Baylor Asked Griner Not to Discuss Sexuality | Page 4 | The Boneyard

Baylor Asked Griner Not to Discuss Sexuality

Status
Not open for further replies.
easttexastrash said:
It absolutely would be handled differently. I am not saying that is right, but that is the way it is at Baylor. Being gay violates the "Code of Conduct."
Expand ...

Lots of thoughts on this topic. I will try to be respectful of everyone's opinions on this matter, so I apologize in advance if anyone is offended by my comments, as that is not my intent.

Baylor is very clear about the Code of Conduct. But there is a difference between "being gay" and "engaging in homosexual conduct."

Regarding the Baylor Code of Conduct, lcated under the label "Sexual Misconduct," it says:
"Christian churches across the ages and around the world have affirmed purity in singleness and fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman as the biblical norm. Temptations to deviate from this norm include both heterosexual sex outside of marriage and homosexual behavior. It is thus expected that Baylor students will not participate in advocacy groups which promote understandings of sexuality that are contrary to biblical teaching."

Engaging in heterosexual sex outside of marriage would also violate the Code of Conduct (this purportedly happened to a men's basketball player at BYU last year or the year before).

But merely self-identifying as gay, without engaging in same-sex conduct or joining an "advocacy" group (whatever that definition encompasses), would not violate this provision of the Code of Conduct, though Baylor encourages students :struggling with these issues" to consult either the Spiritual Life Office or the Baylor University Counseling.

Griner signed up for this. But Griner, as a 17/18 year old who was open about her sexuality, was told by a head coach (i.e., a person in position of power) during the recruiting process that it would not be an issue or problem. And Mulkey reportedly made comments to Griner not to discuss certain topics or make certain comments out of fear it would hurt Baylor in the recruiting process.

Did Mulkey say it would not be a problem in order to land a commitment from Griner? The inference is yes. But Griner committed REALLY early in the recruiting process. Would she have received a different answer from any other school? I happen to think just about every coach in the country would have said what Mulkey said. And I also happen to think that many of those same coaches would have said what Mulkey said about not discussing certain topics based on a belief that discussing these matters would hurt recruiting. In defense of Mulkey on this point, many of these same coaches work at schools that are public institutions or private universities with no religious Code of Conduct similar to that of Baylor.

And had Griner waited to commit, taken more visits, and spoken to Emily Niemann, would she have made the same decision?

My point is choosing to go to Baylor means choosing to abide by Baylor's rules, as a private religious institution. But being a private religious institution does not mean Baylor does not receive any federal funding - it does. And Baylor, legally, cannot use its religious exemption to justify discrimination on the basis of something like race or national origin.

There will come a point when private institutions/universities may not be able to justify discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation through a religious exemption.
 
JimGunther said:
Does ANYBODY ELSE think it is, at least, odd to be talking about any 17 to 22 year old's sexual orientation.

Like PDAs (Public Displays of Affection), I'm just not interested in it.
Expand ...
I do not think it's odd at all. In fact, I think it's fantastic. In the past 50 years, way too many kids have been terrified of their "secret" and were bullied, beaten, and even killed. It's well beyond the time for Americans to wake up to the fact that a teenager's sexual orientation is nothing to be ashamed of and as adults, we should be supportive and caring towards these kids. So no, I absolutely do not think it's odd.
 
Cam - nothing offensive to me and a good post. I do think you are maybe ten years out of date on the 'just about every coach' statement. I think most coaches do not want to know anything about their recruit's sexual orientation/ proclivities. If a recruit confronts them with that information I suspect most say 'that is none of my business'. And I do not think many coaches would ask a student to lie if confronted by a recruit with a direct question (not saying Kim did.) (I may be naive in this regard, but I really do think the old era of 'innuendo' has pretty well died off.)
I do think most programs do have orientation meetings (for all sports) in which they warn student athletes that they are 'public figures' and they want to be very careful about ANY personal information they 'publish' or share with reporters.
 
Be who you are;
but, let me be me.
For the expanse of our world,
we are to small to see.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2
 
CamrnCrz1974 said:
Lots of thoughts on this topic. I will try to be respectful of everyone's opinions on this matter, so I apologize in advance if anyone is offended by my comments, as that is not my intent.

Baylor is very clear about the Code of Conduct. But there is a difference between "being gay" and "engaging in homosexual conduct."

Regarding the Baylor Code of Conduct, lcated under the label "Sexual Misconduct," it says:
"Christian churches across the ages and around the world have affirmed purity in singleness and fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman as the biblical norm. Temptations to deviate from this norm include both heterosexual sex outside of marriage and homosexual behavior. It is thus expected that Baylor students will not participate in advocacy groups which promote understandings of sexuality that are contrary to biblical teaching."

Engaging in heterosexual sex outside of marriage would also violate the Code of Conduct (this purportedly happened to a men's basketball player at BYU last year or the year before).

But merely self-identifying as gay, without engaging in same-sex conduct or joining an "advocacy" group (whatever that definition encompasses), would not violate this provision of the Code of Conduct, though Baylor encourages students :struggling with these issues" to consult either the Spiritual Life Office or the Baylor University Counseling.

Griner signed up for this. But Griner, as a 17/18 year old who was open about her sexuality, was told by a head coach (i.e., a person in position of power) during the recruiting process that it would not be an issue or problem. And Mulkey reportedly made comments to Griner not to discuss certain topics or make certain comments out of fear it would hurt Baylor in the recruiting process.

Did Mulkey say it would not be a problem in order to land a commitment from Griner? The inference is yes. But Griner committed REALLY early in the recruiting process. Would she have received a different answer from any other school? I happen to think just about every coach in the country would have said what Mulkey said. And I also happen to think that many of those same coaches would have said what Mulkey said about not discussing certain topics based on a belief that discussing these matters would hurt recruiting. In defense of Mulkey on this point, many of these same coaches work at schools that are public institutions or private universities with no religious Code of Conduct similar to that of Baylor.

And had Griner waited to commit, taken more visits, and spoken to Emily Niemann, would she have made the same decision?

My point is choosing to go to Baylor means choosing to abide by Baylor's rules, as a private religious institution. But being a private religious institution does not mean Baylor does not receive any federal funding - it does. And Baylor, legally, cannot use its religious exemption to justify discrimination on the basis of something like race or national origin.

There will come a point when private institutions/universities may not be able to justify discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation through a religious exemption.
Expand ...
But in this case, Baylor did not discriminate since was offered a scholly, right?
 
.-.
UcMiami said:
Cam - nothing offensive to me and a good post. I do think you are maybe ten years out of date on the 'just about every coach' statement. I think most coaches do not want to know anything about their recruit's sexual orientation/ proclivities. If a recruit confronts them with that information I suspect most say 'that is none of my business'. And I do not think many coaches would ask a student to lie if confronted by a recruit with a direct question (not saying Kim did.) (I may be naive in this regard, but I really do think the old era of 'innuendo' has pretty well died off.)
Expand ...

Thank you for the compliment, but I think you misunderstood my "just every coach" comment vis-a-vis Griner (or any other truly elite talent, for that matter). The "just about every coach" was in response to a question from a player who comes out and asks if that would be an issue at the program. Just about every coach would say it would not be an issue, simply because all of them wanted a talent like Griner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,409
Messages
4,571,795
Members
10,477
Latest member
Goose91


Top Bottom