Friday, December 10, 2010
Phillips Belmont's 'Difficult Dialogues': What Do They Mean by 'Difficult'?
Posted by Betsy Phillips on Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:00 AM
Earlier this week, in his statement to the press, Belmont President Robert Fisher told reporters that there was taking place on campus a series of university-led discussions — these so-called "Difficult Dialogues" that about 20 people attended. In a letter Belmont sent to alumni, again the university made mention of this discussion group: "Last spring, as an alternative to creating a student-led organization, the university initiated a conversation about gay and lesbian issues and the Christian faith. This group has met twice monthly since then, and all in the Belmont community are welcome to participate."
There seems to be a constant theme running through this Belmont story — the administration says something that is true on a technicality, but violates the broader spirit of truth.
It turns out that these Difficult Dialogues are a good illustration of truth by technicality. It is, for instance, literally true that everyone in the Belmont community is welcome to participate.
But Kevin Foster, a senior English major at Belmont, explains how it works in practice:
"In order to attend, students and faculty have to be on the Difficult Dialogues email list. This list is not published anywhere. Presumably the only way to find out about the email list is to be told about it by someone else who is already involved — and when you start with as few students as were originally invited to take part in the conversation, it's challenging to get the word out. In fact, for a lot of Belmont students and faculty, Dr. Fisher's statement was the first they had heard about Difficult Dialogues."Belmont has a University Calendar with a listing of nearly every event taking place on campus. Difficult Dialogues meetings are not published on this calendar. Until recently, the meetings were being held in the basement of a dorm in a small classroom. Only after complaints from participants in the discussion, the location was changed to a more easily accessible classroom at the beginning of November."
So, yes, these meetings are happening and everyone who knows about them can attend — if you can figure out how to find out about them. Foster tells me that, as a university-sponsored event, students aren't allowed to even do their own publicity for it.
Well, you can't argue. It does meet the definition of "difficult" — the meetings are indeed hard to attend.
And what about the "dialogues" part? Is there open discussion?
Foster says not: "Discussion of school policy is discouraged. Discussion of Bridge Builders' denial is forbidden. Each meeting, materials are distributed to the email list; Dr. Johnston [Dr. Andrew Johnston, Associate Provost and Dean of Students, who runs the meetings] chooses those materials. Anything that students would like to disseminate must be sent to Dr. Johnston beforehand and he ultimately decides whether or not they are appropriate materials for discussion."
So it's not exactly the standard definition of "dialogue" where two parties have an equal back-and-forth exchange. But they do meet twice a month ... that's two ... so maybe we can stretch that into a "dia" to stick on the beginning of that "logues" without it actually being untrue.
Seriously, you have to laugh at this point. Foster says, "There does not appear to be any expressed goal of the Difficult Dialogues group and that's been incredibly frustrating."
But a gal such as myself cannot help but wonder if the goal of Difficult Dialogues is to give the Belmont administration something they can point to to say to alumni and community members, "Look, see? We are having discussions. We do support GLTB people and their allies at Belmont!" — without having to risk the change that might result from that type of open discussion.
Comments (22)
Showing 1-22 of 22
Ironically, the person who has been most "outed" during this whole mess is Fisher, who is now openly operating as a fraud.
Maybe he can help organize a Fraud Pride march in Centennial Park. Invite the Legislature.
like
dislike
Still talking out of both sides of his mouth, and every time he opens his mouth, his nose grows by a full inch.
C'mon, Belmont! Send out that next letter asking alumni for money! I can't wait to get mine!!
I think the entire Board should be outed ....who all is on the Board and what is their position on this issue ....also it would be informative to know if they have been told to"shut up" as was former Board member Mike Curb who fortunally has not done so
You can find the Board of Trustees on the Belmont University website. It was of great interest to me to see that at least three of the members would not pass the "Christian morality" test as set forth by that paragon of virtue Marty Dickens. And none of those 'fail' because they are gay. Strangely silent, aren't they?
There is a difference between accepting a diverse lifestyle and endorsing/promoting a diverse lifestyle. There is no doubt that Belmont accepts LGBTs on campus. But giving school sanction to an organization of LGBTs would be an endorsement and that's against Christian doctrine everywhere except churches that choose to ignore the fact that Jesus was a Jew reaffiriming jewish law of which male homosexuality, at least, was forbidden. You folks are advocating for a Christian entity to ignore its morality just to please your own version of morality which makes you far more in the wrong than Belmont. What's wrong with the LGBTs having an off campus organization. They can meet at Betsy's or Kay's house and discuss the rising tide of STDs affecting the Gay community through no fault of their own. Wait a minute, it is their fault. Hmmm....
So, let me understand, it's wrong to extrapolate from either "love your neighbor as yourself or "love your enemy" that the school actually does have a Christian obligation to treat GLBTs in the same manner it treats all sinners, including shrimp-eaters and masturbators, neither of whom I've heard Belmont having such long-term difficulties with.
But it's okay to extrapolate from rules against male homosexuality that it's okay for Belmont to discriminate against lesbians?
Convenient.
Do you have any guidelines for helping people judge which rules we have to pretend like you're following to the letter and which ones you're not?
I would be curious to know how Loyola and/or Notre Dame (and other religiously affiliated and presumably more liberal) universities handle this issue on their campuses - or is it even an issue? Presumably so, at some point in the past.
Perhaps they could offer a more progressive blueprint to Belmont?
This is an excellent article. Thanks, Nashville Scene, for staying on top of the story and not letting it be anywhere but right in Nashville's face. This is what its going to take for us to get anything done!
Dear Betsy, It's not alright to bully anyone or anything out of their religious convictions or to demand that they change to suit you. And you can't get around the fact that that's what you and your friends are trying to do. You are wrong, wrong, wrong, and you know it but you won't let it go. Love you, Sweetie.
gast- as has been pointed out again and again here and elsewhere, that is NOT THE ISSUE. the issue is that belmont claims to NOT have this policy that excludes homosexuality. they CLAIM that gay people have equal rights there and that they, in no way, discriminate due to sexual orientation. the problem is not that they do. the problem is that they claim that they don't when they actually do. does that make sense to you? the problem is that gay people think they have found a safe place when they actually have not. and the other problem is that the administrators of this so-called "christian school" are blatant liars. if any of that is unclear, let me know.
@37206
Exactly. Belmont's problem is marked difference between what they practice and what they preach. I don't think anyone here is trying to change Christianity...
Well everyone else got there first, I guess. The problem is not that Belmont is Christian but that it is hypocritical. They don't want to simply embrace the fact that they discriminate against gays. If they were just to say, "We're here, we don't like queers, get used to it," that would be ignorant and primitive, but at least it would be honest. Rather they want to carry the banner of being open-minded and non-discriminatory, while discriminating.
It's not complicated. (Well, it's probably complicated for @gast, but so are the multiplication tables.) One would hope that the administrators of a major university could process it with ease: decide what you want to be as a university, and follow through. Be what you say you are. Don't try to be all things to all people. You'll only make *both* sides angry in the process -- including, most importantly, the students and faculty who go there expecting one thing and being delivered another.
No, the problem is people making false assumptions and then, when they don't pan out,getting loose with "blatant liar." Read Belmont's home page. Everybody's welcome, but that doesn't mean their actions will receive endorsement (think sanctioned clubs and associations). By the words used on the homepage cannibals would be welcome, just not allowed to form a campus association or indulge in their habits on campus. It's a little like buying a car or ordering cable/satellite tv: unless you read very carefully, things are never exactly what you think the contract calls for. And could it be that Belmont has an ulterior motive in welcoming LGBTs, such as conversion? Any conversion of a sexual deviant to the straight life would surely be a feather in Belmont's Christian cap, and I wouldn't put it past the sneaky rascals.
Well, @gast, you've said a mouthful! Belmont is acting like a "sneaky" (your word) car dealer, trying to deceive students into going there by burying their "ulterior motives" (your words). To paraphrase your god to Pilate, "you said it." If you really think that's how Christians are supposed to act -- hiding their intentions under contractual legalese like an unscrupulous cable company -- well, of course that's your right. But I think even (no, especially) the most devout Christian would recognize it for the weaselly bullshit that it is.
Personally, I prefer the bigots; at least they're honest.
Love you, Sweetie!
Joshe: There is no contractual legalese. There are only those who try to read more into the situation than there is. And all ulterior motives are not bad. My ulterior motive is to put as many colors in the kalaidescope as possible. Is that a bad? When you're nice to someone because you want to have sex with them isn't that an ulterior motive. It's nice from your point of view. Of course if you have syphylis, that's not so good and you should consider the possibility that you may have it because it tends to rot the brain and you're writing like you have drool dripping on the keyboard and I can't think of anything I've written that would bring such an angry reaction. All I've done is point out scenarios. All you've done is lead me to believe you're a good candidate for HIV. Cheers.
being Christian does not mean condoning any behavior---it D0ES mean that we are to speak the truth "in love" to those that are perishing, that would include pointing out behavior that conflicts with biblical teachings such as homosexuality AND letting them know that Jesus can set them free--that does NOT mean name calling and being rude, i've known schools to fire those who smoke cigarettes simply because it sets a bad example--the Bible says we are not even to hang out with unbelievers, how can they hire someone living contrary to the principles it teaches? -"how two can two walk together unless they agree?" and "what fellowship does light have with darkness?" am i calling homosexuality a work of darkness?yes-- being a woman myself who used to struggle with lust towards beautiful women, and almost swore off men and came out of the closet, I realized it was nothing more than a deceptive spirit that fed on the dysfunctional relationship I had with my mother as a teen and the abusive men I was drawn to--rules are rules period--if someone doesnt like them then go to another school, am I a homophobe? no! my favorite uncle was gay as well as my best friend while growing up even AFTER she came out of the closet-it is written, "He whom the son sets free, is free indeed!" i am heterosexual as God intended--by the way? sex between a man and woman outside of marriage is sinful too, so for all ya'll gays out there? don't take all this personally-any hetero teachers shacking up would probably be fired too
@gast:
You can't win an argument on your flawed straw man logic, so your remedy is to call Betsy "sweetie" and tell another poster that they are a "good candidate for HIV?"
You are a passive-aggressive piece of shit.
If there is a hell, its fires burn for you, not us
gast,
In Bob Fisher's recent statement, he says that Belmont is welcoming to the gay community (yup! specifically the gay community). It's not some sort of blanket statement about acceptance. Their point of view is confusing to say the least.
Also, if your trying to say that Josh is gay by calling him "a good candidate for HIV," that is some juvenile name calling and you should take your bullshit elsewhere. If you can't have an adult conversation then stay off of here, asshole.
To alexc: Josh was twisting my words to suit his argument. Bad form. And are you saying "gay" is a dirty word, or are you saying I'm being unfair by making reference to the high rate of HIV infections within the gay community. And I'm confused by you calling me an asshole because, if you're gay, that would mean I'm an object of desire to you which contradicts the tone of your comment, and if you're not gay, and you can't accept what Belmont's home page doesn't say, and understand what Belmont's defenders are saying, then you're just being moronic.
