It’s a shame it has to be about this:
(CNN) — A private religious school in Texas has denied admission to the daughter of a lesbian couple who wanted to enroll the child in preschool, citing its “clear teaching of the Christian faith” for the refusal.
In a statement e-mailed to CNN sister network HLN, the dean of St. Vincent’s Cathedral School in the Dallas suburb of Bedford, Texas, said the school is standing on its principles “in matters of marriage and sex outside of marriage” by refusing to seat 4-year-old Olivia Harrison.
“St. Vincent’s School as a ministry of St. Vincent’s Cathedral upholds the clear teaching of the Christian faith, the Holy Bible, and the Anglican Church in North America,” the Rev. Ryan Reed said.
“We based our decisions about enrollment on what is best for the children of St. Vincent’s as a whole and in conformity with the above standards,” he said. “We regret the disappointment the mother feels, but also do not understand why she would want to enroll her child in a school that would undercut her own personal values at home.”
Olivia’s mother, Jill Harrison, told HLN’s “Prime News” that was fine with her.
“I absolutely would not want her to partake in a school where they did not believe or condone the relationship that we have together,” she said.
St. Vincent’s is part of a conservative movement that broke away from the U.S. Episcopal Church in 2008, in part over the Episcopal church’s positions on gay and lesbian rights. The Anglican Church in North America claims about 100,000 adherents.
In a follow-up e-mail, Reed said that the school had no problem with a single mother, “lesbian or not, living chaste” — but said St. Vincent’s has taken a hard line in other cases. He said it has rejected an earlier preschool applicant who came from a gay household, fired an unmarried teacher who became pregnant and removed a man “from leadership roles in the school” after he left his wife for another woman.
The school did the right thing. “Parents” who enroll their children into a Christian school should know that they themselves will be expected to live a Christian life.
Of course there will be many people who will condemn the school for this. But I have to wonder if anyone will see the hypocrisy of the “parents”:
“I absolutely would not want her to partake in a school where they did not believe or condone the relationship that we have together,”
Why than did Jill Harrison even bother to submit an application to this school? Was to cause a political uproar against the school? In which case Jill is using the child for her own political agenda. I feel very sorry and sad for this child, who never asked to be subjected to this kind of child abuse.
This was nothing more than using a child as a human shield for their agenda. What despicable “parents”.
I can speculate till the cows come home, but I really have no knowledge concerning the motivation of the parents.
I don’t believe that enrollment of Olivia in the school would be more harmful to her than if she goes to public school.
If my children attended the school, I would have no qualms about Olivia being enrolled.
I’m banned on SFIF and needed to get that off my chest.
Warren, the problem we had was this:
If we admitted this child it would inevitably come up that Olivia has “two mommies.” (Her mother insisted that the other woman would be activiely involved as a parent at school activities.) These are four year old kids, after all, so they were bound to be curious about her unusual family situation. What would we do then? Either we could have our Pre-Kindergarten teachers (or priests the kids don’t usually see in their classrooms) come in try to introduce Biblical sexual ethics to VERY small children, doing so in such a way conveys both the unacceptability of sex-union as contrary to God’s will but doesn’t make Olivia seem in any way at fault or “different” from her classmates. (Personally I think that would be an impossible task–the little girl would probably be hurt and her classmates confused by this–nor do I believe many of the other pre-K children’s parents would be keen on this development either.). Or we could just ignore the whole issue and have our teacher pretend they didn’t hear the questions about two mommies. Remember, the biological mother was was insisting that BOTH “mothers” would be actively involved on campus in the same way heterosexual parents are, so their joint involvement would certainly be widely noticed. I am sure our silence would be seen as a tacit endorsement of same-sex marriage by many families. So either we risk seriously hurting a little girl, confusing a group of four-year-olds, and unsettling many parents by witnessing to Biblical truth on a delicate moral matter to very small children, or we give tacit legitimacy to same-sex marriage by silence on the “two mommies” question.
The wiser course we all felt was simply to tell Olivia’s mom that her family was not a good fit for our school. We gave her a recommendation (complete with a brochure and telephone number) to a TEC affiliated pre-school in a suburb just north of us where their lifesyle would surely be openly affirmed.
Frankly, I don’t see why this ever became news. Surely private religious schools have a right to do just what we did, and do it all the time!
Texanglican,
What puzzles me somewhat is why the two “mothers” wanted to send the child to the school in the first place. Surely they must have realised that what would be taught would contradict their lifestyle?
Or were they simply (mis)using the child to make a point?
