Catholic college faces lawsuit over contraceptives

[rmcmullan]

This is a news story that concerns me:

washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/15/catholic-college-faces-lawsuit-over-contraceptives/

In short, Belmont Abbey College, a small Catholic college (1,500 students) is being sued for not providing contraceptives as part of the health care package it is offering its employees. It is being sued by 8 of its current and past faculty members. For some reason, the EEOC is considering making a federal case out of it.

The two things that bothers me are

1. 
   *]It is being sued by it’s own faculty–people who should share Catholic values.
   *]That anyone, group or individual, should be forced into doing what is against their conscience
   
   It’s not just a Catholic problem, it’s a problem with the widening moral chasm between the church and the world.
   
   I don’t know how many of you know this but the Mormon colleges, BYU and BYU Idaho, do not accept any goverment money and consequently are free form a lot of the constraints placed on other universities that do. There’s a long history of how that all evolved. Perhaps this is something that some Catholic Colleges should consider. It’s tough financially, there’s no question about it. But even that won’t protect from the “enemy within”.

 

[MercyMia]

rmcmullan - You are right, this should not be happening. Why are these people even on the faculty when they do not live the teachings of the Church, and more yet, why do they want to work for an institution that they do not believe in? I went to an all-women’s Catholic College and our RA’s had a bucket of condoms by the door in each of their room for all of the residents as well as in the student medical center. Wrong, just wrong. I didn’t think of it before, but I guess it might be tied into the fact that the schools take government aid for students so they have to provide these things? Not sure. It would be a shame because our college had the best nursing program in the state and was very generous with aid for many girls who came from rough economic situations. It would be sad to see that aid diminish, but at the same time they are sending very mixed messages to people. BTW this probably belongs in the News section.

 

[kalt]

Makes you wonder how long it will be until one of them sues to have abortions covered.

 

[sedonaman]

…
I don’t know how many of you know this but the Mormon colleges, BYU and BYU Idaho, do not accept any goverment money and consequently are free form a lot of the constraints placed on other universities that do. There’s a long history of how that all evolved. …

That would have to include government-backed student loan money.

 

[rmcmullan]

…I went to an all-women’s Catholic College and our RA’s had a bucket of condoms by the door in each of their room for all of the residents as well as in the student medical center.

Wow, that’s pretty, uh, degrading? Tell me, did everyone avoid the bucket? Were they embarassed by it or what? I can imagine the sister Catholic Woman’s college I often visited back in the '80s when I was in college–having a bucket of condoms would be an outrage–shocking or awful. It’s not that sex was scrupulously avoided by the men’s and women’s colleges. But is was not encouraged or supported or brazen trumpeted about. It’s a temptation that’s to be resisted. That’s just so disrespectful of what Christ taught and against what the college’s vision for the future of it’s students should be.

 

[survive]

Of course the anti-chastity folks will say that “they” are all inevitably “going to have sex anyway” and should “at least be protected.”
But why weren’t previous generations destined to “have sex anyway”? And why have STD rates gone up even as condoms ahve become free everywhere, including high schools? And why is this the case in every socioeconomic class?

 

[VARC]

But even that won’t protect from the “enemy within”.

So you believe catholics who want to regulate the size of their families are the “enemy within”. Well I got some bad news for you. 90% percent of the envelope stuffers that keep the doors of your church open are the enemy.

 

[xsuasox]

Just to make a fair point, most of our (Catholic) professors (I go to Belmont Abbey) aren’t exactly swimming on the Conservative end of the pool, so a few of them are inclined to sue the college on discrimination grounds because they really are that liberal.

 

[dianaiad]

That would have to include government-backed student loan money.

I’m not sure about that. Student loan money goes to the student, not the university. It goes to the university first, yes…but anything over and above tuition and fees gets refunded back to the student, so the university is not getting any direct benefit from the funds; the student is. The same goes for student loans.

It is federal funds given directly to the institution, that do not pay the fees for any specific student, that cause the problems. BYU and BYU Hawaii also receive direct federal research grants. However, even these don’t cause huge problems, because those grants are limited to specific projects; they are the same sort of grants you or I could apply for as private citizens. None of the BYU campuses receive the sort of federal funding that forces them to alter religious teaching, beliefs or behavior requirements.

 

[mark_a]

So you believe catholics who want to regulate the size of their families are the “enemy within”. Well I got some bad news for you. 90% percent of the envelope stuffers that keep the doors of your church open are the enemy.

Get your facts straight.

It’s 97% of child-bearing aged couples.

