Bob Jones University Admits Racist Past; Repents

It's ok Swaimj....I think I hinted that I liked BJU for personal reasons, so I don't mind reading good things about the school.

Excellent graduates despite its faults.

Cheers,

Jim

 

It was only after a group of students started a website to pressure the school into admitting the error in their ways did the school issue the policy. The former students said it was very difficult to get a job with a BJU degree, having to explain how they didn't believe like the school historically taught.

http://ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=11368

 

BJ is not the only school that had students bring the administration kicking and screaming into a more reasonable policy. This is not a criticism of BJ, just a comment on how things are in our world.

The new generation often makes the older generation very uncomfortable ... and that isn't all bad.

 

Just a technical note, Dred Scott confirmed the ownership of slaves as property. Plessy v Ferguson established "Separate but equal' in regards to railroad cars originally I think.

 

I just don't know if I agree with that. Perhaps it is racist of me but I never thought of "separate but equal" as racist in theory. Now the application certainly was racist. The black schools, black seating areas, black water fountains, bathrooms, and everything else were never equal to those provided for whites. To me it was the application that made it racist. The idea, though wrong I always thought to be race neutral. But perhaps I am in the minority on that. (ok is that a racist pun?)

 

Tentmaker -

one problem always is for those of us that are mixed race. Which side do I go on? At what percent am I something else? Which races are included? What if I don't look my race and I cheat and am found out? Is that a crime?

Another is perception. Can things always be MADE to look 100% equal? Can you make sure that every side has equal funding? How is equal funding determined? What if one side has greater needs? Do they get more money because of those needs? Is that fair?

Who makes the decisions?

EGADS!

 

Oh I agree with you both. There is no way to apply the concept with equality and the truth mcdirector is that we are all of mixed race to some level. Even in ancient Israel where many of these people get their ideas there were non Israelites welcomed into even the line of David and Christ (Ruth, Rahab, etc).

It is a horrible idea and I am glad they changed it. I would just never characterize it as racist. Perhaps that is a little difference that really does not matter.

 

I guess to me racism has a very narrow definition. I would define racism as treating people differently based on their race or believing that people were different based on their race.

What I see with inter racial relationships is that they are discriminated against based not on their race but on their lack of racism. It’s kind of a secondary separation thing. Just to be clear, I am not excusing it, it’s still wrong, I just would not call it racist.

Now of course it could be racist if the discrimination changed based on race. For instance if black male was singled out because he was with a white female but the white male who was with a black female got a pass, well I would agree that was racist. By the same token it could be sexist if the males were held responsible but the females were not.

It’s all bad and I guess I am hung up on the semantics. Racism is such a charged word today. People accuse one another of racism all the time.

And as much as I think racism is bad I don’t want us getting into the “thought police” business. There are racists all around us and the truth is they have a right to be racists. They can think anything they want and I believe they should have the right to express their beliefs. It is only when that racist thought or idea turns into action that it becomes illegal.

If someone wants to hate me they have every right to. They can hate me based on my race or religion or sex, hair color, height, weight, or whatever. And they can tell me they hate me. It is only when they take that hate and put it into action that my rights have been infringed.

 

Politically correct response

Are you pontificating or do you have the backing of Scripture? If so, please make the connection because I seem to have missed it. IMHO, what you have expressed is the current politically correct opinion as accepted in our present society and culture. However, you are ignorantly judging the culture and sincerely held beliefs of another time and place. Did you grow up in the segregated South? I did. I find your analysis and argument lacking depth, accurate perception and understanding. Racism has been redefined to include benign preferences under a word with malicious connotations. If you use the same definition applied to colored folks, then most African-Americans are racist. For example, it is okay for blacks to vote for Obama simply because he's black but it's not okay for whites to vote for McCain because he's white. Seems like hypocrisy to me. What do you think?

 

So you don't think the bible condemns racism?

 

Define your terms

As defined by modern political correctness--in a word--NO! Do you? If so, please define what you mean by racism and support your view from Scripture. I wish that you would address the points raised in my post rather than making your own inferences from limited data.

On the other hand, Scripture clearly condemns hatred, malice, etc. toward any individual regardless of race. Love is commanded without racial reference. Race is not an issue. The command to love our neighbor as ourselves (i.e. to put his interests and good on the same level as our own) is incumbent upon us for all people regardless of race. When we move the argument from individuals to a group (i.e. race), IMHO, we water down the clear Scriptural imperative. Thus, we express sentimentality (not true Biblical love through behavior) toward African-Americans, but we are free to despise individual blacks who thwart our own ambitions.

Furthermore, using the politically correct view of racism, one could make the charge of racism against Scripture. After all, there is a marked difference between Jew and Gentile.

In sum, this whole matter of racism is an emotionally charged issue, which is almost impossible to think about and discuss rationally. Those who make the loudest cry are often the most highly prejudiced and biased against those who may question their politcally correct opinions. Their self-proclaimed love and goodness rings rather hollow. My frustration is that I find many false perceptions and great prejudice against Southerners. Is this racism? I see great inconsistency in applying the term.

