Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. J.P. Loo's avatar
  2. Sebastian Sunday Grève's avatar
  3. Giovanni Molteni Tagliabue's avatar
  4. Fabien Muller's avatar
  7. Saul Smilansky's avatar

The APA and Discrimination Against Homosexuals…Again

Brian Leiter

Philosopher Charles Hermes (UT Arlington) writes:

Two years ago I filed a complaint with the APA regarding institutions that violate its anti-discrimination policy.  The original complaint was posted on this website.  

Many universities that advertise in Jobs for Philosophers require applicants to sign statements of ‘faith’ which discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.  One of the offending universities cited in the original complaint to the APA was Wheaton College.

Wheaton College requires its applicants to sign a form with the following statement. “We believe that these Christian standards will show themselves in a distinctly Christian way of life, an approach to living we expect of ourselves and one another. This lifestyle involves practicing those attitudes and actions the Bible portrays as virtuous and avoiding those the Bible portrays as sinful…Scripture condemns the following:…homosexual behavior” A version of this form can be found here.

While this complaint addressed an advertisement in the 2006-2007 JFP, Wheaton College also advertised in the 2007-2008 JFP.  Further, while some universities are listed as censored universities, Wheaton is not.  Azusa Pacific University, Belmont University, Biola University, Calvin College, Malone College, and Pepperdine University all advertised in the 2007-2008 or 2008-2009 JFP.  None of these programs are listed as censored universities.  Nevertheless, all of these programs possess ‘ethics’ requirements that prohibit homosexual activity.  This is especially troubling given that the APA claims to endorse the following anti-discrimination policy

Further, The American Philosophical Association rejects as unethical all forms of discrimination based on race, color, religion, political convictions, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identification or age, whether in graduate admissions, appointments, retention, promotion and tenure, manuscript evaluation, salary determination, or other professional activities in which APA members characteristically participate. At the same time, the APA recognizes the special commitments and roles of institutions with a religious affiliation; it is not inconsistent with the APA's position against discrimination to adopt religious affiliation as a criterion in graduate admissions or employment policies when this is directly related to the school's religious affiliation or purpose, so long as these policies are made known to members of the philosophical community and so long as the criteria for such religious affiliations do not discriminate against persons according to the other attributes listed in this statement. Advertisers in Jobs for Philosophers are expected to comply with this fundamental commitment of the APA, which is not to be taken to preclude explicitly stated affirmative action initiatives. The APA Board of Officers expects that all those who use the APA Placement Service will comply with the letter and spirit of all applicable regulations concerning non-discrimination, equal employment opportunity and affirmative action.

Members of the APA should either convince the APA to enforce its policy or abandon it.  Pretending to be an enlightened organization that cares about defending the rights of our colleagues is counterproductive if the APA refuses to act upon its fundamental commitments. 

Comments are open; signed comments are far more likely to appear.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

50 responses to “The APA and Discrimination Against Homosexuals…Again”

  1. tnadelhoffer

    I think Hermes is right. This is an embarrassment for the APA. As such, I think their policy of tolerating intolerance by allowing colleges and universities with discriminatory hiring policies to advertise in the JFP ought to change. I suspect that if Hermes (a) drafted an open letter of complaint/petition, and (b) posted it here on the Leiter Reports, we could generate enough signatures to get the ball rolling in the right direction.

    Reply
  2. Christopher Pynes

    Charles Hermes is a man of real character and courage. He is making a stand for something just and he isn't even in a tenure track job yet. I don't know if I could have done this, but I am sure glad to know Charles.

    As members of the APA, we should at a minimum ask for the appropriate symbol to appear by the institutions name in the _Jobs For Philosophers_. Perhaps all the trouble with the JFP this year (according to some blogs) this was all in error. I, however, doubt it.

    I won't call out people individually, but I know a Wheaton grad who is now a professional philosopher. I would like to hear from the philosophy faculty at Wheaton and Biola and the grads from these places that have sense gone on to become professional philosophers. Is this a fair characterization of your schools?

    If it isn't, then the public needs to know. If it is a fair characterization, then the philosophy faculty at these places need to make it clear to the administration that systematic discrimination like this is unacceptable unless they agree with these claims. But of course I don't know how one could agree with sexual orientation discrimination.

    The APA should at least be able to indicate that these schools have these policies. But I would rather see the APA refuse to run their advertisements in the JFP than just have a dagger next to the schools name.

    Reply
  3. Robert Johnson

    Here here. Throw the bigots out of the JFP.

    Reply
  4. Jason Byron

    The problem here is that the universities that refuse to hire non-celibate gay and lesbian philosophers will say that their policies do not discriminate according to sexual orientation. This is because celibate gay and lesbian philosophers are not barred from being hired. The no-sex-outside-heterosexual-marriage requirement applies to all potential faculty equally, and that general requirement falls under the religious exception in the APA policy.

    The end result is that APA members assume that non-celibate gay and lesbian philosophers are not discriminated against by institutions posting in JFP, and the institutions in question get a free pass because of the strict meaning of the APA policy.

    What we need, of course, is a new APA policy. Short of that and in the meantime, the JFP should asterisk institutions that, while following the current APA policy, nevertheless toss out all applications from non-celibate gay and lesbian philosophers.

    Reply
  5. Clayton Littlejohn

    At a minimum, the APA should not allow these institutions to use the JFP or hold interviews at the conventions until their hiring practices conform to the APA's anti-discrimination standards. To do anything less is to fail to show respect for its gay and lesbian members. The APA would do the same if the institution discriminated against individuals on grounds or race or sex or individuals in interracial relationships. Maybe this time we should refuse to pay our dues until something is done?

    [That canard about "sex outside of marriage" will probably enter into the discussion thread again. If the issue came up in 1966, the APA would have been obliged to refuse to allow institutions in Virginia to place ads in the JFP if the institution refused to hire individuals in interracial sexual relationships on the grounds that Virginia hadn't yet been forced to allow interracial couples to marry.]

    Reply
  6. Professor at religious institution

    The APA believes discrimination with regard to x, y, and z is unethical. Nevertheless, discrimination with regard to x is acceptable so long as it is directly related to the school's affiliation or purpose, the discrimination is made known to the philosophical community, and the discrimination with regard to x does not similarly discriminate with regard to y and z.

