Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

The Collegian — University of Richmond » Jepson award recip... http://www.thecollegianur.com/2010/04/01/jepson-recognition-...

- The Collegian — University of Richmond - http://www.thecollegianur.com -

5 retweet
Jepson award recipient causes student outrage
Posted By admin On April 1, 2010 @ 2:00 am In Opinion | 28 Comments

As proud Richmond students, we are disappointed with our institution’s decision to award Jepson’s 10th Year Reunion Recognition to
Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation Virginia, a group that lobbies against homosexual rights and anti-discrimination
legislation.

We believe that Jepson is making a grave mistake honoring her because her views not only directly contradict the Richmond Promise,
but also Jepson’s mission of understanding. Minority rights are not simply a political issue but are a matter of human and civil rights.

If Richmond is serious in its quest to develop a “culture of inclusivity,” (section 2 of the Richmond Promise) then Jepson should take the
lead in fostering these ideals.

Her award description states: “The 10th Year Reunion Recognition Awards are presented to one or more Jepson School graduates of the
last decade who have exhibited exemplary qualities of profession and/or scholarly achievement of community/public service. Honorees
are acknowledged for significant accomplishment and promise that reflects the mission of the Jepson School.”

The Jepson mission is about understanding; the Jepson mission is about inclusion; the Jepson mission talks about highest ideals; Cobb
does not live up to any of these and actively challenges the core of Jepson’s values. The only way Cobb reflects the Jepson mission is if
we break the mirror and our moral compass.

The Jepson administration has said that the award is for her achievements rather than her politics. However, this distinction is artificial
because she is a political leader. This distinction means we are giving her an award purely based on her acquisition of power, in which
case we would be equally valid giving the award to the president of Virginia White Pride or any other group with power.

By giving the award purely because of her position as president of a group, we devalue the work that the past award winners achieved;
people whose achievements we celebrate.

For example, the other person being honored this year is Elizabeth Hopfinger Thompson, who has been a passionate advocate for
marginalized and underserved people, teaching tolerance and inclusion, which is ironic considering who she will be sharing the stage
with.

Furthermore, in no other area of the Jepson School do we separate leaders actions’ from their leadership. Jepson’s goal is to promote
“moral and competent leadership,” which means looking at action as well as achievement. So why are we starting to distinguish now?

Cobb’s actions and values are a stark contrast to Jepson’s: Jepson has been giving family benefits to homosexual couples since 2002,
while this year Cobb led the fight to have such benefits banned and to declare such contracts void.

The Richmond Promise, article two, declares that Richmond will create “a culture of inclusivity,” yet Cobb would have such civil rights
groups barred from campuses.

My acceptance letter from the dean says that “the primary source of strength in Jepson is its people,” however, Cobb believes that
some of our people deserve to be shunned. We should not and cannot honor hatred.

By presenting Cobb with this award we are stamping the Jepson seal on her message, and permanently associating ourselves with an
organization built on hatred. We do not oppose her organization’s right to free speech or political activism, but we do oppose the
selection committees’ judgment to honor discrimination.

If you are not a Jepson student, we urge you to email Sandra Peart, dean of the leadership school, at speart@richmond.edu, and
President Ayers at eayers@richmond.edu, asking them to uphold the Richmond Promise and refuse to honor hatred.

If you are a Jepson student or in a Jepson class, discuss the award in your class; ask whether or not Cobb represents what you want to
be in ten years. Ask why we are honoring Cobb. We need to demand that Jepson stand up to all it could be and act on its highest
values.

We are one of the most diverse groups on campus. Let’s be proud of it. E-mail Dean Peart and President Ayers and remind them of
their promises of inclusivity.

We want our school to support a tolerant, inclusive atmosphere that respects all individuals regardless of their sexual orientation, and
thus we ask and appeal for your support to stop us from honoring hatred.

Yours,

Alex Borwick
Sophomore Leadership Studies Minor

Jeff Hunt
Sophomore Leadership Studies Major

28 Comments To "Jepson award recipient causes student outrage"

#1 Comment By Catesby Saunders On April 1, 2010 @ 7:53 pm

1 of 8 8/14/10 10:34 PM
The Collegian — University of Richmond » Jepson award recip... http://www.thecollegianur.com/2010/04/01/jepson-recognition-...

It is really surprising that the school would give an award to a person involved with that kind of organization. I think they should really
weigh the effect of these kinds of recognitions in the selection process

#2 Comment By Jake Morrison On April 2, 2010 @ 12:09 am

Really UR?

#3 Comment By Amy Todd-Gher On April 2, 2010 @ 7:05 am

As one of the members of the first graduating class from the Jepson School, I am saddened and surprised by this decision. Like Alex
and Jeff both eloquently wrote, my understanding was always that diversity and tolerance were core components of the Jepson
curriculum. Victoria Cobbs is actively campaigning to take away the rights of me, my partner, and the rights of all of the families in our
community – how does that support diversity, or bear any resemblance to tolerance?

#4 Comment By jilliansmaniotto On April 2, 2010 @ 4:52 pm

wow, UR. just wow.

#5 Comment By Amanda Smith On April 2, 2010 @ 9:03 pm

Although I am an Arts & Sciences student, I think it's great that Jepson students are standing up to hold the school into account for its
actions. That type of intolerance should not merit rewards from a school that holds the philosophy of creating an inclusive environment.

#6 Comment By maggieegger On April 3, 2010 @ 7:37 pm

If you truly believe in a “culture of inclusiveness” then Cobb and the Family Foundation should not be shunned from this If we really are
inclusive, then it's totally appropriate that Cobb and Thompson are being honored together. I'm tired of this double standard. People
like Cobb who work to further their convictions are not allowed to be honored because those convictions “exclude” some groups of
people. Whereas said excluded people are practically worshiped, and the fact that they wish to exclude Cobb and others like her is
completely ignored. I'm tired of it. And I'm glad that Jepson is not being politically correct and honoring someone who actually
deserves it.
“By presenting Cobb with this award we are stamping the Jepson seal on her message, and permanently associating ourselves with an
organization built on hatred.”
Not only is this another example of the exclusive attitude of the authors, but it is complete slander. I urge them to do a little more
research and they will find that the Family Foundation is actually built on the opposite of hatred. Just because an organization promotes
ideas that are different from yours does not mean that they are based on hatred. Instead of making assumptions based on a name, dig
a little deeper and find out what kind of projects they really promote. Jepson students, as well as those of us in the rest of UR's
schools, should see this as a triumph of the Richmond Promise, not as an outrage against it.

#7 Comment By Jake Morrison On April 4, 2010 @ 12:06 am

Dug deeper.

Found this lovely quote.

“Potentially, there is no greater threat to our Constitutionally protected right of conscience, and as importantly the right to exercise our
faith publicly, than that of the continued advancement of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) “rights.” – Victoria Cobb”

So yeah. Not sure how that is a “triumph of the Richmond Promise.” I'm also not sure where excluded people are being “worshiped” as
you suggest Maggie. It would seem to defy logic that an excluded person could be simultaneously worshiped as that would seem to go
against the definition of exclusion. Perhaps you are confusing an attempt to not exclude with “worship.”

And while we can disagree over the reasons NOT to give her this award, I've yet to see an argument about why she SHOULD receive it.
It doesn't seem that she's done anything exceptional to warrant being recognized. She just sends out email alerts of Family Foundation
members from the looks of it.

#8 Comment By maggieegger On April 4, 2010 @ 5:12 am

My point about the Richmond promise meant that it was an inclusive act to honor two people who seem to be at opposite ends of the
spectrum. Regardless of whether you agree with one or the other, the fact that both were honored shows inclusiveness, and in that
sense, it was a triumph.
Also, by “practically worshiped”, I meant that it seems that when those advocating gay rights and the like are “excluded” that they are
portrayed as victims of an unjust system. On the other hand, when the ideas of people like Cobb are mocked, it's almost completely
ignored. I agree that Richmond should foster an atmosphere of acceptance, but not the politically correct kind. The complete kind. That
people from both sides of the issues should have no fear of voicing their opinions and convictions. And that the University can choose
to honor the unpopular candidate if they see fit. If that's the case, one side is going to say and do things that may offend the other
side, and vice versa. But you know what, too bad. Meet the 1st Amendment.

#9 Comment By Amanda Smith On April 4, 2010 @ 5:18 am

2 of 8 8/14/10 10:34 PM
The Collegian — University of Richmond » Jepson award recip... http://www.thecollegianur.com/2010/04/01/jepson-recognition-...

I actually worded it as “the philosophy of creating an inclusive environment”. Therefore, I am trying to say that the Jepson school, both
in practice and creed, stands for inclusiveness in regard to a person being able to free to be non-heterosexual etc. and hold the same
rights as any other human being. By gaining these rights, these “excluded” individuals are not directly impugning upon the rights of
dissenting parties like The Family Foundation and they are certainly not “worshiped”. (The question being in this case: who is doing the
worshiping you speak of?.)

