The fact that the notes from the Scots College emergency meeting were meant to be confidential says it all.
The school was panicking.
“The Scots College has requested the Gospel, Society and Culture Committee to prepare a statement on a biblical response to the homosexual agenda, and wishes to be able to respond rightly in the event that a same-sex couple might seek to enrol a boy within the College.”
It was a cry for help.
This was a school whose Christian beliefs opposed same-sex relationships – and yet, this would be the same urban demographic who in coming years may be applying for their son to attend. What were they meant to do? Whose side were they meant to take? Private school IS a business, after all. But what about their alignment to Christian teachings?
Sydney’s most expensive private boys school realised it could soon be on the wrong side of history.
As with Scots College Sydney, many private schools in Australia intersect education with religion.
Founded in 1893 under the Presbyterian Church, a brief glance at the Scots College website showcases a deeply religious institution.
“At The Scots College we believe that young men discover true wisdom through reverence for God and faith in Jesus Christ. The ultimate aim of our education is to help students acquire a knowledge of the truth — of God, society and the world — so that they are better prepared to serve in their families and the wider world, to the glory of God and for the welfare of others.”
Top Comments
I think Christian schools should do as they like and follow their religious doctrines. Otherwise they become something else, not Christian. You don't have to agree with it, but just as there are Muslim schools, so too there should be Christian schools based on Christian values. You can live your life and let them do what they want with their school. If you don't like it, send your children elsewhere. But I think they must not want to pay for more expensive schools and so they choose Christian schools for their children, then try to change the nature of a Christian school.
Some of these comments are kind of horrifying.
"Then don't send your kid there."
Well yes, don't. I'd never send my child there because it sounds like a horrible, discriminatory place. Gay or not, who on earth would choose to send a vulnerable child there?
But you're missing the BIGGER problem. You know, that problem where this school is subsidised by the government and all tax payers fund it?
Society is paying for a so-called educational institution which does not follow society's anti-discrimination laws... which are there to promote... you know, equality and basic human decency.
And LGBTIQ tax payers must fund a service they're deliberately excluded from. No way. Any institution which takes public funding of any kind should be 100% bound by the same rules as public institutions, and absolutely by discrimination laws. It's ridiculous.
Then we come to the second problem. "My son/daughter is gay in a catholic school..." or "My son's neighbour's friend's aunt's kid has a gay child in his class who is doing just fine..."
Well, that's great. No, it's genuinely great.
But it's also a real d!ck move for you to try and undermine the argument for equality because you know one single situation where things aren't totally batsh!t due to values from the 1600s.
It has been proven that there are these issues (no, not an 'agenda', take off your tinfoil hat), these proven repeated issues with LGTBIQ students/family and many private educational institutions. No family or student should be discriminated against in Australia. We should be striving for a world class educational system which supports and encourages all students.
So for you to say the equivalent of "stop whinging, my kid's fine", I find to be downright rude and selfish. Let's take an honest look at the system. Let's fix the problems where they exist, and use the schools without problems as a model for where to proceed to next.
And of course at the end of it- if you can't handle the public... don't hit the public purse strings. Savvy?
Your argument is nonsense. Not all workplaces/institutions have to abide by anti-discrimination laws. Secular schools are exempt as homosexuality is against their beliefs.
The public purse strings fund all schools - not just secular but Montessori and Steiner for example. If funding were removed from non-public schools, the student outcomes would be over-crowded public schools. Is that okay by you? Savvy?
Non-Indigenous people cannot apply for jobs specifically targeted to Aboriginal people. Are you going to rail against that as 'discriminatory against white people?'
My taxes pay for paid parental leave. I'm infertile. I'm being forced to pay for a service I'm being deliberately kept out of.
Well, that does suck. Without trying to rub salt, I'd make two points- one, it's not a deliberate bias. It is not deliberate exclusion due to you being infertile. The other is that while social exclusion has proven negative effects for social cohesion and can be measured in financial losses, paid parental leave aims to promote social inclusion and indirectly, you benefit through society being more productive and earning more money.
That's just my 2 cents.
Nonsense is harsh- there's logic to my response, even if you don't agree.
As for "not all workplaces"- I'd make the point of exclusion discrimination versus inclusion equity practices. The private schools are practising deliberate social exclusion. This has proven negative effects for individuals and society, including proven financial losses.
The jobs targeted for Aboriginal people are for the purpose of social inclusion and to create equity, rather than entrench disparity. So while I understand your point, I would make the distinction that the former are unacceptable on the public purse, while the latter is acceptable in the interests of promoting a healthy, contemporary, respectful society.
I also think by secular, you mean non-secular perhaps?
I do not argue that funding to other schools should be cut. I argue that schools should, like public schools, be beholden to the contemporary social values of the community, if they want to accept community dollars. I'm not saying close them, defund them- I'm saying make your choice, and if it doesn't fit community values, fund it yourself. It's 2016- do they want to be on the right side, or the wrong side of history?