    Is it just me, or does that seem like a strange policy to have?

    Reply
  7. John Milliken

    Perhaps before the drafting of petitions there is room for a bit more thought about the issues raised here. In is interesting to note, to begin with, that the APA statement makes an explicit distinction between discrimination based upon such things as race, sex, age, etc. and that based upon religious views, allowing private religious schools to take the latter into consideration when making hiring decisions. Why the distinction? I have no access to the process of discussion from which this statement arose, but it is natural to think the distinction was made on the following sort of grounds: Whereas thoughtful individuals of good will come to different conclusions in matters of religion, all such persons are agreed in thinking that race, age, etc. are factors to be ignored in hiring decisions. While there may be persons who would like to take, say, race into consideration when choosing faculty, we can all readily agree that such discrimination is wrong and ought to be forbidden. Professor Hermes does not indicate what he thinks about the exception for religious discrimination, but it is clear that to him discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is like that based upon race and age. This raises the question: is it, in fact, the case that we can all readily agree that such discrimination is wrong and ought to be forbidden, or are there instead thoughtful and good-willed persons who think differently about this? There are, clearly, persons who think differently including, one would assume, many of the faculty at Wheaton, Azusa Pacific, Belmont, and the other schools mentioned. Should we say that these persons are neither thoughtful nor of good will? If not, then on what grounds should the APA propose to censure institutions with whose reasoned convictions it disagrees?
    Actually, putting it this way is misleading, since the APA is not a person but a collection of philosophers, a significant number of which in fact hold the offending position under discussion. Is the APA to be the sort of organization where unpopular positions among its members are repressed on the basis of majority votes? Or should it not rather strive to be a place where reasoned difference of opinion–especially unpopular ones–are given protection from the social pressures of conformity?

    Philosophers of all people ought to know that we possess nothing close to a shared understanding of the foundations of ethics upon which convictions in this area could be based. In light of this, we ought to approach the issue with more humility in our own conclusions and greater tolerance towards those with whom we disagree.

    Reply
  8. Dennis Whitcomb

    If it is true that

    "The no-sex-outside-heterosexual-marriage requirement applies to all potential faculty equally, and that general requirement falls under the religious exception in the APA policy.",

    then we need to change the APA policy.

    There should not be a religious exception for no-sex-outside-heterosexual-marraige-requirements, any more than there should be a religious exception for no-sex-outside-same-race-marraige-requirements. So I agree with Jason Byron; the policy he points out is a bad one.

    Reply
  9. Stephen Nayak-Young

    I don't read the APA policy as permitting "discrimination" on religious grounds. Instead, it seems to concern freedom of association, such that religious schools can "adopt religious affiliation as a criterion in graduate admissions or employment policies when this is directly related to the school's religious affiliation or purpose," e.g., a Catholic university can prefer to hire Catholics.

    However, this permission stands only "so long as the criteria for such religious affiliations do not discriminate against persons according to the other attributes listed in this statement," one of which is sexual orientation. The APA policy clearly permits a religious school to prefer to hire people of the same religious affiliation so long as the school does not discriminate against any of the protected classes identified in the policy, e.g., a Baptist college can prefer to hire Baptist faculty, but it can't explicitly prefer not to hire homosexuals.

    In other words, if a Baptist college secretly wants to avoid hiring homosexuals, and *if* few Baptists are homosexual (I have no idea), then the college can permissibly achieve its secret discriminatory goal to some extent by advertising, "Baptists preferred!," but it can't go an explicitly discriminatory step further and advertise, "No gays!," just as it can't advertise, "No blacks!", "No Jews!", "No socialists!", etc.

    This seems relatively straightforward; I think the APA policy is fine the way it is but needs to be enforced.

    Reply
  10. Ralph Wedgwood

    1. The philosophical profession should not take a complacent attitude to this issue. As I have had occasion to remark before (in other regions of the blogosphere…), philosophy seems to attract markedly fewer gay and lesbian students and faculty members than some other academic disciplines. Les Green and I were talking about this very issue over dinner today, and we agreed that there seem to be proportionally many fewer gays and lesbians in philosophy departments than in law schools. Similarly, my own observation seems clearly to suggest that they are proportionally many fewer gays in philosophy than in other fields like literature, art history, and medicine.

    The explanation of this is not completely clear. It *may* have something to do with the way in which nerdy alpha-male types are particularly fêted in philosophy. But at all events, academic philosophy is not perceived as a wonderfully welcoming place by many gay and lesbian students. It will not help the profession to make progress on this front if it just shrugs off the concerns of those who are troubled by the fact that the APA — which claims to speak for the whole philosophical profession in the USA — continues to provide material support to Wheaton College's attempt to hire philosophers (heterosexuals only, no gays need apply).

    2. There are (as I have already remarked on this blog site) several quite serious objections to the virtual monopoly that the APA has on advertising jobs in the USA. They only publish a ludicrously small number of issues of JfP every year (making it quite hard for overseas institutions to advertise in JfP if they do not follow the same schedule that is expected in the US); JfP even failed to alphabetize the jobs properly in recent years; their online site is not at all easy to search; and it is only accessible to those who pay to become members of the APA — even though it is in no way in the interest of the philosophy departments who advertise in JfP to restrict the accessibility of their job advertisements to APA members.

    3. At the same time, it seems to me that there are some fundamental liberal and academic values — specifically, freedom of association and freedom of religion — that require us to tolerate the existence of academic institutions that discriminate on the basis of religion, and on the basis of standards of behaviour that are mandated by religious traditions. However, even if (as I believe) we should tolerate the existence of these academic institutions, I also do not believe that we should be expected to support these institutions, even indirectly, with our APA membership fees.

    4. For these reasons, I think it would be vastly better if the function of publicizing job advertisements were taken away from the APA, and given to some organization more like the consortium of universities that runs the web site http://jobs.ac.uk in the UK — i.e., some organization that is dedicated to the business of advertising jobs, does not collect membership fees from the majority of professional philosophers, and does not claim to speak for the whole philosophical profession of the USA.

    In short, it would collide with a due respect for freedom of speech (and the other liberal political values that I mentioned above) if we tried to prevent institutions like Wheaton College from advertising their jobs anywhere; but we should strenuously object to these deplorable institutions' being supported by the APA, which we support with our membership fees (even I pay my "International Associate" membership fees every year), and which claims to speak for the whole philosophical profession.