#10 Comment By maggieegger On April 4, 2010 @ 5:33 am

I guess worship is not quite the right word, and I tried to explain that in my last post, but so much gets lost over the internet. :-/ I only
meant that it seems that people are painfully aware of any time a gay rights activist is excluded, but happily ignore whenever a
pro-family activist is. That's the point I was trying to make.

#11 Comment By Jake Morrison On April 4, 2010 @ 9:37 am

Its one thing to support Cobb's right to free speech. Which I do. It's quite another to suggest that she is deserving of an award and
worthy of being honored by the University of Richmond. Her views on gay rights aside, I've yet to hear one thing she's done to set
herself aside from any other head of an organization. Why does she deserve this award? I understand your argument that her political
views shouldn't factor into this decision. I disagree for the reasons Jeff and Alex outlined so nicely, but putting that aside for a second,
why SHOULD we give her an award? What has she done?

The other recipient established an organization which ran “a community center for hundreds of young people with disabilities and
economic challenges,” she developed innovative leadership programs to empower middle and high schoolers, she was a project
manager for World Vision, a Christian relief agency , coordinating relief efforts after the Asian Tsunami is 2004 and Pakistan's
Earthquake in '05.

Victoria Cobb is just a lobbyist and Republican activist. The reasoning for giving her the award was quote, “Under her leadership, the
foundation's imprint has grown deeper.” I honestly don't even know what that means.

So please, lets accept for a second that her political views shouldn't matter (which is, again, a ridiculous assertion). Tell me WHY she is
an exceptional leader who deserves this award.

#12 Comment By Jake Morrison On April 4, 2010 @ 9:39 am

“Pro-family activists,” as Cobb calls herself, are allowed to visit their loved ones in the hospital when they get sick. It's a little hard to
feel bad for them when the people they attempt to deny this same right too get angry.

#13 Comment By Jeff Hunt On April 4, 2010 @ 1:58 pm

From one of the writers:

Maggie, Jake has perfectly explained why giving Ms. Cobb an award does not promote inclusiveness. Ms. Cobb advocates for the
restriction of civil and human rights. Is that okay? Beyond being “okay,” is that something we want to honor? Jepson is not condoning
her view, it is endorsing it. Personally, I do not want an institution I am a part of to endorse institutionalized inequality.

Moreover, civil and human rights are an issue of moral right and wrong. Although most people in this country would disagree with me
when I say that female autonomy is a human right, it is widely recognized that one should not be persecuted, degraded by his state, or
physically assaulted for his sexuality. When we demote homosexuals to second-class citizens, not equal to heterosexuals in civil
protections or benefits, we commit a grave error that shames our country. On the gay issue, it is a clear issue of right and wrong, as
clear as the race issue was 50 years ago. Jepson needs to take a stand for what is right, instead of awarding those who promote what
is wrong. Also, bear this in mind: in thirty years, our country will look back at our treatment of homosexuals with the same horror and
embarrassment we now feel for our treatment of racial minorities and women. Don't you want to be able to say, “I come from a school
that was at the forefront of the main civil rights movement of the 21st century”? I know I sure do.

Also, before you write of libelous things, please look up the meaning of slander.

#14 Comment By John Frank On April 5, 2010 @ 12:56 am

Jeff, I agree with pretty much everything you have said so far. The original article was well-written and the follow-up has been
thoughtful. The one thing I want to push you on is your comment that there is a clear right and wrong on this issue. That is dangerous
rhetoric. It is okay to list all the reasons why anti-LGBT policies are harmful to LGBT couples, explain how the message this group
promotes negatively affects LGBT youth, and then use these arguments to justify why this group should not be supported. However, I
would refrain from making any absolute statements about the rightness of one side over another. There are many complex reasons why
people promote “family values” at the cost of hurting a great number of LGBT families. Among other reasons, some people do it
because they believe that promoting discrimination in this way is a moral and ordained task. It is not our place to place our morals over
theirs and say that they are acting immorally. It may seem completely straightforward to us why their actions are “wrong”, but they do
not see the world that way. They view their actions as right and good. In the spirit of inclusivity and respecting other people's values
we cannot make a claim to the truth and argue that our way of seeing the world is right and theirs wrong. We can simply try to show
groups like the Family Foundation the harm that their message brings to the world and hope this shifts their attitudes.