And fyi, Catholics are opposed to that new-fangled gay marriage too. We send those envelope stuffers over your way.

You’re welcome.

 

[VARC]

Get your facts straight.

It’s 97% of child-bearing aged couples.

And fyi, Catholics are opposed to that new-fangled gay marriage too. We send those envelope stuffers over your way.

You’re welcome.

Nearly 100% of the people who this issue directly affects disagree with the heirarchy. Funny when one thinks about it. The very people who are labelled the “enemy” are the same people that keep the RCC up and running. If only you got your wish and “send those envelope stuffers our way”, the RCC would be finished. Keep treating them like the enemy and your wish may very well come true. Then you can have your “pure” church meet for mass in VFW hall.

 

[rmcmullan]

Sedonaman is right, student loans or scholarships can only be used at state supported schools. Schools that have their policy set by the federal government. That’s why places like BYU and Hillsdale college do not accept them. If the Catholic church wanted to go that way, it would be a financial hardship for many who would attend there. The cost of tuition at BYU is offset by tithing of its members and it’s actually very reasonable but most other small colleges have very high tuition without federal subsidies.

Do all Catholic schools at the college level accept federal dollars? It might be time to have a few break free so they can teach and worship without interference. If only we had something in the Consitition that would prohibit the Congress from interfering with the practise of our religion!

 

[rmcmullan]

Ooops, so sorry, Dianaiad is right about Federal loans that go directly to the student, they’re okay at the “Y”. I just checked their web site. I was getting them confused with other colleges where that is the case.

 

[sedonaman]

I’m not sure about that. Student loan money goes to the student, not the university. …

A study was done and a report prepared on accreditation by the staff of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. Here are some of the pertinent observations.

American higher education received a tremendous boost with the passage in 1944 of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (better known as the GI Bill), which offered to veterans the benefit of free access to higher education, provided they enrolled in institutions that had been approved by state education agencies. In 1952, the law was amended to authorize state education agencies to rely upon the results of private accreditation associations in determining which institutions would qualify to receive aid under the GI Bill. The Commissioner of Education was directed “to publish a list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations he determines to be reliable authority as to the quality of training offered by an educational institution.”

All six of the regional accrediting associations were so recognized in 1952, thus making them more significant than previously, because now a college or university that failed to obtain or lost accreditation would be shutting itself off from the significant number of students who were able to attend college only because of their GI benefits. The law had, in effect, made them the gatekeepers for a large and growing source of revenue.

The importance of the accrediting associations was augmented further with the 1965 Higher Education Act. That law created new federal student aid programs for non-veterans and, as with the GI Bill, only accredited institutions were eligible to receive the funds. Non-accredited schools would now lose not only most veterans, but also the larger number of students who were eligible for federal student loans and grants.

Some of the items considered in the accrediting process include curricula, faculty, facilities, equipment, and student support services [read: contraceptives dispensed at campus health clinics].

Due to federal law, accreditation today is almost mandatory and nearly universal.

Some findings include,
The accreditation process focuses on compliance with a set of (name removed by moderator)ut criteria that do not bear directly on student learning.

Accrediting standards can actually undermine colleges’ institutional missions and subordinate academic goals to non-academic considerations.

In establishing the federal programs for student financial assistance, Congress chose not to have the government decide which educational institutions would be eligible to receive those funds. Traditionally, the federal government has taken a “hands-off” role with regard to higher education as it is not listed as a subject of federal power in the Constitution. Fearing a backlash from the education community if the government set standards for colleges and universities, Congress decided to delegate the responsibility for the setting of eligibility requirements to the regional accrediting associations.

Rather than ensuring educational quality, accreditation merely verifies that a school has what accreditors regard as the proper (name removed by moderator)uts and procedures.

Who are the accreditors? The accreditation review process contains the appearance of a conflict of interest. The individuals who participate in the evaluation of a college or university are largely drawn from the ranks of the faculty and administration of other institutions in the same region.

Since the accreditors are the same as the accreditees, there is a great propensity to require that all the institutions “toe the line” with respect to academia’s causes célèbre, i.e., the liberal “in” thoughts of the day.

Bottom line on all this is that if a federal dollar can somehow be tied, however tenuously, to a religious belief or activity, the dollar can be denied. So, it is not unreasonable to see that if an institution does not offer contraceptives, it can be denied accreditation and thus lose students who rely on government loans.

“Can College Accreditation Live Up to its Promise?”.
By George C. Leef and Roxana D. Burris.
goacta.org/publications/Reports/accrediting.pdf