    Reply
  11. Kyle Scott

    As I understand it, what is being said is that unless a university adopts APA policy, and ignores its religious principles, the APA ought to bar that university, and thus discriminate against that university because of its religious views. Why do we not just say it, we disagree with the fundamental principles of the Christian beliefs as interepreted by these schools and therefore think these schools should be banned. The anti-religious view has been expressed openly on this blog. Let's just be honest about it.

    Reply
  12. Charles Hermes

    I agree with John Milliken that brilliant extraordinarily moral people teach at the universities I have listed. One of my role models, both as a philosopher and as an ethical person, is a professor at one of the campuses I listed. I further assume that some of the faculty at these universities rationally support their campus's policies. We ought to embrace the humble stance that Milliken suggests and be open to the possibility that we are wrong. Yet, the mere fact that these policies exist is not sufficient for demonstrating that they can be rationally supported. I hope proponents of these policies will use this opportunity to help people like me understand the reasons for supporting their position.

    Reply
  13. Kenneth Pike

    Social and legal pressure has been brought to bear–successfully–against discrimination for fixed attributes such as race, age, and (probably) gender. Whether sexuality is an attribute (as opposed to a behavior) is not as obvious; whether sexuality is a *fixed* attribute, even less so. That is the distinction; whether you find it a convincing distinction (many do not!) is not an excuse to ignore it. It is the distinction to which religious institutions cling.

    And "cling" may understate the point. After I finished my undergraduate degree at Brigham Young University, the philosophy department declined to rehire a certain professor; I only had one class from him, but I found him both competent and engaging. He was not homosexual, but had spoken out on the issue of gay marriage (http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/06/shame_on_byu_na.html). It seems clear that no amount of social pressure is going to change BYU's policy in this regard; similarly situated programs are doubtless in the same boat.

    Because the hiring practices in question are dictated by religiously motivated university policy. That seems to make the APA the wrong weapon for this fight. I don't know how it is elsewhere, but at BYU, my choice to study "worldly" philosophy was not culturally acceptable. I had one religion professor openly question whether the department should be allowed to exist. I found regular occasion to be grateful for philosophy professors who could "toe the (party) line" while simultaneously equipping their pupils with the analytic tools to recognize the situation for what it was.

    In other words, the *last* thing I want the APA doing is withdrawing support of any kind from philosophy departments that may not even agree with university hiring policies. I suspect this is one reason why the APA recognizes a religious exception; why do anything that might hamper the development of philosophy departments at religious institutions, when those departments shelter professors who are often more willing than their colleagues in other disciplines to genuinely encourage deep reflection and intellectual honesty in their students?

    I recognize that "gradual change" is not something most advocates for equality want to discuss. Nevertheless, the APA's flexibility may do more to advance its agenda through facilitating placement of philosophy professors than would uncompromising adherence to the cause. I would echo John's call for humility in our conclusions, not simply because we should have more tolerance for those with whom we disagree, but because taking a hard line can inadvertently alienate and disadvantage those who most need our support.

    Reply
  14. Skef Iterum

    John Milliken:

    If non-discrimination policies are restricted to addressing only those issues "we can all readily agree" on, why have them at all?

    To try to address your question, I suspect that a number of the people who supported allowing race to be a consideration in hiring in, say, the 50s were, in the common sense, thoughtful and good-willed. They were also entitled to their view. Nevertheless, it was wrong, and it further seems to be that more thinking would have revealed it to be wrong, as the case is very difficult to make now. Perhaps the people who disagree with the inclusion of the sexual orientation clause in the APA policy (or support the "decriminalization" of discrimination based on sexual orientation under it) should make a specific ethical case against its inclusion, rather than a meta-case about how "people disagree". That might help those of us who suspect that some otherwise thoughtful and good-willed people just aren't past their "ick factor".

    Reply
  15. Chuck Cross

    John Milliken writes, "Professor Hermes does not indicate what he thinks about the exception for religious discrimination, but it is clear that to him discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is like that based upon race and age. This raises the question: is it, in fact, the case that we can all readily agree that such discrimination is wrong and ought to be forbidden, or are there instead thoughtful and good-willed persons who think differently about this?" The history of progress with regard to gay rights is precisely the history of there being fewer and fewer "good-willed persons who think differently about this." When a tipping point in the moral consensus among APA members is reached, the APA will be able to change its policy. Let it be soon.

    Reply
  16. Jon Cogburn

    Kyle Scott's contention (that belief in non-discrimination based on sexual grounds is anti-religious) is absurd and (especially as a religious person) frankly offensive to me. Scott's exact point was made ad nauseum by religious defenders of slavery and racial Apartheid in the United States, even while many of those opposing these evils did so for partly religious grounds.

    Likewise, some of us who feel strongly that discrimination against gay, lesbian, and transgendered people is a hideous moral evil feel this way in part because of our religion.

    I would strongly, strongly recommend that Scott and others concerned about the connection between Christianity and the contemporary civil rights debate read Jack Rogers' excellent "Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church." Rogers was a conservative Moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA) who saw the light on the road to Damascus; his book is an extremely compelling Christian defense of liberal views concerning gay rights.

    As to Milliken's point, of course thoughtful, good, philosophically informed people can disagree about many hot button moral issues (there are good arguments for both sides of issues concerning gun control, the proper function of the state, the death penalty, vegetarianism, etc. . .) And thoughtful, good people can sometimes believe things that are such that there is overwhelming evidence that those beliefs are morally abhorrent. In part that's because a lot of thoughtful, good people are not that philosophically competent (and of course, depressingly, many philosophically competent people are neither particularly thoughtful, nor good). But some views just are rationally indefensible. John Corvino ("Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality") and others have assessed the moral debates concerning homosexuality such that any fair minded, informed, and philosophically competent person should be strongly against bigotry towards gay people, which just is on a par with the other forms of discrimination mentioned above.

    Finally, the defense that these places would hire celibate gay people so therefore they are not really discriminating strikes me as not only vicious but also stupid. How could it possibly be non-discriminating to tell gay people they have to forgo sex and marriage but to say these things are O.K. for straight people? As to the viciousness, two words- Alan Turing.

    Reply
  17. Possible future secret agent

    I can look at this situation in two ways.