That being said, I strongly disagree with the decision made to honor Victoria Cobb with the Jepson Award. I can acknowledge that she
has worked hard for a cause in which she believes. For someone to do that is commendable. However, her organization actively works
against having GSAs in schools. Stories of bullying, harassment, and teen bullying are commonplace in the news. Studies show that
LGBT youth have higher rates of depression and suicide, lower self-esteem, and that support in and out of schools acts as a buffer

3 of 8 8/14/10 10:34 PM
The Collegian — University of Richmond » Jepson award recip... http://www.thecollegianur.com/2010/04/01/jepson-recognition-...

against these negative effects. GSAs are a source of support for LGBT youth and restricting them would likely have a negative impact
on these children. Again, I have trouble saying that these actions are “wrong” as there is a “moral” reason for the Family Foundation's
actions. However, the damage cannot be ignored. When another person does something that has a negative effect on someone else,
inclusivity and respecting other’s beliefs should not keep us from condemning these actions and supporting the people who were
negatively affected. There is a chance that honoring Victoria Cobb validates the work this organization is doing and could contribute to
helping promote their goals. When deciding that Victoria Cobb deserves this award, Jepson should not only consider whether or not she
has demonstrated effective leadership. They must also consider the nature and impact of the organization she chose to lead. Victoria
Cobb's leadership and beliefs are not isolated to her group. The impact of these beliefs must be considered when deciding to award her
work.

-John Frank
Richmond '09

#15 Comment By maggieegger On April 5, 2010 @ 10:21 pm

Slander is defined as: a false and defamatory statement or report

which is exactly what your statement was, Jeff. It was false because Family Foundation is not based on hatred, and was defamatory
because it presented a negative view of the organization to people who may not know anything else about it, thus tainting its
reputation.

“It is not our place to place our morals over theirs and say that they are acting immorally. It may seem completely straightforward to
us why their actions are “wrong”, but they do not see the world that way. They view their actions as right and good. In the spirit of
inclusivity and respecting other people's values we cannot make a claim to the truth and argue that our way of seeing the world is right
and theirs wrong.”
That is the main point that I was trying to make. Of course we as individuals are going to see our views as the true and morally right,
but we cannot turn a blind eye to the other side. After all, what value would truth have if there was no falsehood? What good is the
light without the dark? Having opposing points of view maintains the integrity of what actually is true and prevents truth being taken
for granted.

Of course I do not support the bullying and abuse that you mention, John, and Family Foundation probably doesn't directly either. I
don't know the specifics of the case that you're talking about, so I would have to look into that more, but it could be that the GSAs
were negatively influencing the values for which Family Foundation works, and so they worked to get rid of them. Again, I don't know
the details, I'm just making an educated guess.

In regard to Amanda's last comment, I don't recall seeing the “right to marry” in the Constitution. When the United States was
founded, civil marriages were not very common at all. Just because civil marriages became the norm later, doesn't mean that it's a
human right to get married. It just means that the government decided to give a tax break to married couples because they had the
potential to have children and thus preserve America and its legacy. I don't think that the government should have civil marriages at
all, no matter if you are homosexual or heterosexual. I certainly do not think that people should be discriminated against in
employment, education, housing, etc because of their sexuality. But there is no human right to receive a civil marriage from the
government. If a couple (gay, straight, whatever) wants to get married, why should the government have anything do with it in the
first place? So in fact, Family Foundation is not impugned anyone's basic human right, they are opposing unconstitutional legislation.

#16 Comment By Jeff Hunt On April 6, 2010 @ 2:23 am

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.
They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Coupled with Article 7, it is clear that indeed marriage for anyone is a human right:
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal
protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

#17 Comment By John Frank On April 6, 2010 @ 2:42 am

Because I think it's been unclear, I would like to point out some of the information I found on Victoria Cobb regarding Gay Straight
Alliances.
In 2006, she lobbied for a Virginia Bill to ban student groups that promoted sexual activity. She is quoted with saying, “Our public
schools should not sponsor groups that are nothing more than taxpayer subsidized dating services.” Although GSAs were not explicitly
targetted, when asked for an example of an organization that would be banned, supporters of the bill named a GSA.
In 2007, when ROSMY, a local group to support LGBT youth, requested funding for their organization, Cobb made the same argument
that a group for LGBT youth promotes sexual activity and funding these groups would be equivalent to funding a dating service.
Therefore, she did not think that this group should be supported by the government.
Finally, when GLSEN promoted “Ally Week”, a nation-wide event to end LGBT bullying and harassment in schools, Victoria Cobb again
spoke out against it, claiming that the week is about “indoctrination and misinformation”. Victoria spoke out against a week whose
mission is to “encourag[e] people to be allies against anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools.”
I cannot say that Victoria Cobb is wrong or that she is not acting morally. She has her belieifs and reasons for acting, I have mine.
However, I urge anyone paying attention to this debate to consider the effect that Victoria Cobb has on Virginia. She is actively working
against groups that provide LGBT youth with the support they need.