 

I define racism with a dictionary* not political correctness. As per your point I believe the Bible expects us to treat others with love therefore excluding racism as course of action for a follower of Jesus Christ.

Bob Jones University for years held a racist policy concerning marriage and dating. Couples were not judged by the content of their character rather the color of their skin (to borrow a phrase). They apologized saying they where acting more like the people around them then the Savior they claimed to follow. That isn't political correctness, that is repentance HUGE difference.

Southerners do get picked on for the sins of their fathers (to borrow another phrase) there is no doubt about and it is hypocritical to scream about white racism and ignore black racism - but I don't know what you do about that.

*the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
• prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief : a program to combat racism

 

But that is not what happened and is not what they apologized for.

Lets use your definition which is fine with me.

Bob Jones for years had a racist policy and did not admit black students. For that they apologized. You did not mention that in your quote.

They also had a policy against inter racial dating. A policy that was equally enforced regardless of skin color. That policy they also admitted was wrong and they changed it, but my argument is that policy, while wrong, was not racist.

Lemme ask you this, was the ban on interracial dating racist prior to 1971 when it only applied to white students dating orientals? It was still wrong, no argument there, but was it racist when there were no black students?

The ban on inter racial dating does not meet the definition of racism you quoted. It did not include any belief of racial superiority, only racial differences. It did not discriminate or prejudice anyone based on their race, only on the race of the 3rd party they wished to court.

If you wish to define racism with a dictionary as you stated then you are failing to meet that definition. If you want to call the dating ban racist you are defining racism by political correctness, something you claim you don't want to do.

 

maybe we can call it sinful and leave it at that?

 

Well that would not be very politically correct either would it?:laugh:

 

Connotative & denotative meanings with fuzzy logic

Dr. Bob, Sr. and Dr. Bob, Jr. sincerely believed, regardless what you may think, that the Bible prohibits miscegenation. What would you have them do if they really believed this? Violate their conscience? IMHO, modern folks are quick to judge the actions of their predecessors without having walked in their shoes. Did you ever consider how our grandchildren might judge us?

Furthermore, I hardly see how Stephen Jones can repent for his grandfathers. The NT teaching is that each individual is accountable for his own behavior and sins. We are not dealing with OT Israel or the Amalekites here.

We say little about Yankee slave traders. We ignore African slavery, which continues into the present. Many slaves were slaves of African tribal chieftains who sold them to the Yankee slavers. Also, there were 13,000 freed blacks that owned slaves. What I’m saying is that white Southerners were not the only participants in the slave business even though they are usually the scapegoats for it. Additionally, most of us Southerners did not descend from slave owners, who were a decided minority in the South. Finally, the War was not about slavery but Lincoln used it as a clever political ploy to gain abolitionist support when he was hard pressed. Why didn’t he free the slaves in the Union states when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation if he was really serious about freeing the slaves?

I, for one, am not so quick to self-righteously judge my forefathers when we are dealing with societal and cultural views. As for absolute morality and righteousness, I can make determinations based on God’s Word.

Can you document that BJU or Dr. Bob, Sr. or Dr. Bob, Jr. ever expressed or demonstrated these ideas. They simply opposed the mixing and intermarrying of the races believing there was a Biblical precedent. BTW, this fitted perfectly with certain eschatological doctrines and worldviews. I have never seen or heard anything from any of the Jones that would indicate they thought one race was superior or inferior. Different does not necessarily mean superiority or inferiority. Your argument, it seems, must presuppose that separate means superior or inferior, which I deny and ask you to make the connection.

The problem is that “racism” carries a lot of connotative baggage that cannot be defined by the dictionary. In our modern society, political correctness is accepted as rational thought. After all, political correctness is not about reason and rational conclusions but it is more about being in sync with the group dogma. Also, its arguments are emotional rather than rational and dispassionate.

 

Who defines sin?

According to the Bible, sin is transgression of the Law. What commandment does enforcing a selective admission policy, on whatever standard, violate? What is your authority for deeming it sinful? Public opinion? The current cultural climate? Or do you have Biblical support? Does denying admission any characteristic necessarily consitute maliciousness bigotry or racism. Sometimes calling it sinful is simply a wicked, sinful way of blacking someone's eye whom you don't like.

To pre-empt the standard pabulum, I don't buy the old shoe that choosing to be apart on whatever basis necessarily means hatred, inferiority/superiority, etc. Separation does not preclude loving. Is not there freedom of association? And it is natural to seek one's own kind. Black students in intergrated universities form their own particular black groups without anyone criticizing. They exclude whites and no one says, "Boo!" Because of this and a thousand-and-one other inconstencies, I say this is more about political correctness than any substantial issue. Folks exploit it for their own private ends.