    1) There are APA members who do not wish their professional organization, one which purports to represent them, to implicitly condone unethical policies.

    2) On the other hand there is the more pragmatic note found in Kenneth Pike's comment. These Christian schools are the one place where many kids from conservative Christian backgrounds learn to think for themselves — and thereby transcend their upbringing. There are a great many families which would never allow their kids to attend a college without such "statements of faith". But colleges with such "statements of faith" nevertheless often have a liberalizing effect on students. Some of the profs no doubt try to play the role of secret agents, trying to liberalize students in a way which won't get them fired — they can do an amazing amount of good in that role. I am sure this happens in different departments, but it certainly happens in philosophy departments, as one would expect. I personally know people who went into these sorts of schools (including Wheaton) as conservative Christian kids, studied philosophy, and came out as politically liberal (pro-gay marriage) Christians, or even atheists. The better the department is, the more likely this is to happen. Blacklisting these departments could make the departments worse, thereby reducing their liberalizing effect. Meanwhile I cannot imagine that it would have any effect whatsoever on the "statements of faith". So the net effect is likely to be counterproductive.

    The concerns found in both (1) and (2) are compelling. We could take care of all of the above by following Prof. Wedgwood's suggestion — taking the business of advertising philosophy jobs away from the APA. But, as it is, I think the pragmatic concerns in (2) outweigh the concerns in (1). These departments shouldn't be blacklisted. They are one of the few places where critical thinking can be fostered in this blinkered American subculture — this is to be promoted, not undermined.

    (I request Prof. Leiter post this anonymously, on the off chance I end up as one of those secret agents myself.)

    Reply
  18. Kate Abramson

    With regard to the original post: yes, let us please at least *start* there.
    I would also, however, note the following paragraph that appears in the JFP immediately after the non discrimination statement which Charles Hermes quotes above, namely,
    "Please note: The APA non-discrimination statement does not constitute legal protection for candidates who accept jobs advertised in the JFP. Federal law protects employees against some forms of discrimination, but there is currently no federal law protecting employees against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification. Lesbian, gay and transgendered candidates are advised to consult applicable state and local laws, along with university/college non-discrimination policies, before accepting a position."

    I imagine it very likely that the majority of participants in this discussion are well aware of the legal considerations at issue in the paragraph I've just quoted. But believe me when I say you'd be surprised who (and how many) mistakenly believe (or recently believed) otherwise.

    Reply
  19. David Sobel

    I do think the APA should take action on this issue, but ideally it would not do so alone but in a coordinated effort with other fields. Does anyone know what the other fields are doing about this–perhaps we can borrow their good policy on this? Are there events where the APA talks with other fields which could provide an opportunity for such a discussion?

    Reply
  20. Thom Brooks

    I simply cannot agree more with Ralph. The APA has done a very poor job at many different things and it would be a positive step forward if something like a http://jobs.ac.uk (which we greatly benefit from in the UK) were established in the US, in part, to address the problems raised in the original post.

    Reply
  21. Robert Johnson

    David's idea of a coordinated seems like a very good one.

    An additional point. Advertising a job in the JFP is not a right institutions possess against the APA. The APA has the power to enforce whatever criteria it deems reasonable for institutions to enjoy the advertising service it offers. It is really beyond belief that the APA does not as a matter of course bar institutions that openly engage in discriminatory practices, especially those that wear those practices with pride, and especially those whose practices are in open violation of its own purported standards.

    Reply
  22. Laurence B McCullough

    Perhaps the APA's policy reflects the constraints of current law, especially on First Amendment protections for religously sponsored institutions. The postings so far presume that the APA should make its policies solely on philosophical grounds (which, of course, are beyond dispute). The implicit view of the postings so far is that, if making policy on purely philosophical grounds results in the APA placing itself above the law, well the law (to abuse the late Leona Hemlmsley) is for the little, unphilosophical people. Thus does philosophy, yet again, make itself irrelevant, this time in a society in which we secure our freedoms by submitting to the rule of law.

    Reply
  23. Derek Bowman

    Re: Kyle Scott

    I think your inference goes something like this:
    (1) The APA discriminates against groups that engage in a practice A.
    (2) Some groups engage in practice A for religious reasons.
    Thus, (3) The APA discriminates on the basis of religion.

    By this argument, laws against murder discriminate on the basis of religion, since some religions endorse ritual murder under specified conditions. As Jon Cogburn points out, defenders of American slavery (and also of Jim Crow laws) saw that practice as justified for religious reasons. So again, your argument would show that abolitionists were discriminating on the basis of religion. That suggests there's something wrong with the inference. I suspect it's a kind of equivocation buried in the phrase 'on the basis of,' which slides back and forth behind the APA's reason for discriminating and the institutions' reasons for engaging in the behavior that's discriminated against.

    Re: Kenneth Pike
    There are plenty of things that are behaviors that we think are not an appropriate basis of discrimination. Even if race is a fixed category, interracial marriage is not, nor is having interracial children. Nonetheless, I don't think there's any reasonable controversy that the APA should exclude any college or university which included a same-race marriage oath. So if the attribute/behavior and fixed/non-fixed distinctions are what the religious institutions depend upon to defend discrimination, then it's clear to all reasonable people that they are in error. Whether homosexuality is fixed (genetically or otherwise) isn't really the issue – what's at issue is whether the behavior in question is central enough to one's identity and one's ability to live a free and fulfilling life to warrant protection against undue intrusion from others.

    That said, I think you raise an interesting issue on the relative merits of engagement vs disengagement.

    Reply
  24. Derek Bowman

    Laurence McCullough,

    That's not how the First Amendment works. Look it up.

    Reply
  25. Jamie Dreier

    I don't see how an APA censure asterisk for a university that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation would amount to "the APA placing itself above the law." The first amendment places no constraints on APA use of asterisks, as far as I know.

    I also agree completely with Ralph Wedgwood's comments.

    The APA has a Committee for the Defense of the Professional Rights of Philosophers, and also a Committee on the Status of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People in the Profession. Are there any readers of this blog who serve on one of those committees? One of them might be a good place to start.

    Reply
  26. Anonymous Philosopher

    Some of the above posts seem to assume that the discriminatory practices of these schools are a form of bigotry. Perhaps Robert Johnson expresses this assumption most explicitly when he says, “Here here. Throw the bigots out of the JFP.” Cogburn seems to express similar sentiments toward the end of his post. In any case, the accusation of bigotry seems very unfair to me.