I stated my belief and I won’t argue the issue. I followed the thread on SFIF and many of the comments made me angry. Given the American perspective on things, I have a wee bit of sympathy for the position taken by the school – but the “Christian” attitude shown by many commenters on SFIF makes me want to have nothing to do with their brand of Christianity.
I am ever more firmly of the belief, based on what I have learned, that the whole the thing was a “put-up” job designed to try to get publicity for the “plight” of the lesbians and create adverse publicity and comment toward Bishop Iker and the Diocese of Fort Worth.
Not to worry, Warren, SF banned me too. They seem not to be able to tolerate disagreement very well.
#4 It looks to me like the girl’s parents were making a political point; much like the lesbian couple who phoned Father George a few years ago asking to be married. I think you made the best of a very difficult situation.
This is actually not unprecedented; there have been many similar cases in recent years. A GLBT couple or individual goes to a private Christian business, and when they are denied service on principle by the owner, they immediately go to court or to a human rights tribunal. This has resulted in a number of successful court cases and punitive fines, from a Christian printing company and a Knights of Columbus hall here in Canada to a wedding photographer and the owner of a holiday lodge in the States. In each case there was no possibility that the plaintiffs were unaware of the religious values of the business owner. On the contrary, it is widely suspected that they were deliberately targeted. It appears to be a new form of activism for the GLBT community.
So to those who are upset by the child’s failure to gain admittance at this school, it’s worth bearing in mind that for the couple this may in fact have been the *desired* result of their application, and not a disappointment at all.
Ellie (#10), I submit that you are focusing on the symptom rather than the cause. If we want to live in a society built on the rule of law, then laws need to be respected and enforced – or changed through legal means. I bear no animosity towards someone who is working to ensure their “legal rights” are respected; even though I may personally disagree with the law. If the law is a bad one, then I should work to change it rather than rail against individuals who are striving to ensure it is properly applied to their circumstances. If, at the end of the day, I am unsuccessful in having the law changed, I must decide whether I will live in accordance with it, or break it and face the consequences. If the tables were turned, and I was trying to ensure my legal rights were respected, I would hope that those opposing me would show similar respect.
I appreciate that my opinion is likely a minority one on this blog.
It’s not a legal right to be able to send a child to a private school.
Then presumably the challenge, if there is one, will be a nuisance only and should not be considered threatening.
“A GLBT couple or individual goes to a private Christian business, and when they are denied service on principle by the owner,”
The more I think about that, the more I see lunch counter sit-ins of the 1950s and 60s. Are we really sure of a privilege to discriminate in “private business” based on sexual orientation? on religion? on skin colour? There’s a difference between the sacraments of the Church and a private business.
#14 I believe the printing company mentioned was asked to print GLBT materials and the KoC hall was rented for a gay marriage reception. These things were contrary to the principles of the business/hall owners. Should they not have the right to uphold their principles in business? There were other printers and other halls who would have been happy to accomodate. And even if there weren’t, would they not have had the right to refuse? These were not refusals based simply on the items you mentioned, but rather on the service they were required to provide.
This is obviously a very difficult issue and I’m willing to be corrected on my take of the case of the Christian school:
Yes, the ‘parents’ were likely just using the poor child to challenge the school’s Christian stand on homosexual partnerships. I read the school’s reasoning with great sympathy so, yes, it would have been extremely difficult to have this child in the school, both from his/her point of view and from that of the rest of the schoolchildren. But when I read that the school had referred the ‘couple’ and the child to an Episcopal private school, I felt as if I’d been kicked in the stomach.
No matter what outcome the ‘couple’ intended, the child should have been received as a gift from God, a challenging gift but a gift. What if this challenge had been accepted as an opportunity to minister uncompromised grace to a couple and child who might not otherwise ever have experienced it? What if what the evil one intended for evil could have become the most amazing story of conversion and grace? But no, the school takes the tidy route: the ‘sinners’ are shunned, repentance is not preached and, worse than that, the two women and the child are directed to a place where they will be confirmed, affirmed and welcomed to death.
Irena (#16), that’s about the same way I see it; but you expressed it better.
Warren and Irena, you are taking a very hard line against that school. They decided against a social experiment which was never their idea, and thiat is their legal and moral right.
#16: “What if this challenge had been accepted as an opportunity to minister uncompromised grace to a couple and child who might not otherwise ever have experienced it?” It would be very unwise to try any such thing, believe me. If a teacher said something about GLBT lifestyles that could even be construed as negative, the couple could slap a costly lawsuit on the school. Their immediate rush to the media already shows they are determined activists, and it would be prudent to assume they are litigious as well. So the “challenge” would not be a mere “nuisance”.
