Students Raise Thousands to Sue Seattle Pacific University for Upholding Biblical Values
“On May 25, the group ‘Seattle Pacific LGBTQ+ Protest’ launched a sit-in demonstration”
The students are unhappy with the school’s stance on LGBT issues. They could just choose not to attend this school.
Campus Reform reports:
Students raise over $37k to sue Christian university for upholding ‘Biblical standards’
Seattle Pacific University (SPU) students are raising $75,000 to help pay for a lawsuit against their Christian school for retaining a staff policy that prohibits faculty from engaging in behavior that contradicts “Biblical standards.”
The SPU Protest Fund has garnered $37,528 at the time of this publication.
On May 25, the group ‘Seattle Pacific LGBTQ+ Protest’ launched a sit-in demonstration, demanding the SPU’s Board of Trustees publicly disclose who voted to retain the policy and for those members to resign from their positions for holding “homophobic” beliefs.
In June, Campus Reform reported on the protests that followed.
However, Board of Trustees Chairman Dean Kato rejected the demands in a letter to student organizers Leah Duff and Tayler Hart, citing that the policy is “consistent with the University’s mission and Statement of Faith that reflect a traditional view on biblical marriage and sexuality.”
The Statement of Faith affirms “the historic Christian faith, as attested in the divinely inspired and authoritative Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments,” which defines marriage as “between one man and one woman.”
Seattle Pacific LGBTQ+ ended the nearly two-month sit-in on July 1, announcing its intention to take legal action on Instagram.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
So they were surprised that a Christian university might follow Christian tenets? They don’t sound very bright. Perhaps the school should reassess their admission standards.
Sadly, leftist have to make everyone conform to their beliefs, and never vice versa. No tolerance for tolerance. Kinda ChiCom-ish, don’t you think?
And it’s not like there aren’t other choices for schools in the region. Or that SPU isn’t upfront about being Christian. If you’re applying, you could ask what that means for various policies, if you think they’d be a problem for you. Then decide if you want to apply.
I’m well past my college days, but personally, as someone who is not a Christian, I wouldn’t go to SPU. One of their core themes is “Vital Christian Identity and Purpose.” That doesn’t describe me, so I would be wasting everyone’s time and taking a slot from someone with whom that resonates.
If you need an LGBTQ+ friendly institution, you can find one in the stupendously liberal Pacific Northwest.
If they lack the intelligence to understand why a Christian university would uphold its own values, how were any of these people accepted to the university in the first place?
They’re not used to seeing institutions uphold ANY values. What they see everywhere else is that even the mildest bullying usually results in abject surrender.
But they don’t mind. The money will be steered towards fellow travelers and if they win any sort of compensation, that will be too. If they win, the momentary satisfaction of seeing something Christian brought low ill just be icing on the cake.
Why doesn’t the university simply begin expelling students who won’t agree to the its mission statement. Oh, and don’t refund any tuituon payments.
What are the grounds of the proposed suit? If it’s violation of the anti-discrimination laws, surely it’s covered by Mount Tabor.
Having attended SPU sometime back, I can attest that there are plenty of gays who attend. I don’t know if SPU is especially attractive to them, but I am guessing that the entire Christian college system is a terminal point for the same-sex attracted; if you think about it, as a gay person moves through life and the church in his youth and those churches refuse to address the sin, he eventually lands at a Christian college where parents and pastors are out of reach, and a lot can happen there.
When I attended SPU, the climate was sort of don’t ask, don’t tell. I get the feeling that–reading between the lines in the alumni mag–it is even more accepted now, as long as you don’t make an issue of it. Fellow students, profs, and admin may have their suspicions, but if you don’t bring it up, nobody else will and you can just go through your four years being that fresh-faced fun-loving model like on the cover of their admissions publications. The gay Christian aesthetic fits right in at the school with its increasingly woke outlook. I have wondered if others see the same thing and if there would ever be an alumni donation rebellion.
The school is surprisingly open to affirmation of sodomy. I can remember sometime back that they did print a same sex marriage notice in the alumni mag. I think that protesting students, having achieved a certain comfort level on campus, want to move the needle to an all-out acceptance of the lifestyle, loud and proud, and all that entails. It is the Christian college version of the left’s march through institutions. Having said this, I would say that SPU’s problem isn’t that they believe in Christian orthodoxy, but that they haven’t held their beliefs and lived them out strongly enough. When it comes to faith, Christian schools tend to sink to a lower common denominator in order to cast a wide net around tuition-paying candidates.
A perfect example of sinking values is Georgetown University!
There are plenty examples of formerly church related school in the USA that are virtually atheistic now.
I hope they get a judge that tells them that no one is forcing them to attend this college and they are free to leave if they don’t like it’s values before throwing out the lawsuit.
It isn’t as easy as that. The school takes federal funds, so they have to play be certain rules.
1. This isn’t one of those rules.
2. Enforcing those rules is a matter for the Education Department, not for students bringing suit.
Reminds of the liberal group(s) who went shopping for wedding cakes, not because they were getting married but because they wanted to identify and run out of business anyone who declined to produce a ‘gay wedding’ cake