4 of 8 8/14/10 10:34 PM
The Collegian — University of Richmond » Jepson award recip... http://www.thecollegianur.com/2010/04/01/jepson-recognition-...

Sources:
[1]
.
[2]
.
[3]
.

#18 Comment By maggieegger On April 6, 2010 @ 3:57 am

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.
They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Going on that alone, two siblings could legally marry each other. Or a father and daughter. Mother and son. First cousins. Heck, how
bout three or four people all married to each other….I hope you can see where that would lead.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

If the family is entitled to protection by society and the State, then why are we pushing for same-sex marriage, when it fundamentally
contradicts the family. And keep in mind the idea of family in 1948, when this was adopted. I know now, people define family really
broadly, but then it was not so loose.

#19 Comment By Amy Todd-Gher On April 6, 2010 @ 5:54 am

Maggie, I will do my best to be respectful, even as you blithely dismiss my civil and human rights, but I have to say that the
inaccuracies in your comments are too many to list. I'll keep it focused. First, let's take your statement, “In regard to Amanda's last
comment, I don't recall seeing the “right to marry” in the Constitution…”, There are two basic legal arguments supporting the position
that marriage discrimination is unconstitutional: (1) the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution which, at its core, provides that it is
unconstitutional to treat similarly situated people differently based on a group characteristic without compelling reasons for doing so,
prevents marriage discrimination against same-sex couples; and (2) marriage is a fundamental right of all citizens. The U.S. Supreme
Court recognized that marriage is a fundamental right in Loving v. Virginia, stating in part, “Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of
man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival….”

Second, your statement that same-sex marriage “fundamentally contradicts the family.” Please explain to me how my lesbian friends,
and many like them, who have been together for over 12 years and are raising two sweet little boys, “fundamentally contradicts” your
notions of family. We are human beings who love each other, we raise children together, we pay our taxes, buy groceries, go to work
every day, take our kids to school, and fall asleep beside each other every night. Our families are right next door, we're here to stay,
and we're far more like your ideal of family than you may like to admit. No words that you type will ever change that reality.

#20 Comment By Ashley Andem On April 6, 2010 @ 1:35 pm

Your argument that gay marriage would open up the floodgates for other types of “unacceptable marriages” is porous. There are other
laws about marrying genetic kin, and those are in place for biological reasons (if not cultural; some countries allow marriage between
cousins). In the United States, it is already legal to marry your first cousin. Polyamoury (so aptly called “three or four people all
married to each other”) is also considered legal in other countries. Outside of marriage, some individuals find that a very comfortable
and logical configuration that suits the needs of all parties. Who are you to judge them, and who are you to impede upon their
happiness? It is clear that your moral system is different, NOT superior to theirs, and therefore it is not your place to set such
boundaries, erected in part out of anxiety towards change, for a life you do not live.

The Family Foundation is fighting to infringe upon the rights of others. I don't understand how one could justify stripping away the
rights of another human being. The Family Foundation wishes to control others' lives by legal force; those things created by force will
never, ever be around for long, as they are often unjust. As long as the Family Foundation and other groups exist, there will always be
resistance.

Do you see all of the resistance this award has brought? The outrage isn't coming from uninformed individuals, but people who are
much more in tune with what makes us all human: compassion.

#21 Comment By Jake Morrison On April 6, 2010 @ 5:58 pm

Maggie, get some humility. You are not the ultimate authority on what “fundamentally contradicts the family”. And also keep in mind
that in the lovely year of 1948 you would so happily take us back to, women were generally confined to the home and blocked from
getting higher education or high level jobs. Oh, and right, that was before blacks were allowed in our schools. My everything was just
so simple and pure now wasn't it?

Here I think is my central issue with Victoria Cobb's, and your, philosophy on life. On one hand the Family Foundation calls for “limited
government”. Which is interesting. The idea behind that is that people make better decisions for themselves than would a government.
I would simply say why should this be any different?

