Exposed: Christian Students Rejected, Failed, and Expelled for their Faith by State Colleges and Universities

[Son_of_Niall]

Public colleges and universities are taking the gloves off when it comes to Christian students on their campuses. Gone are the days of surreptitious slights against Christians; now it is open season on faith. Blatant, in-your-face anti-Christian discrimination is the new norm.

Christian students now face their applications being rejected because they let it slip out that they are a person of faith, receiving failing grades for daring to allow their religious beliefs to outweigh the omniscience of the educational elites, or being outright expelled for having the audacity to live in accordance with their faith.

The rise of anti-Christian discrimination on public university campuses is astounding in its breadth and shocking in its shamelessness.

aclj.org/religious-liberty/exposed-christian-students-rejected-failed-and-expelled-for-their-faith-by-state-colleges-and-universities?sf39463351=1

 

[SuperLuigi]

I’m not surprised. This injustice just goes to show that non-Christians can’t win an argument on an even playing field.

To those who have expelled Christians over their beliefs, you have all but confirmed this for me.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

What utter nonsense.

One student, Brandon, was denied admission because when asked in an admissions interview what was the most important thing in his life, he replied simply, “My God.” In rejecting his application, Radiation Therapy Program Director Dr. Dougherty informed Brandon, “I understand that religion is a major part of your life. . . however, this field is not the place for religion. . . . If you interview in the future, you may want to leave your thoughts and beliefs out of the interview process.” The college unapologetically doubled down on this sentiment, stating that Dr. Dougherty’s statement “is not bad advice,” and that students, when interviewing for secular positions, would be better advised to “have a concrete reason for wanting to undertake the training at hand than to say only that God directed one to do it.”

This is indeed very good advice. Mentioning religion (or national origin, paternity, or any other protected classification) during an interview is just downright stupid. Doing so opens oneself to possible discrimination, which obviously this student believes without concrete evidence is the cause for his rejection, and it opens up the interviewer to liability due to perceived discrimination.

 

[SuperLuigi]

What utter nonsense.

This is indeed very good advice. Mentioning religion (or national origin, paternity, or any other protected classification) during an interview is just downright stupid. Doing so opens oneself to possible discrimination, which obviously this student believes without concrete evidence is the cause for his rejection, and it opens up the interviewer to liability due to perceived discrimination.

Let’s see if they do the same thing to Black Christians and Muslims if it’s such a mighty principle.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

What utter nonsense.

This is indeed very good advice. Mentioning religion (or national origin, paternity, or any other protected classification) during an interview is just downright stupid. Doing so opens oneself to possible discrimination, which obviously this student believes without concrete evidence is the cause for his rejection, and it opens up the interviewer to liability due to perceived discrimination.

They were asked, point blank, what their motivating factors are. If their faith is their motivating factor, as it is with many Christians, it is only natural to respond this way.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

Oh and I see they’re uncritically parroting the story of the Mormon university student who allegedly was suspended for refusing to step on a piece of paper with the name of Jesus on it, despite the fact that both the university and the professor (himself a Sunday School teacher) denied that this happened, and the professor alleges that the student physically threatened him.

insidehighered.com/news/2013/04/01/interview-professor-center-jesus-debate-florida-atlantic

I’m not denying that true persecution may exist in higher education, and when such cases present themselves they should be handled immediately, but this right wing paranoia about endemic persecution of Christians on university campuses is ridiculous.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

They were asked, point blank, what their motivating factors are. If their faith is their motivating factor, as it is with many Christians, it is only natural to respond this way.

Which if you’re concerned about possibly being “persecuted for your faith” is a very stupid answer to give to such a question, and is precisely why I said in the very post you quoted one shouldn’t mention religion or any other protected classification during an interview. Doing so helps no one in the interviewing process.

 

[meltzerboy]

What utter nonsense.

This is indeed very good advice. Mentioning religion (or national origin, paternity, or any other protected classification) during an interview is just downright stupid. Doing so opens oneself to possible discrimination, which obviously this student believes without concrete evidence is the cause for his rejection, and it opens up the interviewer to liability due to perceived discrimination.

Yes, that is another angle to the story, and I agree with the point you are making. At the same time, might there not be some room for honest and diverse responses during the interview process? Some interviewers might find such a candidate’s statement a refreshing change from the ordinary canned response. Also, a field involving radiology therapy seems to me to be a good place for the belief in G-d, as well as science.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

What utter nonsense.

This is indeed very good advice. Mentioning religion (or national origin, paternity, or any other protected classification) during an interview is just downright stupid. Doing so opens oneself to possible discrimination, which obviously this student believes without concrete evidence is the cause for his rejection, and it opens up the interviewer to liability due to perceived discrimination.

“Radiation Therapy Program Director Dr. Dougherty informed Brandon, “I understand that religion is a major part of your life. . . however, this field is not the place for religion. . . . If you interview in the future, you may want to leave your thoughts and beliefs out of the interview process.””

I’m not sure that Christians should go around suing people like this, but it if this quotation is true, it seems the candidate’s religious beliefs were a major factor for being rejected. I don’t know how exactly being religious or stating that as a motivating factor in one’s life is stupid.

 

[esieffe]

I would think most of this would be on the West Coast. Can you say UCLA?

 

[JonNC]

What utter nonsense.

This is indeed very good advice. Mentioning religion (or national origin, paternity, or any other protected classification) during an interview is just downright stupid. Doing so opens oneself to possible discrimination, which obviously this student believes without concrete evidence is the cause for his rejection, and it opens up the interviewer to liability due to perceived discrimination.

What if the student Brandon had instead responded,
“My husband, Thomas.”
In rejecting his application, Radiation Therapy Program Director Dr. Dougherty informed Brandon, “I understand that sexual preference is a major part of your life. . . however, this field is not the place for sexual preference. . . . If you interview in the future, you may want to leave your thoughts and beliefs out of the interview process.”

Would Brandon’s actions still be stupid?
I would contend that, in either case, the stupidity comes from the interviewer.

Jon

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Which if you’re concerned about possibly being “persecuted for your faith” is a very stupid answer to give to such a question, and is precisely why I said in the very post you quoted one shouldn’t mention religion or any other protected classification during an interview. Doing so helps no one in the interviewing process.

That doesn’t address the long term persecution of Christians. At some point, someone has to stand up.

Cowering in the corner is not the answer.

Bigots need to be called out publicly and exposed. Most Americans are not OK with this treatment of Christians and neither is our constitution.

 

[meltzerboy]

What if the student Brandon had instead responded,
“My husband, Thomas.”
In rejecting his application, Radiation Therapy Program Director Dr. Dougherty informed Brandon, “I understand that sexual preference is a major part of your life. . . however, this field is not the place for sexual preference. . . . If you interview in the future, you may want to leave your thoughts and beliefs out of the interview process.”

Would Brandon’s actions still be stupid?
I would contend that, in either case, the stupidity comes from the interviewer.

Jon

I think the point the poster is making is that the interviewer’s advice not to reveal religion, sexual preference, political sentiments, and other personal information in the interview process is sound precisely because it may lead to discrimination on the part of the interviewer, as well as open the interviewer up to legal action based on perceived discrimination on the part of the applicant. There is some truth to this.

The question of whether this case reveals a pattern of religious discrimination, particularly against Christians, is also a valid issue albeit a separate one. The assumption, which has not yet been verified, is that the interviewer is more apt to discriminate on the basis of specific religious beliefs once they are made public, compared to other, non-Christian religious beliefs as well as political and sexual attitudes. Ideally, there should be no discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, color, national origin, age, disability, political orientation, marital status, veteran status, or any other protected status. But since we know that is not the way the real world operates, it might be best to play down, if possible, certain personal information rather than bring it up during an interview.

 

[JonNC]

=meltzerboy;13140104]I think the point the poster is making is that the interviewer’s advice not to reveal religion, sexual preference, political sentiments, and other personal information in the interview process is sound precisely because it may lead to discrimination on the part of the interviewer, as well as open the interviewer up to legal action based on perceived discrimination on the part of the applicant. There is some truth to this.

Of course there is some truth to this. The interviewer exacerbates that perception by even mentioning the response, instead of moving on from it. But if an interviewer asks what motivates and candidate, he should expect a personal answer, which many times includes faith.

The question of whether this case reveals a pattern of religious discrimination, particularly against Christians, is also a valid issue albeit a separate one. The assumption, which has not yet been verified, is that the interviewer is more apt to discriminate on the basis of specific religious beliefs once they are made public, compared to other, non-Christian religious beliefs as well as political and sexual attitudes. Ideally, there should be no discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, color, national origin, age, disability, political orientation, marital status, veteran status, or any other protected status. But since we know that is not the way the real world operates, it might be best to play down, if possible, certain personal information rather than bring it up during an interview.

Clearly the evidence in this case is, at best, anecdotal. I bring up the alternative scenario because, I think we can agree, the media response to my scenario would be quite different than it is to the original.
One can assume that the interviewer is older, and the Brandon in the story is young. An experienced interviewer should be able to recognize that young people tend to be more idealistic, and more strongly driven by things important in their lives, and filter those kinds of responses out.

Jon

 

[meltzerboy]

Of course there is some truth to this. The interviewer exacerbates that perception by even mentioning the response, instead of moving on from it. But if an interviewer asks what motivates and candidate, he should expect a personal answer, which many times includes faith.