    Yes, these schools aren’t willing to hire practicing homosexuals, because these schools want their professors to be good role models as people and as practitioners of their particular religion. Of course, the spiritual or moral standards of the religion may be mistaken in certain respects, and, in particular, with respect to homosexual behavior. Yet it doesn’t follow that these schools practice “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own,” which is how dictionary.com defines “bigotry”. Nor does it follow that these schools practice complete intolerance of homosexual behavior. As far as I know, these institutions don’t discourage faculty from having meaningful friendships with homosexuals or engaging in thoughtful discussion and debate regarding homosexuality. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them actually encouraged this sort of thing. Perhaps the hiring practices of these schools are morally bad, but they don’t seem to be a form of bigotry.

    Furthermore, if I were at one of these institutions, I would feel attacked by some—though certainly not all—of the posts here. Maybe you think something like “Well, if you have moral standards as skewed as those of these schools, you deserved to be attacked.” Even if such a sentiment is correct, you won’t help make positive changes at these institutions by belittling them and glibly accusing them of bigotry.

    This post is *not* intended to argue that these institutions should be allowed to advertise in the JFP, but only that their hiring practices (by themselves) don’t seem to be a form of bigotry.

    Reply
  27. Jon Cogburn

    I don't get McCullough's point. (1) What law forces the APA to accept advertisements from colleges that discriminate? (2) Martin Luther King pretty famously "placed himself above the law on philosophical grounds." Why would that be a bad thing when confronted with moral evil?

    One valid concern that has not been articulated sufficiently is that when informed, philosophically competent people of good will can disagree about a moral issue the APA should not take a stand, even if the majority of members feel strongly about one side of the issue. And there is a Sorites problem here, since the distinction between what informed, philosophically competent people of good will can disagree about and disagreements where one party is either uninformed, philosophically incompetent, or of bad will is multi-dimensionally vague. In the presence of such kinds of vagueness humility is always the best guide, in this case erring on the side of taking your opponent's view to be one that an informed, philosophically competent, person of good will could hold (for these reasons I thought the APA weighing in on the Iraq war was very bad).

    But, this debate is different. (1) There is enough good philosophy on the subject (check out Corvino's book from a non-theistic philosophical perspective and Rogers book from a theistic one) to decisively settle the issue. With something like the death penalty, informed Kantians have produced reasonable defenses (which you may ultimately find unsound, but should still accept as being defenses that an informed, philosophically competent person of good will might disagree). There is nothing analogous with respect to sex-orientation apartheid (and these "private" institutions get all sorts of tax benefits and federal funding in the United States, so allowing them to discriminate is an instance of state sanctioned Apartheid; this is the very reason some founding fathers argued forcefully that religions should not be tax exempt). (2) What is being asked is not for the APA to weigh in on some hot button issue that the majority of members don't like, but rather to change a practice the APA is in fact currently engaging in. Given that the APA is engaging in the practice, not to choose is to choose.

    Finally, some of the above posters argue persuasively that there is some utilitarian gain in allowing the hate mongering institutions to advertise. I think this is correct, but I still find myself unmoved just because such utilitarian arguments are always offered in the face of massive injustice. For example the Civil War and its aftermaths killed over a million people and was probably partially responsible for the political dysfunction of the American South to this day. How many posters here would use this to argue that Lincoln should have acted differently? And after the civil war people made utilitarian arguments against any kind of confrontation against Apartheid in the United States (this is to be distinguished from King's strategy of making sure the confrontation was such to appeal to the moral sensibilities of the white majority). As a southerner who grew up in the detritus of all of that I can't help but see the utilitarian arguments concerning the APA's tolerance and participation in gross injustice as more of the same.

    Reply
  28. Alastair Norcross

    Larry McCullough misses the point of the discussion. No-one has said that the discriminatory policies of certain colleges are illegal. As Kate Abramson points out above, the APA explicitly acknowledges that there is no federal protection against the kind of objectionable discrimination that is the topic of this thread. If the APA were to confine itself to endorsing the law of the US, that would be the ultimate way to condemn itself to irrelevancy. If the APA cannot take a stand on moral issues, who can?

    Furthermore, in objecting to reprehensible but legal discrimination, the APA is hardly putting itself above the law. The very First Amendment protections that Larry trumpets also guarantee the APA's right to condemn such discrimination, and to enact policies consistent with that condemnation. The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to have one's advertisements printed in the JFP, or in any other privately operated publication. The APA is well within (not above) its legal rights to refuse to accept job listings from institutions whose hiring practices conflict with its stated policies. Given that the APA is legally entitled to do this, and that its policies seem to commit it to doing this, it should do so.

    We have come to expect inconsistency between the words and the actions of politicians, but is it really too much to ask that the largest professional organization of a discipline for whom consistency is central display some consistency in its own behavior?

    Reply
  29. Laurence McCullough

    Alastair Norcross (greetings up there in the Great Frozen North) writes: "The APA is well within (not above) its legal rights to refuse to accept job listings from institutions whose hiring practices conflict with its stated policies." Is this correct as a matter of law?

    Jon Cogburn claims that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, placed himself above the law. This claim represents a complete misunderstanding of civil disobedience. King submitted to the rule of law to combat the evil of Jim Crow.

    Reply
  30. John Casey

    John Milliken eloquently writes:

    Philosophers of all people ought to know that we possess nothing close to a shared understanding of the foundations of ethics upon which convictions in this area could be based. In light of this, we ought to approach the issue with more humility in our own conclusions and greater tolerance towards those with whom we disagree.

    That general principle indeed ought to guide the behavior of those who are certain enough of their convictions to engage in active discrimination against others on the basis of their sexual orientation.

    Reply
  31. Rosemary Twomey

    Hi all, I started a facebook group in opposition to the APA'a failure to enforce its own policies. If you're a concerned member of the philosophical community, I encourage you to join. Ultimately I hope that we can work together to actually effectuate change in this area; the group is a way to get like-minded philosophers together. It can be found here: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=50895913578

    Reply
  32. Mark van Roojen

    I'm with Alastair, Jamie, Jon, Kate, Ralph, Derek and the other folks who see the point of taking some action. A religious "justification" for an abhorrent practice does not make it religious discrimination to condemn or refuse to cooperate with the practice. And first amendment law in now way compels anyone to publish whatever they are asked to, nor as Jamie says, not to publish asterisks or other warnings. In fact it protects just the sort of speech this would represent.