You will respond that this will put us on a slippery slope to cultural ruin, but I disagree with the premise of the slippery slope to begin
with. For example, Conservatives support a bigger role for religion in the public square. Using your logic, that puts us on the slippery
slope towards theocracy! We should ban all public expressions of religion whatsoever, less we begin the slide. As you can see, the
slippery slope is a stupid concept. It can be applied to any moderate view in any direction to suggest that it will lead to a disastrous
extreme.

You need to get down of your high horse and stop telling other people how to live their lives.

5 of 8 8/14/10 10:34 PM
The Collegian — University of Richmond » Jepson award recip... http://www.thecollegianur.com/2010/04/01/jepson-recognition-...

If you want to talk about threats to the family unit, lets talk about the divorce rate (which, to give credit where credit is due, Victoria
Cobb has done advocacy on, although again for a government mandate), lets talk about child abuse, lets talk about bad parenting. Yes,
there can be bad gay parents, just as there can be bad straight parents. There can be bad black parents, just as there can be bad
white parents. There can be bad short parents, just as there are bad tall parents. In some areas and communities these problems are
worse than others, but these problems should be dealt with, not by excluding an entire group, but by teaching people the skills, giving
them the tools, and providing them with the economic opportunity to build strong families, gay or straight.

I'm still waiting for some of the libertarians who usually love to come post all over the Collegian about government taking over the
economy to step up and say something about this issue. Because if you really want to talk about where to draw the line on government
involving itself in our day to day lives, then this is it.

#22 Comment By Jake Morrison On April 6, 2010 @ 6:15 pm

Opposite ends of the spectrum? The other recipient is a Christian missionary. And I am fully supportive of Victoria Cobb's right to say
what she wants. I enjoy her saying what she wants in fact, if only so it can be argued with. She has lobbyists, a website, connections in
the governor's office, and regular speaking gigs at universities. I would welcome her here again. Giving her an award goes beyond just
giving her the opportunity to speak.

And, forget “unjust system,” I'm talking about the basic benefits and rights we afford all members of our society, save homosexuals.
Like visiting a spouse in the hospital, or receiving spousal benefits in most states. These are economic and quality of life issues. Not
social ones. Go ahead and hate gay people, or say that they are destroying the family. It's your right. But do not deny them basic
things which you and I expect as straight people. It would be like saying we should divert more water to areas of the country where
people agree with our opinions, and less to those where our political adversaries live.

That said, my argument is that you should ignore the political argument over gay rights altogether. That's what the university asked us
to do. So looking at Ms. Cobb as the head of a generic organization, I ask you what she's done to warrant an award. She is simply a
lobbyist and political aide who has her own lobbying organization. She sends out a weekly newsletter. I assume she is involved in
fundraising for her organization. Welcome to the club of every half-competent non-profit president in the country. Compare what she
has done to the other recipient, and you don't even have a contest. To put her on the same stage insults the other recipient.

Please answer that question. Awards imply you have done something exceptional. What has she done? And if its only what I
mentioned, shouldn't Jepson raise its standards a little bit?

#23 Comment By maggieegger On April 6, 2010 @ 11:38 pm

I'm not trying to tell other people how to live their lives, nor am I on a high horse. I'm just trying to explain to you my position and the
position of many others on this issue. Again, meanings can get lost in translation over the internet, so things can get misunderstood.
Please know that if I have come off as arrogant or rude at any time I did not mean it as such.

Also, just because awful injustices were happening in 1948, doesn't mean that everything that happened then was screwed up.

If you read my posts carefully you will see that I don't want the government involved in gay OR straight marriages. In my book,
marriage is between a man, a woman, and God, not the government. If two men or two women want to make the same kind of
commitment as marriage vows then they should also do so without government involvement. If government kept its nose out of all
marriages then we would all be equal under the law. And yes, I agree that they should also be given visitation rights in hospitals.

“You will respond that this will put us on a slippery slope to cultural ruin, but I disagree with the premise of the slippery slope to begin
with. For example, Conservatives support a bigger role for religion in the public square. Using your logic, that puts us on the slippery
slope towards theocracy!”
Actually, I wouldn't say that. I believe in small government because the individual is sovereign over his own actions and thoughts, not
because individuals make better decisions all the time, because frankly that's just not true. And actually, most of the conservatives I
know simply want their freedom of religion to be respected. Very few of them want a theocracy, they just want what we now call
“separation of church and state.” This concept is now mostly used by liberals who don't want religion in any public place, but was
originally meant to protect the church from government involvement.

