thought.

[Animavore]

Education, and educational curricula are best left to the states, and to the local communities, where community standards will serve to prevent monolithic propagandistic indoctrination by the central government. Diversity of thought and teaching is necessary to prevent indoctrination on a wide scale. That's why states are best suited to regulate education. Yes, standards may vary somewhat from place to place, but that's far better than organized indoctrination, which is very, very dangerous to liberty and free thought.

But what's to stop states deciding they want to teach something like creationism instead of evolution or teach homeopathy as a valid science or teach lies for history and thus becoming a laughing stock churning out children unfit to work in any type of industry?

[Seth]

Education, and educational curricula are best left to the states, and to the local communities, where community standards will serve to prevent monolithic propagandistic indoctrination by the central government. Diversity of thought and teaching is necessary to prevent indoctrination on a wide scale. That's why states are best suited to regulate education. Yes, standards may vary somewhat from place to place, but that's far better than organized indoctrination, which is very, very dangerous to liberty and free thought.

But what's to stop states deciding they want to teach something like creationism instead of evolution or teach homeopathy as a valid science or teach lies for history and thus becoming a laughing stock churning out children unfit to work in any type of industry?

The People. The vast majority of parents are very concerned about the curriculum of their children's education, and in point of fact, they already largely control it in most places. The fear that this will result in nothing but theocratic "madrassas" schools teaching Christian dogma is vacuous and insubstantial. Those who wish their children to be taught religion along with other subjects already put their kids in private religious schools. And guess what? The states regulate the curricula of even private schools, and homeschoolers for that matter, to ensure that in addition to any religious education, students receive an adequate secular education as well.

I'm not suggesting that educational criteria be done away with, merely that the state is the appropriate and only legal entity to control such things, not the federal government.

[Animavore]

Education, and educational curricula are best left to the states, and to the local communities, where community standards will serve to prevent monolithic propagandistic indoctrination by the central government. Diversity of thought and teaching is necessary to prevent indoctrination on a wide scale. That's why states are best suited to regulate education. Yes, standards may vary somewhat from place to place, but that's far better than organized indoctrination, which is very, very dangerous to liberty and free thought.

But what's to stop states deciding they want to teach something like creationism instead of evolution or teach homeopathy as a valid science or teach lies for history and thus becoming a laughing stock churning out children unfit to work in any type of industry?

The People. The vast majority of parents are very concerned about the curriculum of their children's education, and in point of fact, they already largely control it in most places. The fear that this will result in nothing but theocratic "madrassas" schools teaching Christian dogma is vacuous and insubstantial. Those who wish their children to be taught religion along with other subjects already put their kids in private religious schools. And guess what? The states regulate the curricula of even private schools, and homeschoolers for that matter, to ensure that in addition to any religious education, students receive an adequate secular education as well.

I'm not suggesting that educational criteria be done away with, merely that the state is the appropriate and only legal entity to control such things, not the federal government.

I'm not sure how true the underlined bit is but I have seen homeschoolers been taught things like the world is less than 10,000 years old. Do you think there is a bit of a clash here between the rights of a parent to teach their children what they see fit and the rights of a child to not be lied to or deprived of an education?
I mean, you're all about personal freedom, right? Isnt this an infringement on a child's personal freedom is their choices are being limited by indoctrinating parents?