    And yes, I think any discrimination based on sexual orientation or conduct between consenting adults is a form of bigotry. That is a criticism of it and of those who engage in such bigotry. That is not to say that many of the people who engage in the discrimination I disapprove of don't have many good characteristics. Some of them are probably friends, but sometimes you have to criticize even friends.

    I currently lean towards the disclaimer/asterisk sanction rather than a total ban because I think it will provide a kind of continuing social pressure on these institutions to change. But this might be naive on my part. In any event I think there is no deep principle which would rule out the more drastic course of action if it would be more effective.

    There is something ironic about people claiming to be discriminated against when they are criticised for discriminating against others on arbitrary grounds.

    Reply
  33. Robert Johnson

    Another avenue to pursue might be to get our home departments to write letters to the APA expressing disapproval for its failure to act on its own policies. Many if not all public institutions have policies explicitly forbidding this sort of discriminatory hiring practice.

    Reply
  34. Alastair Norcross

    Anonymous Philosopher has settled the issue, and now we can put an end to this thread. I should have realized that the way to settle a thorny moral issue was to appeal to that great moral authority dictionary.com. Of course it's not bigotry to refuse to hire homosexuals, so long as you allow your employees to have friends who are homosexuals, and even to talk about homosexuality. No more would it be bigotry to refuse to hire black people, so long as you allow your employees to have friends who are black, and even to talk about being black.

    Reply
  35. Anon

    For all the recent positive efforts made to have our profession appear less toxic to women, minorities, and LGBT, that the APA knowingly allows job advertisements to un-ironically and earnestly employ the absurd and repugnant phrase "practicing homosexual" speaks fucking volumes. I would say more but I must get back to practicing my sexuality along with my food-eating and my air-breathing.

    Reply
  36. Aaron Schroeder

    The problem for a number of arguments in favor of the APA allowing sexual orientation discrimination is that they seem to be willing to assume the veracity of the APA's initial decision-making process. If we take John Milliken's earlier statement as an adequate account of the APA's decision making process, it seems like the APA used two criteria in determining which types of discrimination to allow: (1) whether thoughtful people of good will can come to different conclusions in regards to the relevant difference; and (2) whether we can all agree that discrimination based on sexual preference is wrong and ought to be forbidden.

    This is where I am (and a number of others here are) dissenting. First, these criteria are bad ones for assessing which sorts of discrimination to allow. The problem with the first is that simply because a person is thoughtful and of good will doesn't mean that every decision that person makes is thoughtful and made with good will. We're granting leniency on this one bad decision by reference to prior good decisions. The problem with the second criterion is the Sorites problem Jon Cogburn mentioned, that this criterion is impotent in trying to help us decide this dispute, because it will inevitably side with inaction, until there's no longer a dispute. That is, there won't be a dispute to decide when everyone agrees, because no one will disagree to cause a dispute in the first place.

    Second, even if we accept these criteria as good ones for distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant kinds of discrimination, it's not at all clear that the APA applied them consistently. Had it, we might wonder why the APA doesn't allow for gender or racial discrimination, given that, say, women's colleges might be able to offer the same argument for hiring only women or, say, black colleges might be able to offer the same argument for hiring only African Americans, that religious college are giving for not hiring homosexuals. Since the APA currently doesn't allow for the first two sorts of discrimination, why would it all the third?

    So, given that the APA's presumed rationales for distinguishing between different sorts of discrimination are bad rationales for making the distinction they propose to make, why follow them? I'm not trying to say that there might not be other good reasons for allowing sexual orientation discrimination (although, I'm hard-pressed to think of what those reasons might be)–only that the APA hasn't given us any good reasons to accept the criteria they're supposedly using.

    One other thing, I'm wondering why the APA shouldn't base its advertising policies or censure rules on majority (whether >50 or >2/3) votes. After all, there's no moral law against stifling academic freedom, and there's no categorical imperative (much to the dismay of many professors, I'm sure) against injudiciously firing tenured faculty. Yet, the APA censures members for each of these. If the APA has a self-regulating membership, then the membership ought to determine which hiring policies are acceptable and which are reprehensible. If religious institutions with bigoted hiring policies don't like that, then they can try to vote to change it, or they can start the APA of Institutions Against Homosexuality, have their own conferences, and publish their own Jobs for Straight Philosophers.

    Reply
  37. Anonymous Graduate Student

    Mark van Roojen writes: "And yes, I think any discrimination based on sexual orientation or conduct between consenting adults is a form of bigotry."

    Really? Suppose I teach at a small religious college which believes that its teachers should not only instruct their students in a given subject matter but also serve as ethical role models–models, say, of how to live out the demands of Christian morality within a secular profession.

    Would it be bigotry to require of potential hires to pledge that they will not engage in (or at least do their best to abstain from) (1) adulterous behavior (if they are married) and (2) wanton promiscuity (if they are not married), on the grounds that any faculty engaged in such behavior could not fulfill the role for which they were hired?

    Note that I am not addressing the issue of discrimination against homosexual activity, whether and to what extent it is wrong, and how the profession should best handle it–I am only responding to van Roojen's larger assertion, which to my mind overreaches and so obscures the issue.

    I am a graduate student in philosophy and ask to remain anonymous.

    Reply
  38. Jason Byron

    Look, I think it's great that so many philosophers are "shocked" that APA-listed schools discriminate against non-celibate gay and lesbian philosophers, and I think an APA campaign on this issue would be a wonderful thing. But, from where I stand, it seems unlikely in the extreme that the offending schools in question would ever be banned from JFP (unless, of course, some outside organization takes over listing philosophy jobs). Those who find the current situation morally repugnant should remember that the offending schools are not breaking the law–*irrespective* of whether their hiring policies are religiously based. It is perfectly legal in most jurisdictions in the United States to refuse to hire gay and lesbian workers, rent to gay and lesbian tenants, or block access to places of public accommodation to gay and lesbian citizens simply on the basis of their sexual orientation and regardless of whether the individuals "practice" their sexuality. Of course, this goes both ways. It is also perfectly legal for the APA to list or not list any school it wants–for whatever reason it wants (after all, even private white-only country clubs are constitutionally protected, as was revealed in the race for the RNC chair, but I digress).