Amanda, quotations can also be used around hypothetical things, not just direct quotes. I wasn't trying to quote you directly.

#24 Comment By Ashley Andem On April 7, 2010 @ 3:43 am

For the record, your book isn't mine, or that of others; you cannot apply it to all of us, and neither should the law.

“If you read my posts carefully you will see that I don't want the government involved in gay OR straight marriages. In my book,
marriage is between a man, a woman, and God, not the government. If two men or two women want to make the same kind of
commitment as marriage vows then they should also do so without government involvement.”

Right, but the Family Foundation by its very actions demands that government interfere in such affairs, specifically gay marriages, and
stop them from occurring as a threat to “family.” If one genuinely wants low government interference, then it shouldn't have any say in
who may choose to marry or not – technically indicating that gay marriage WOULD be legal because the only protesters do so on
moral, not logical grounds. Or, if you wanted to flip it, marriage would NOT be an institution recognised by the state, meaning both
heterosexual and gay marriages both are not granted the some 1,100 civil rights that straight couples have.

And so, using your own argument, the Jepson School was still wrong for awarding Cobb.

Also, regarding the concept of families, simply because your definition of family is narrow doesn't mean that others have similar
definitions; and so, in the eyes of the state, all should be considered equal.

6 of 8 8/14/10 10:34 PM
The Collegian — University of Richmond » Jepson award recip... http://www.thecollegianur.com/2010/04/01/jepson-recognition-...

#25 Comment By maggieegger On April 7, 2010 @ 4:14 am

I know that my book isn't the same as your book. That's my entire point, I'm just explaining to you my point of view on this, just as
you are explaining yours. I may not agree with Cobb on absolutely everything, but I'd sooner support her than most other leaders in
the issue of gay rights.

“That said, my argument is that you should ignore the political argument over gay rights altogether. That's what the university asked us
to do.”
Jake, this could be directed at the authors who wrote this article as well. I have not studied Cobb or the other nominees in depth, so I
can't truthfully say if Jepson actually picked the very best of the bunch. However, that is not the issue that the authors had with
Jepson's choice. Their complaint was based solely on her stance on homosexuality, not on her leadership skills or accomplishments. I
believe I actually said in one of my earlier posts that if the only reason we don't like what someone says or stands for is because we
disagree with it, then we need to get over it. So yes, Jepson may not have picked the very best leader, but I don't recall the authors
mentioning anything about Cobb's supposed lack of leadership skills when complaining about her being honored.

I've enjoyed discussing this, but clearly this is going nowhere fast, and so I probably won't reply very quickly to any more comments
y'all might have. I've enjoyed debating with all of you though!

#26 Comment By Jake Morrison On April 7, 2010 @ 4:46 am

Just to clarify, government is currently involved in regulating marriage, by saying who can and cannot get marriage licenses. If you
really, as you indicated in your post, want to take government out of it and leave it between the people getting married and God, then
the correct course of action would be to have government stop regulating who receives marriage licenses. Actually based on your other
post I don't understand why you support Victoria Cobb at all, as her position is the opposite. She wants more government involvement
in marriage.

You say you support hospital visitation rights for gays, Victoria Cobb doesn't.
I assume then you support allowing gays to collect employee benefits and protecting gays from being discriminated against in hiring.
Victoria Cobb doesn't.
You say you support small government that doesn't regulate people, even when they don't make the right decisions. Victoria Cobb
supports government telling people who are marrying the “wrong” person they can't.

I honestly don't see how your libertarian ideas, and her culturally conservative ones, intersect at all, beyond the fact that you seem to
be in favor of them in your private life (but as you have so correctly stated, those are your private views and none of government's
business).

Also, my apologies for not making the sarcasm about the theocracy comment obvious enough. My point was that just because
conservatives support more religion in the public square, DOESN'T MEAN that they support theocracy. In other words, that the “slippery
slope” argument is a false one which takes moderate ideas and assumes they are the “first step” to an extreme. Its Glenn Beck's
favorite mode of argument. Being a liberal who supports gay marriage doesn't mean you support polygamy, or beastiality, or incest.
Being a fiscal conservative who wants to see less regulation of financial markets doesn't mean you support no regulations whatsoever
to protect consumers. Victoria Cobb's entire philosophy is based on this philosophy. The idea that allowing gays to marriage is the first
step to a culture of moral chaos.

And based on this last answer I think we agree on alot more than you realize, and I think you disagree with Victoria Cobb alot more
than you realize.

