|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New NCAA President Myles Brand Victi |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A
Christian student’s sincere request for a small religious accommodation will not
even be considered because a Christian is not required to pursue course or
degree requirements at Indiana University School of Continuing Studies and
that the only choice for the Christian student is to withdraw from the course
and thus the possibility of earning the desired degree at Indiana University. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All the
16-year old Christian Young Lady wanted was a fair chance |
|
to
continue working toward a degree at |
|
without
having to compromise her Christian Faith. |
|
|
|
|
|
NCAA Hires Indiana University’s Divisive President: the Robert Knight Firing |
|
|
|
Brand became the President of
the NCAA on January 1, 2003. According
to John Walda (religion unknown), former president of the Indiana University
Trustees, Brand created possibly the most divisive crisis in Indiana
University’s history when, in September 2000, Brand unilaterally terminated
Robert Knight’s illustrious coaching career.
(Knight’s religion is unknown.) |
|
|
|
Brand had previously imposed a
special “zero tolerance” policy upon Knight.
At first, Brand “justified” his firing of Knight by claiming Knight
had a consistent pattern of NOT violating Brand’s undefined and unwritten
“zero tolerance” policy. You read that
right…for NOT violating the “zero tolerance” policy. When questioned about the sufficiency of
the firing justifications, Brand simply replied that Knight was going to
violate the zero tolerance policy in the future! Brand argued if the pre-emptive firing
hadn’t taken place, “We would have been here in a short time.” Brand’s implication being that Brand had
the ability to see into the future and in some way knew that Knight would
shortly provide a bona fide basis for his dismissal. |
|
|
|
Brand executed the extreme punishment
against Knight for not even one violation of the zero tolerance policy but
simply because Brand didn’t want to wait for Brand’s expected soon-to-occur
violation to actually take place.
Brand’s prejudiced treatment of Knight reflected a lack of integrity
and a lack of honor that was incompatible with traditional American justice
and fair play. (more) |
|
|
|
Thousands of students protested
Knight’s unjust ejection. They
chanted, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Myles Brand has got to go!” Some burned an effigy of Brand. Police had to be called out to maintain
order. One national sportswriter
called the entire ejection process a set-up staged by an individual named
Mark Shaw (religion unknown) and Brand.
Shaw is a media personality and the author of a book arguing that the
anti-American Jewish spy Jonathan Pollard should be set free. (Pollard was a spy for the Jews.) (more) Knight characterized Shaw as “a guy that
over the years has probably been the most vitriolic critic I’ve ever
had.” (more) |
|
|
|
USA Today reported that Brand
received 2,000 emails in less than 48 hours.
IU Vice President Christopher Simpson complained about the extreme
personal disapprovals of Brand expressed in the emails. Similarly, Shaw was reported to have
stopped looking at his emails because of their unfavorable and threatening
character. (comment) |
|
|
|
Knight is currently suing
Indiana University for financial damages based on breach of contract related
to Brand’s prejudiced firing. |
|
|
|
Anti-Christian Bigotry Under Brand at Indiana
University |
|
|
|
Indiana University suffered
another divisive crisis under Brand when Indiana University’s IU-PU Fort
Wayne campus was divided in August 2001 over the staging of the play “Corpus
Christi.” This play portrayed Jesus Christ
as “a liar, a blasphemer, a drunkard, a fornicator and a homosexual.” The protests against the University
sponsored anti-Christian bigotry culminated in a lawsuit against the
University. Twenty-one members of the
Indiana General Assembly were among the plaintiffs opposing both the staging
of the play and the financing of the play with taxpayer funds. (more) Brand’s underling IU-PUFW Chancellor
Michael Wartell (religion unknown) defended the staging of the play: |
|
|
|
“The protection of this production
exemplifies the essence of the First Amendment and academic freedom. It is in these instances, as with “Corpus
Christi,” where opposition rises to the level of moral outrage, that the
principles of freedom of speech and academic freedom are most sorely
tested. They must prevail against the
very understandable impulse by those who wield power to stifle or chill that
which they would prefer not to hear.” |
|
|
|
The lawsuit was decided in favor
of IU-PU Fort Wayne’s staging of the play.
(The judge’s name and religion are not known to this writer.) |
|
|
|
Brand Does A Complete Reversal When It Means
Protecting His Fellow Jews |
|
|
|
In the fall of 2002, Brand did a
complete reversal on free speech when his fellow Jews disapproved free speech
that was used against Jews. No longer
was Brand’s Indiana University open to unrestricted free speech to the extent
of moral outrage. Free speech at
Brand’s Indiana University was for anti-Christian bigotry only. “No Speech” became the policy at Brand’s
Indiana University if speech would “intimidate” one of Brand’s fellow Jews. |
|
|
|
In Indiana University’s name,
Brand signed on to a Jewish Statement promoted by fellow Jews at the American
Jewish Committee. The Presidents of
most American Colleges and Universities rejected this biased Jewish
Statement. The Jewish Statement reads. |
|
|
|
“College
Presidents Decry Intimidation on Campuses. |
|
|
|
“In the
current period of worldwide political turmoil that threatens to damage one of
our country’s greatest treasures—colleges and universities—we commit
ourselves to academic integrity in two ways.