    Nevertheless, philosophy is becoming, in this respect, more and more outside the mainstream in academia and the corporate world. Despite the oft-cited good will of many philosophers, philosophy remains more sexist and more homophobic than its sister disciplines, it seems to me. It will take significant work to change the culture of professional philosophy, more than petitions, letters to the editor, and Facebook groups. And, it needn't be said, there will be significant resistance to these efforts, especially from those who claim, apparently without appreciating the irony, that such changes would discriminate against Christian universities.

    Reply
  39. PhilosopherP

    In an increasingly bad job market, it seems that further restricting the posting of positions doesn't make practical sense.

    The fact of the matter is that the institutions will behave in a bigoted manner no matter how much the APA protests. It is also a fact that there are other places to post positions and more than a few people who are willing to sign such statements in order to get a job.

    It seems to me that the only way to actually change bigoted policies is to increase the level of diversity on these campuses. Because the JFP is widely read, denying bigoted colleges the use of JFP acts counter to that purpose.

    I actually considered applying for a position at a conservative university, until I received their application. I didn't like the fact that I had to implicitly tell my employer about my sexual practices and my "relationship with alcohol". I'm fortunate that I didn't end up needing that particular job AND that the university showed it's real colors on the application.

    Reply
  40. Kyle Scott

    Those who think that I am a religious person do not know me nor can deduce it from my comments. Moreover, that I think these schools have correctly interpreted the Christian stance on homosexuality obviously did not read my comment carefully as it said, "Christian beliefs as interpreted by these schools…", meaning there are many possible interpretations, some of which may be wrong. I do not think discrimination falls into the same category as murder either, pace Derek Bowman. Derek Bowman and Jon Cogburn each raise an interesting point that deserves all the attention it gets–too bad its mostly from the Supreme Court. When can a person have a belief that I disagree with and when can I restrict somebody's right to have a belief without becoming discriminatory? Yes, religion has been the cover for all sorts of atrocities, agreed. I don't support appartheid or slavery.

    What I am in opposition to is a restriction on an open exchange of information and ideas. I am worried that if we restrict a school's ability to advertise because of its belief structure, even if unjust, then where do such restrictions stop? If you don't like those schools, don't go there, don't apply there, and don't recommend your students to go there. So then, I guess the argument runs, if we let them in to the APA without restriction then we are saying what they stand for is tolerable. Perhaps it could be interpreted as such unless a point was made to discount that view. I think history has shown that marginalizing groups because of their beliefs does little to aid in reforming those beliefs. It certainly hasn't done much positive for North Korea, Iran, or Cuba.(This is my primary concern, when we censor–even if against evil–and marginalize groups there are consequences we may not see that may end up being worse. Can we not have a more positive influence without punishing? Carrot and Stick works, but where is the carrot in the policy?) For the population that the APA caters to, I don't think there is any risk of discriminatory beliefs taking hold of those who don't already harbor those beliefs. We are speaking of a well-informed, educated, and sophisticated population that does not change its beliefs easily. So then the question I am left with is, if not discrimination, then what sort of action/policy would warrant a ban and why? I think that matter should be settled first. And who better to settle it than philosophers.

    Reply
  41. Lisa

    I want to voice my support for Ralph Wedgwood's position but besides the ethical questions (the complexities of which I think Ralph explains very well) I also want to add that there is a good practical reason for voicing dissent against policies that make it easier for institutions to discriminate. The history of political movements for civil rights and full social inclusion for those discriminated against on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity suggests to me that keeping private our ethical objections about discrimination against gays and lesbians and eschewing the tactic of public pressure is colluding with a grave social injustice. Making these objections public and working to make it more difficult for anyone to discriminate against gays and lesbians for any reason is all that most of us can do. I think this goal is vastly more important than the possibility that people in those colleges might have slightly worse professors or there might be slightly fewer jobs on offer. Upshot: It is right for APA members to object to discrimination in this way and it's also a political strategy to achieve a completely necessary goal of justice. Yes, the targets of such strategies are rarely transformed themselves but such methods almost always have much wider social effects.

    Reply
  42. Alan White

    If the APA stands for anything, it should stand for the rule of reason in moral theory and practice. Despite failed efforts in religion to base traditional prejudices and discrimination on retrofitted "reasoning" (natural law theory, e.g.), stances like those of the institutions named are purely faith-based. Same-sex relationships are thus held to be immoral because the Old Testament and Paul say so. It is faith that completes the supposed transitivity from God's mouth to Romans. And for all that's been said in favor of a divine-command view (I cringe to call it "theory"), little sifts out that can lay claim to being at bottom reasonable. I have no qualms about countenancing faith-views that have no significant negative impact on others or culture at large: transubstantiate away. But positions that are at bottom arbitrary and run counter to good moral reasoning and social practice ought to be denounced and resisted, and the philosophical community should constitute some loud part of that protest.

    Reply
  43. Jason Byron

    Who is restricting anybody's beliefs, Kyle? This is not about whether universities have the right, legal or otherwise, to refuse to hire non-celibate gay and lesbian philosophers–much less whether particular philosophers have any particular belief about the morality of homosexuality. The issue, at least as I understand it, is whether the APA should allow universities that have discriminatory hiring practices to use APA resources to engage in those practices. There is a further question of whether the current policy already demands that the APA refuse to list those universities. Either way, no one is proposing that anyone believe or not believe anything at all.

    Reply
  44. Damien D

    Kyle Scott's newest comments make no more sense than his previous rant.

    In his newest point what he is really opposed to is restricting the "open exchange of information and ideas". This falls prey to the slavery analogy again; what slave owners were really opposed to about the civil war was that the federal government was infringing upon states rights. Let's not even get into the irony involved in accusations of "restricting ideas".

    He goes on to worry that restricting the "ability to advertise" would lead to a slippery slope of restrictions. That's obviously a bad argument. But what in the world ever made him believe that nothing should impede a group from being able to advertise?

    Its also interesting to note that his examples of how "history" shows that marginalizing offensive beliefs doesn't work focuses on current events.