#27 Comment By Amanda Smith On April 7, 2010 @ 6:33 am

With due respect, using hypothetical quotes is probably not the best means of proving a point (considering that the quote's level of
seriousness cannot be determined through print in many cases). It seems that these comments are adding up to a moral discussion,
which is taking the focus off of Jeff and Alex's original well-asserted points. That being said, I will uphold my views until proven
otherwise by a rational legal argument.

#28 Comment By Rebecca L. Buck On April 7, 2010 @ 2:08 pm

Dear maggieegger,

Thank you for staying active in this discussion even though you have several people replying in disagreement. I disagree with you, too,
but I appreciate that you have replied calmly and not simply walked away from the conversation*.

I do not, however, appreciate your casually paired opposition of “gay rights” to “pro-family.” It aligns cleanly with your later “educated
guess” that “it could be that the GSAs were negatively influencing the values for which Family Foundation works, and so they worked to
get rid of them.” Trying to “get rid of” a student organization is not inclusive nor particularly respectful of the 1st amendment you
yourself mentioned and is hardly exemplary of “moral and competent leadership.” As importantly, the underlying assumption beneath a
quest to ban all GSAs–i.e., that encouraging acceptance and working against bullying and abuse of gay students is anti-family–is
precisely the reason so many of us are concerned. This misguided attitude is emotionally, psychologically and socially devastating to
gay youth. From p78 of Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual
Orientation: “School policies that increased staff support and positive school climate have been found to moderate suicidality and to
positively affect sexual minority youth school achievement and mental health (Goodenow et al., 2006).” (Summary and full report from
[4]
the APA available here: .).

Most teens are just beginning to understand their sexuality and romantic interests. I'm not speaking solely in terms of attraction to a
particular sex, but also in terms of broad themes like desire, sexual ethics, love…and yes, family. Just as straight people are incredibly
diverse, with a range of healthy and unhealthy relationships, so, too, are queer folk. They have a variety of religious beliefs, too. The
assumption that simply being gay is reason for young people not to be held to the standards of their choosing is incorrect and

7 of 8 8/14/10 10:34 PM
The Collegian — University of Richmond » Jepson award recip... http://www.thecollegianur.com/2010/04/01/jepson-recognition-...

inherently harmful, just as it would be to make such an assumption based on those youth's other attributes (like race, socioeconomic
status, or cultural background).

I've focused largely on sexuality, but I also worry seriously about the effects of campaigning against funding for organizations like
Planned Parenthood based on one of the services they provide, without actively encouraging alternatives for the other services that
would be lost to the community. Planned Parenthood provides basic gynecological care, cancer screenings, etc., for many women who
are uninsured and cannot otherwise afford the care that will keep them a) healthy, and b) able to control the timing and number of
childbirths to ensure they can financially and emotionally support their families. If we value healthy women, strong families and
positive chlidhood experiences, some of these services are vital.

Now I'm digressing. I disagree with the Family Foundation on a number of issues, but disagreement is healthy and sparks good
conversation and more informed decision-making. Inviting Victoria Cobb to speak as part of a lecture series or panel on any of these
political issues is a good idea and part of a vibrant, inclusive discussion.

Victoria Cobb and the Family Foundation cross from “an entity I disagree with” to “an entity that contradicts the Richmond Promise and
core Jepson values” when they actively encourage harmful policies that restrict individuals' rights, particularly when they do so in a way
that marginalizes a group based on one element of their identities. To recognize her outspoken position in the community by inviting
her to participate in a discussion is one thing. To bestow an award on her for her efforts to ban GSAs, limit domestic partnerships, and
reduce available homes for adoptable children based on homophobia…is unacceptable.

* I wrote this before the last flurry of comments. I realize most recently you did say that you're likely going to stop leaving comments
on this article, and I also think this format, while very open, isn't often as clear or efficient as in-person communication. Thank you for
staying as long as you have.

Article printed from The Collegian — University of Richmond: http://www.thecollegianur.com

URL to article: http://www.thecollegianur.com/2010/04/01/jepson-recognition-award-recipient-causes-student-outrage/

URLs in this post:

[1] : http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1568662/posts
[2] : http://kc.csip.org.uk/viewdocument.php?action=viewdox&pid=0&doc=33393&grp=413http:
//www.prophecyfellowship.org/showthread.php?p=2740126
[3] : http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1493287/posts
[4] : http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexual-orientation.aspx

Copyright © 2009 The Collegian. All rights reserved.

8 of 8 8/14/10 10:34 PM

Вам также может понравиться