Henry, your comparison to segregation would be considered very offensive to black people, who endured far more than merely being told that their values were incompatible with a particular privately-owned institution. There is no equivalence. This child is not being denied an education, she can go to any school including the free public system where her mother’s lifestyle will not only be accepted but affirmed. Private schools do not have to take anyone they don’t consider suitable, period. This school is already being raked over the coals by a biased media; please don’t add to the chorus.
Ellie (#18), setting aside the school for a moment (which I don’t think I’ve taken a hard line against if you read my words), I am frustrated by an apparent hypocrisy within the North American church (especially evangelicalism). Many Christians will freely criticize Muslims for not vigorously denouncing the radicals in their midst, however, Christians have the same problem. I’m not so much aiming this at the school as I am at some of the posters on SFIF who, in my opinion, were completely over the top when commenting on this story – and were not challenged.
With respect to your comment that “private schools do not have to take anyone they don’t consider suitable, period.”, I see this as a powerful argument for the continuation of properly resourced public schools (an idea that many conservative Christians in the US would attack). It also lends credence to the argument that private schools often achieve better results than public schools because they can “cherry pick” their students.
Ellie #18
The Greensboro Four were not being denied a lunch, they could go elsewhere. Woolworth’s did not need to serve anyone they didn’t consider suitable, period.
They were challenging bad laws themselves. They didn’t send their children in to do it for them. It’s not the same at all. This couple was challenging the right of the Christian school to teach Christian values, and were using their daughter to make a point.
I’m not saying this isn’t true, but I’ve read nothing to say it is true. Do you have a source?
Hello Warren,
I’d imagine that this is simply a suspicion, albeit a well-founded suspicion based on other situations, some of which are mentioned above. It is very hard to parse motives – after all most people are not going to admit to malicious intent (if there was such). The goal in this case may have been to paint the school as intolerant and bigoted, if so they achieved their aim through the compliant MSM.
Anyway’s we’ve very glad to have you over here, minority opinions always welcome.
#19: I went to a private school, after wasting years in the public system. It was wonderful to finally be in a place where the emphasis was on learning and values, and the teachers ran the school instead of the students. It’s not hard to see why students excel academically in such an environment. So that “cherry picking” argument doesn’t wash with me.
#20: Enough of the segregation comparisons, please. I’ve already told you it’s offensive, and why.
#24 Ellie – it was you who widened the discussion to printing shops and hall rentals in #10.
OK, I searched the internet and found a direct quote from the biological mother of the child in question: “Had I known, in hindsight, I would never have attempted to enroll her in a school where they did not believe in our beliefs and our lifestyle.” (Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/08/24/2423118/bedford-school-turns-away-student.html#ixzz0xja7YUny)
So there you have it: if she is sincere, her position is exactly the same as the school’s, ie this was not a good fit for her daughter/family. She would have found out her mistake eventually and withdrawn the child, probably long after the girl had settled in and made friends so her removal would have caused real hurt. To those who still persist in attacking the school’s decision, please note that the parent is actually in *agreement* with them. (I’m still puzzled as to why she ran to the media though.)
#25 — huh??
Ellie (#24), I don’t see it as an either/or scenario. I believe that quality public schools are essential or many children in our society will fall through the cracks. I also see a place for private schools. I’ve seen children flourish and receive a quality education in both systems. My children thrived in the public system (my daughter now teaches in the International Baccalaureate program in a High School in Oakville), and the high school they graduated from was very well run; but I know that there are problems as well.
My current church is closely affiliated with a large Christian school (as was my last church) that is doing an excellent job. I’ve seen kids fall through the cracks in Christain schools, though. Success or failure in either system often comes down to the involvement and support (or lack thereof) of the parents.
What I don’t have time for is the opinion that I’ve occasionally encountered in the US that the entire public education system is a failure and should be dismantled in favour of charter and private schools. I see this as very naive and short sighted.
And I’m sticking to my guns about cherry picking. It is not fair to compare the academic performance of a school that must accept every student to a school that has the “right” to reject students.
The above should read either/or scenario. And I messed up the html code for italics. Sorry. fixed – admin.
As I see it, there are 2 possible scenarios in this supposed scandal.
(1) The couple deliberately targeted the ACNA school with the aim of having the child rejected, thus creating publicity for their cause. Their intent was never that the child should actually *attend* the school, but only to create an incident the media would pick up on.
(2) The official explanation, that the couple was honestly mistaken about the nature of the school. In this case the child would likely have been removed as soon as the mistake became known, and sent instead to a school that affirmed their “beliefs and lifestyle.”
In *both* of these scenarios the child would have ended up not attending the school. And in *both* cases she would not attend because the couple did not wish her to do so.
So much for her being “rejected”. And this fantasy about the school somehow “converting” the couple through the child is exactly that: a fantasy. It was never going to happen.
#22 Just connecting the dots. If it was an honest mistake on the part of the parents why did they go to the media? The only reason I can think of for that is that they tried to enroll their daughter in the school to make a political point.
Kate (#30), your supposition seems pausible given the information available, but, in real life, I’ve often discovered that my suppositions did not take into accound the other side of the story. I’m reluctant to attribute motives.
I’m reluctant to attribute motives.
I bet you don’t like reading novels.
#29 Ellie M: “And this fantasy about the school somehow “converting” the couple through the child is exactly that: a fantasy. It was never going to happen.”
In your hurry to defend the school you are forgetting that it is God who converts not man. Further, you have forgotten that God is not limited by what we humanly see as improbability or even impossibility. You may call it a fantasy but we have a God “who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist” (Romans 4:17). What is it about these two women and this one child that puts them beyond his reach? Surely we ourselves -those of us who have been regenerated in Christ– are living proof that God works with the unwilling, the unlikely, and the unworthy?
May God forgive us for forgetting who he is and what we were!
There is a distinct wiff of Holier-than-thou on this forum of late, and I’m getting a little tired of it. Irene, I invite you here and now to put your money where your mouth is. Contact these women personally, giving your real name and other information. Tell them that you wish to convert them from their life of sin. If they reject your initial attempt at evangelization, persist. Contact them repeatedly, and don’t forget to talk to the child directly too. In short, I submit that you should do yourself what you have demanded that this school should do.
And let us know what happens.
They are not beyond God’s reach. I would venture to say that given the circumstances, they would probably have been beyond the reach of that particular school.
Now, could we all please turn the heat down a bit on this conversation? Thanks.
If they’re not beyond God’s reach — and they’re not — then He will reach them regardless of what St Vincent’s does or does not do.
What I’m asking of St Vincent’s critics is that they recognize the school was in a no-win situation: they were never going to reach the lesbian couple through the child, because this child was never going to attend their school — ever — under any circumstances. So let’s cut them some slack and move on.
#36 Ellie M. : You’re right that the school was–humanly speaking–in a no-win situation. I’m just expressing how I wished they would have dealt with said situation. One way or the other, there is no condemnation –except in the media which is annoying.
As to your challenge: we already have similar situations in our lives, don’t we?: which is why I’m engaging in this discussion at all.
Kate: No heat here.
Your words could be interpreted as generating some heat. I’m relatively certain that nobody here thinks that Romans 4:17 is a fantasy.
You do not invite the world into the church in order to evangelize; you (as church) go into the world to evangelize. In this case, if this school were set up as an evangelistic outreach into the world, I could see where they might be remiss in turning down this child. However, it appears that they were trying to teach the faith to children of parents of faith, or at least those in sympathy with the truth.
#38 Kate: Ah, I see! Certainly didn’t mean that anyone here thought the Romans passage was a fantasy!! I was referring to Ellie’s description of a possible conversion which she called a fantasy. I think the Roman’s passage tells us that conversion is always possible!!
Anyway, the fault is in my writing. Apologies!
#38 ML:
Your point is taken though one would probably not tell someone who was not a believer not to come to church but, rather, to check out the local ashram.
In favour of the Christian school, it probably has better reason than a church to turn down applicants. And both church and school would be in their rights to ask the ‘applicants’ to leave if their behaviour was grossly inappropriate or disruptive.
ML (#39), although I am sympathetic to your position, it is in opposition to the position held by the majority of Canadian and American evangelical churches (including those infuenced by Saddleback and Willow Creek). How do you define church? A Christian school does not fit my definition – apart from whatever right it may have to reject applicants.
I’ve got a couple of other thoughts swirling through my mind which I will comment on, and then I’ll let this thread go. I don’t know if the church associated with the St. Vincent’s School has a Sunday School, but, if they do, I wonder if they would let Olivia attend? Or would they close the door because she might be exposed to teaching that would undermine her home/family situation? How about if they have Wednesday evening kids club? Would Olivia be welcome there? Or would there be concern that she would “contaminate” the children of church members?
I accept that the school likely has a legal right to reject Olivia (although if there is a successful legal challenge, maybe that right doesn’t exist before the law). I am doubtful that the school was wise to exercise that right and it is not a school that I would send my children to (if I was still in that situation) or recommend to others.
More than enough said.
I suspect she would be welcome in all those places, Warren. A private Christian school is a completely different kettle of fish, and I think you are being way too hard on them.