    The issue here is not an interesting 'academic' debate but whether or not any institution should be allowed to discriminate against human rights. And relatedly, whether the APA should enter into business with such groups.

    Reply
  45. agradstudent

    I'm wondering about how the clauses at the institutions in question actually work. Some posters have said/implied that one's orientation doesn't actually matter–all that matters is whether one actually engages in sexual activity with a member of the same-sex.

    So technically this would mean that a school with such a clause should have no problem hiring an out glb person who identifies proudly as gay and who has a same-sex partner as long as that person signs the waver saying they do not have sex with their partner (or any other person of their sex) right? (I know, most people *do* have sex with the partners/spouses, but there are some sexless marriages/relationships. No doubt there are some married couples of every combination of sexes who are in this situation I would think.) Would these institutions really hire such a person with no problem?

    Anyway, my first thought on this as a GLBT graduate student in philosophy is that I would like to not end up in a situation like the one this academic found himself in: http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2000/09/2000091502c.htm. I haven't noticed the JFP asterisks, but I suppose while on the job market I will have to take pains to look very, very carefully.

    Also, I expect the process working with my department in applying for jobs to be somewhat awkward in this way. There is a very strong expectation that one will apply to as many jobs as possible in all areas of the country/world. I envision having conversations with faculty members that go:
    Them: "But what about X school? Why aren't you applying there?"
    Me: "Well you see the person I love has the same type of genitalia as I do. Oh and sometimes we have sex. So they won't hire me there."

    It strikes me actually that perhaps the APA should have a policy in addition to its discrimination policy that refers to inappropriate or disrespectful or dignity-undermining or privacy-invading questions or requirements. I don't think the issue here is *merely* the fact the these schools are effectively refusing to hire glbt people (despite the supposed behavior/orientation distinction). What if the schools required applicants to have sex a certain number of times a week? Or if the application asked what birth control method the applicant used? Or how old one was when one lost their virginity? Or exactly what kinds of sexual activities one partakes in with one's spouse? I would think all reasonable people of good will could agree that *any* questions of this sort–any inquiry about one's sex life at all–would be inappropriate for any job application/interview/contract except those which are part of the porn industry. (After all, aren't these exactly the sort of questions which–if asked repeatedly–could create a hostile work environment of the kind which has been held legally to be sexual harassment?)

    Reply
  46. Iain Martel

    If the proposal were, say, to ban philosophers from Wheaton, et al, from attending APA conferences, or from being APA members, then I would be firmly behind Kyle Scott and others in opposition. Such a move really would be "a restriction on an open exchange of information and ideas", and would punish those who are possibly trying to help (as secret agents?). But that is not what has been proposed here. Listing in Jobs For Philosophers is a service the APA provides for hiring departments. When the APA lists a posting from a college which engages in discriminatory hiring practices, it is not only condoning such practices, but actively assisting them. To my mind, this differs only in degree from selling guns to the Mafia. If I believe that someone plans to use my services for immoral aims, it is my moral duty to withhold those services. Likewise, the APA has a moral obligation to withhold its listing services from those who would use them to engage in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

    I should also add that even a "bigotry alert" would be of great use to those, gay or straight, who (like me) would not consider applying for a job at a college with such policies. I wonder how many applicants have inadvertently signalled acceptance of these policies by applying for a position without checking out the college's mission statement first. (I myself never got past the "must beieve in fictional beings" part!)

    Reply
  47. denzel

    Here's the story of a lesbian English professor at a school like those under discussion: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/11150096.html

    Reply
  48. SImon Keller

    Shouldn't we also send a petition to Wheaton? Whatever the APA does, it can only have an indirect effect, and it's not the APA that's actually doing the discriminating.

    Reply
  49. mark lance

    Well, this is going around and around, and I think most of the key points have been made. But one gets the sense that some in this thread are simply losing the focus on the reality of what this sort of discrimination means to people. We live in a world in which LGBTQ folks can be fired from their jobs with impunity, can be banned from the hospital room of their dying life partner (real case, real philosopher), can be prevented from adopting, even fostering children, are frequently subject to physical assault, are routinely subject to verbal assault, are murdered. All this leads to depression, self-injurious behavior, and a host of negative effects, especially on adolescents who question how well they fit the official societal definitions of gender, sexuality, etc.

    The APA may play a small part in this, but in the face of this massive, arbitrary, systematic structural violence – and notwithstanding it's explicit policy against such things – the APA is providing a free forum for colleges to offer jobs that explicitly take part in this matrix of discrimination. To call a ban on advertising in the JFP "religious discrimination" is Orwellian. To say that it "stifles free speech" when a college can pay to advertise in any paper in the country, or just email ads to every college in the country is cynical and absurd. To worry about the feelings of generally good thoughtful people who support the ban – to place, that is, the hurt feelings that result from saying to someone that their behavior and beliefs are harmful, bigoted and wrong above the effect of telling someone that she is not worthy of working unless you, the good thoughtful philosopher, get to demand her celibacy – is moral blindness and self-pity of staggering proportions. (Not even to mention that the same offended good decent thoughtful philosopher will find no worry whatsoever in saying that a just and loving God will condemn, say, me and my queer daughter to eternal torture. But of course saying that we deserve eternal suffering for having disagreed with a divine being about what genitals it's ok for mammals to rub together is religious freedom, while claiming that such views are mean-spirited, intellectually indefensible, and bigoted, but without advocating even a minute of torture, is offensive.)

    Schools are using their religious affiliation to discriminate against an already systematically abused and widely despised minority. (As I've noted in previous threads, I've yet to see a university require an oath to turn the other cheek in response to violence, to eschew excessive wealth, to reject unconstrained capitalism, etc. Only allegedly Christian doctrine that targets the vulnerable is ever seen as requiring doctrinal purity, the rest is all open to debate and interpretation.) The APA is actively supporting them in doing so by funding their advertisements of such bigoted policies. It is perfectly obvious that as an absolutely minimal step toward moral decency – and as Alastair notes, simple consistency – we should stop doing so.

    After taking this minimal first step, we should then get off our privileged academic asses and get out and work to change the much worse features of discrimination, bigotry, and violence that exist in our culture.

    Reply
  50. Kate Abramson

    Thank you Mark (Lance). Everyone else too– Mark just said some things in his last post that, imho, desperately needed to be said.

    Reply

Designed with WordPress