[Vision2020] Logos School's all-male board

[Melynda Huskey]

I wonder if there isn't another possible way to frame this discussion . . .

Surely it is the right of Logos School's Board to determine what the 
qualifications for serving on the School Board are.  I don't think anyone 
intends to dispute that right.

Community members like Bill (and others) may well be interested in just what 
prompts that decision, though, without wishing to trample in any way on the 
rights of those involved.  For example, Dan Carscallen theorizes that 
excluding women will make men more eager to serve, a motivation he lauds.  
Bill wonders how the Board might explain to their daughters (and wives, 
maybe) their exclusion.  These aren't questions of whether or not the School 
Board *may* make the decision, but why they would choose to.

If, as Doug suggests, Logos School is at last attracting community 
attention, then surely this is a fine opportunity to help the community 
understand it better.  If women on School Boards are forbidden by Christian 
ritual law, as pork and shellfish are by Jewish ritual law, I expect a 
number of people would be interested to hear about it.

Melynda Huskey


"We utterly deny all outward wars and strife, and fightings with outward 
weapons, for any end, or under any pretense whatsoever: this is our 
testimony to the whole world."
Quaker Declaration of 1660





>From: "Dale Courtney" <dale@courtneys.us>
>To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Logos School's all-male board
>Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 13:27:01 -0700
>
> > Dale, you make sense quite often,
>
>Why, thanks, Ted!  I'll make a Libertarian out of you yet!  :)
>
> > yet here you show an
> > unreasoning bias, it
> > seems to me.
> >
> > Why is it logical for a person who wants to promote diversity
> > to accept the
> > conduct of a group which is trying to limit diversity in its
> > institutions?
>
>Ah! But is it diversity *within* an organization that matters? Or *across*
>organizations that you are concerned about?
>
>Would you say that the local Jewish Community Center should have skin-heads
>as part of their board of directors? That would be diversity within an
>organization.
>
>Or would you argue that it's important to have diversity within
>organizations only?
>
> > Causing personal injury and panic in a crowded theater is too
> > grievous a
> > harm to allow free speech of the sort when someone will yell
> > "fire" in a
> > crowded theater.  In like manner, accepting sexist agendas
> > that limit the
> > opportunities of women is too grievous a harm to accept this,
> > in the name of
> > "diversity," without protest.
>
>Again, I would argue that what a private institution does is up to them --
>as long as they don't break the law. As Bill London agreed, there's nothing
>illegal about limiting the board of any private organization to males only,
>or, in my fictitious case, to "one-eyed Hittites". If a private country 
>club
>wants to have an all-female golf club, more power to them!
>
>My other concern with your argument is the standard by which someone argues
>for the appropriate makeup of a private organization. Again, if the Jewish
>Community Center insists that all of its board of directors are Jewish, 
>will
>people holler that it's not diverse enough? By what standard do we have the
>right to impose that upon them?
>
>Private property rights and voluntary associations here is the key.
>
>Best,
>Dale
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ


_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail