BJU begins accreditation process

There is only one race, (the Adamic race) but there are many of various ethnic origins.
Therefore I would say they would be "ethnic-origin-challenged" ??
DHK

 

[qutoe]Like most Southern schools BJU was a product of its culture. No one doubts that. You can't rewrite history. Even the most arden supporter of the school sees rules/regulations/policies of the past with 20/20 hindsight.[/quote]I am not really an "ardent supporter of the school" (which I think is what your meant ) ... But they were products of the culture in the same way that every other school was. They were in fact less racist than most in the south, as far as actual active racism goes. It is common knowledge that Jones Sr desired to start a school for black students since they were not legally allowed in white schools. It is common knowledge that Jones Sr pulled strings on many occasions to get black students into schools in the north where integration was already allowed. Those acts are hardly the acts of racism. Revisionism should indeed go out the window.

I have to agree with Andy. Don't use it at all.

I think the problem with race in America is that we talk about it too much. If we want a color blind society, let's set the pace by refusing to talk about issues of color.

 

What about the poor white folk being discrminated against. They couldn't date African-Americans. So exactly who is being discriminated against. Seems like equal treatment to me.

 

I believe the term would be "racial" (non-prejudicial disctimination based on race). However, since there's no appropriate reason to forbid dating based on race, the above action would indeed be racist (prejudicial discrimination based on race).

 

Yes. Both the white student and black student are facng racial discrimination. But the school forbade it in the past because of an implication that the white race was superior. So that does not make the resons for it "equal".

 

I agree with you here. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]True, it is not a church in the Biblical sense but it is a religious entity. It does come under the free exercise clause in the same way a church would. Although not a church, the relationship with civil government is essentially the same. It does not have to be a Biblically defined church since a Mormon church and a Kingdom Hall (JW church) are not Biblical churches. The issue is not just between church and state but religious entities and state. Thots?

 

Not really, no. Racism involves unequal treatment. Many today are so tied into the political correctness that they don't even know what true racism is. Racism is unequal treatment ... such as when one race can do something another race cannot do because of their race.

 

That is not true. This is why this whole race/BJU issue is so overblown and ridiculous. Let's get the facts straight and understand what was actually going on before making these kinds of statements.

 

Check out the following website:

http://www.degreeinfo.com/static/forum_archive/9/992/thread_992_page_1.html

 

Yeah, more of a shift than you probably know. There are new winds blowing at BJU. Dr. Bob, III was a speaker for the Religion in Life series at apostate Furman University last year. It was on the Furman University website until recently but they have taken it down now. Twenty years ago, BJU would have castigated and ostracized any so-called Fundamentalist who dared to speak at Furman. So, what do you think now?

 

Dr. Bob:
Racism takes a position that one race is better than another and takes away rights/priviledges based on skin color, ethnicity, etc.

Racism: Blacks cannot cross the line in the sand, white may cross.

Equal treatment: Neither whites nor blacks can cross the line in the sand.

I doubt any student at BJU did not fully understand this concept prior to attending.

Now, that said, it was a stupid policy in the first place and was probably initiated based on "southern traditions." Growing up in New Jersey and going to college in South Carolina I never really understood the problem with interracial dating (or marriage for that matter) but in the south there are still some communities where that is frowned upon. I hate to think that there are some churches that have become disenchanted with BJU because they reversed their position on interracial dating but I know it is true.

 

There is no question that there were racist attitudes present in the Jones family in decades past. I can document that fact based on published quotations. Certainly they were influenced by their culture, but so was the SBC. The difference is that the SBC has publicly admitted those attitudes and apologized.

This accreditation issue is similar. BJU has been wrong on this issue for years. The primary problem is not that they have refused accreditation, but that they have criticized (often implicitly, but not always so) those who have pursued it.

As I was reflecting on this issue a couple days ago, it occurred to me that the kind of accreditation BJU is pursuing is even more contrary to the principles of separation the school has long espoused than the kind of accreditation schools like BBC, Faith, Maranatha and Clearwater have gained. The reason is that regional accreditation is largely secular. Although there are varying degrees of religious education taking place at many institutions, there is not a religious element. TRACS is different. It clearly has a religious purpose at its core. When BJU pursues TRACS accreditation, it is not only receiving endorsement itself, but it is also putting the backing of its name behind all the other schools that are involved. In effect, BJU is confirming that Lutheran, Methodist, non-denom and a host of other schools are successfully accomplishing their mission.

That is a dangerous statement for a school like BJU to be making, at least in my opinion. That is a statement I would not personally feel comfortable making about Southern Methodist College or Faith Evangelical Lutheran Seminary, and I have never made the strong statements on separation that BJU has made.

I am grateful for the minstry that BJU has. I am a supporter, but not a cheerleader, as so many are. I am disturbed by the pattern of comfortably rationalizing or ignoring past mistakes. There was a very clear example when Bob Jones III said on Larry King Live that the inter-racial dating policy was never a policy that was very important to the school. Now, accreditation is an issue that they say they never were strongly opposed to. This is revisionist history at its finest. I truly wish they would realize that a little bit of honesty about your mistakes is a bitter pill to swallow, but it gains you a great deal of respect from those who watch you swallow it.

 

While I think the poster stated this with tongue in cheek, this is the kind of logic that was used to defend Jim Crow laws. It went like this: "We are not opposed to the right of the black man to have a public water fountain or a public toilet, but he must have a separate water fountain/toilet from the white man". This is the "separate but equal" doctrine that was encoded into law in the south after the Civil War and the failure of reconstruction. Using this logic to defend BJU's past policy highlights the racial thinking that went into it.

I'm glad BJIII & the board rescinded this policy but I also agree that BJIII's statement about the historical importance of the policy to the school was grossly understated.