Clearly the evidence in this case is, at best, anecdotal. I bring up the alternative scenario because, I think we can agree, the media response to my scenario would be quite different than it is to the original.
One can assume that the interviewer is older, and the Brandon in the story is young. An experienced interviewer should be able to recognize that young people tend to be more idealistic, and more strongly driven by things important in their lives, and filter those kinds of responses out.

Jon

I agree with you. An experienced interviewer would not have placed such heavy emphasis on the student’s mention of his faith. One of the problems is that the interviewer may himself be prejudiced or just not so adept at the skills needed to be an effective interviewer. And also the interviewing process itself has its inherent limitations.

 

[Della]

I contend that the interview question is flawed and intended to keep “undiserables”, such as people of faith, out of the program. It’s a personal question, not about science or the field of study, so it has no place in such a context. I would have responded, “Why do you want to know that–what does it have to do with studying radiation therapy?” Throw it back in the guy’s face and see how he reacts. If he says, “We have to know.” I’d have said, “Then I’ll find a program that doesn’t ask such asinine questions of potential students.” We seem to forget that students are PAYING for education, not applying for jobs. Those being paid for a service should be the ones answering questions not those taking courses in radiation therapy or any other subject. Sheesh!

 

[Peccavi]

As I seem to remember Jesus told us we would be persecuted. Its what you must expect as a Christian. Our Lord was so why not us ?

 

[JonNC]

I contend that the interview question is flawed and intended to keep “undiserables”, such as people of faith, out of the program. It’s a personal question, not about science or the field of study, so it has no place in such a context. I would have responded, “Why do you want to know that–what does it have to do with studying radiation therapy?” Throw it back in the guy’s face and see how he reacts. If he says, **“We have to know.” I’d have said, “Then I’ll find a program that doesn’t ask such asinine questions of potential students.” ** We seem to forget that students are PAYING for education, not applying for jobs. Those being paid for a service should be the ones answering questions not those taking courses in radiation therapy or any other subject. Sheesh!

That’s a tough thing for a kid to do. He/she is either borrowing to pay for school, or parents are paying. That’s a tough conversation with the parents, “I didn’t enter that program because I didn’t like the interviewer’s question.”

While what you say in the first sentence may be true, we have no way of reading the heart of the interviewer. I strongly agree with your second statement: if you do not want personal answers, don’t ask personal questions.

Jon

 

[Della]

That’s a tough thing for a kid to do. He/she is either borrowing to pay for school, or parents are paying. That’s a tough conversation with the parents, “I didn’t enter that program because I didn’t like the interviewer’s question.”

All the more reason to teach our kids to be a bit tough instead of accepting whatever is tossed at them as legitimate no matter how intrusive the question might be. When I was about 10 years old a school bureaucrat tried to tell me I didn’t know my own father’s name merely because it was not the usual name most kids’ fathers have. I told her, even at that age, that his name was what I said it was and defied her by my stance and look to tell me I was still wrong. Self-important twit!

While what you say in the first sentence may be true, we have no way of reading the heart of the interviewer. I strongly agree with your second statement: if you do not want personal answers, don’t ask personal questions.

Jon

I’m not reading anyone’s heart. If it’s a standard question, it’s an improper one, and if it’s only the teacher’s question, it’s still improper. Either way, the school authorities should be told that it is.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

What if the student Brandon had instead responded,
“My husband, Thomas.”
In rejecting his application, Radiation Therapy Program Director Dr. Dougherty informed Brandon, “I understand that sexual preference is a major part of your life. . . however, this field is not the place for sexual preference. . . . If you interview in the future, you may want to leave your thoughts and beliefs out of the interview process.”

Would Brandon’s actions still be stupid?
I would contend that, in either case, the stupidity comes from the interviewer.

Jon

Yes, in fact, I would say if the interviewee is concerned about being discriminated against due to his sexual orientation or, in this case, “marital status”, it would be foolish to disclose this in the interview, especially so without any other context relating it back to the position at hand.

Anyone who gives professional advice to folks in the job market will tell you that you want to cull as much of such information as possible unless during the interview you can show a substantive relationship between such information and your qualifications for the position. Responding to the question “What motivates you?” with “My husband” is just as vapid and meaningless as responding with “My God”. It gives the interviewer no useful information about how ideal of an applicant you are.

There are some instances where indirectly disclosing one’s religion may be a good idea. For example, say Brandon spent a month or two in Africa or South America with an Evangelical missionary group providing healthcare to locals? Mentioning this in an interview or listing this group on his resume is obviously relevant to the position at hand, and the interviewer will infer that Brandon is an Evangelical Christian. When asked what motivates you to apply for this position and all you’ve got is “God”, you’re foolishly opening yourself up to discrimination (and the interviewer to liability) for no good reason.