We will maintain academic standards in the classroom and we will
sustain an intimidation-free campus.
These two concepts are at the core of our profession. |
|
|
|
“Our
class rooms will be open to all students, and classroom discussions must be
based on sound ideas. Our campus
debates will be conducted without threats, taunts, or intimidation. We will take appropriate steps to insure
these standards. In doing so, we
uphold the best of American democratic principles. |
|
|
|
“We are
concerned that recent examples of classroom and on-campus debate have crossed
the line into intimidation and hatred, neither of which have any place on
University campuses. |
|
|
|
“In the
past five months, students who are Jewish or supporters of Israel’s [sic.]
right to exist—Zionism—have received death threats and threats of
violence. Property connected to Jewish
organizations has been defaced or destroyed.
Posters and websites displaying libelous information or images have
been widely circulated, creating an atmosphere of intimidation. |
|
|
|
“These
practices and others, directed against any person, group or cause, will not
be tolerated on campuses. All
instances will be investigated and acted upon so that the campus will remain
devoted to ideas based on rational consideration. |
|
|
|
“We
call on the American public and all members of the academic community to join
us.” |
|
|
|
Signed
Myles Brand, Indiana University.
Sponsored by “The American Jewish Committee.” |
|
|
|
Brand Lends Indiana University’s Name to a
Jewish Supremacist Organization |
|
|
|
The American Jewish Committee is
a “Jews first and always” organization.
The organization promotes the interests of Jews worldwide, always at
the expense of non-Jews. American Jewish
Committee activities helped set the stage for the Jewish Communist takeover
of Czarist Russia. For nearly a
century, the American Jewish Committee has done its best to downplay the role
Jews have played in Communism and its millions of murders and crimes against
humanity. The American Jewish
Committee has boasted of its success in altering Christian textbooks and
remolding layman-level Christianity so as to favor Jewish interests. The American Jewish Committee has conducted
a 75-year Jewish supremacy “education” program directed at all Americans by
making coordinated use of Jewish influence in newspapers, radio, television,
motion pictures, magazines, and literature.
The American Jewish Committee has been perhaps the longest and most
dedicated proponent of non-Christian and non-white immigration into the
U.S. The American Jewish Committee has
repeatedly proven it’s the friend of neither Christians nor a large majority
of Americans. (more) |
|
|
|
Brand’s pro-Jewish and
anti-Christian discrimination policies simply follow the Jewish practice of
putting fellow Jews at the front of the line and giving them supreme
protected status. This pro-Jew bias is
a consistent theme of the Jews’ Babylonian
Talmud. |
|
|
|
More On Brand’s Pro-Jewish Bias |
|
|
|
In addition, Brand has an Alpha Epsilon
Pi (Jewish fraternity) obligation (where Brand has Teich Award status) to his
fellow Jews: |
|
|
|
“Alpha
Epsilon Pi develops leadership for the future of the American Jewish
community. Tomorrow’s Jewish leaders
are in our chapters today. These are
the young men who must be counted upon to support Jewish causes and to
prepare to be one of tomorrow’s Jewish leaders, so that they may aid
themselves, their family, their community, and their people.” (more) |
|
|
|
Brand and Senior Indiana University Officials
Push Christian Teenager Out the Door |
|
|
|
As Brand was publicly promoting
“academic standards in the classroom” and “sound ideas” and an
“intimidation-free campus,” senior Indiana University officials including
Brand himself were privately intimidating and discriminating against a
16-year old Christian student at Indiana University. |
|
|
|
The young lady formally objected
to a small portion of the course work in English W131 Elementary
Composition. “This could have been
such a nice course,” she said in true dismay. Two deans (religions unknown) and Brand
have FORCED the student to chose either the degraded unsound, unnecessary,
intimidating course work or forgo the chance of earning a degree. (evidence) |
|
|
|
Brand’s Hypocrisy |
|
|
|
Brand’s purported claimed
allegiance to “academic standards” and “sound ideas” and an “intimidation-free
campus” were and are simply a fraud and a lie. Brand’s Jewish Statement was and is simply
a Jewish supremacist tactic and was never intended to benefit anyone other
than Jews and other Jew-favored groups, (temporarily favored). Anti-Christian offenses are tolerated as
normal at Brand’s Indiana University.
(evidence) |
|
|
|
Fraudulent “Pedagogical” Reasons for Offensive
Coursework |
|
|
|
Brand and senior officials
insist that for “pedagogical” reasons, the elementary composition course
requires dragging a 16-year old Christian youth through a worthless written
propaganda exercise involving fornication, homosexuality, and an
anti-Christian smear cleverly suggesting that King David was a beautiful
homosexual youth. For hundreds of
years before Brand, universities have taught English Composition without
realizing the purported “pedagogical” need for degraded condom and deviant
sex propaganda. (more) |
|
|
|
Perverted Sexual Mores |
|
|
|
Brand’s defense of Elementary
Composition’s totally unnecessary sex components may be a function of his
Jewish background. Jewish sexual mores
differ totally from Christian sexual mores.
For example, the Jewish Babylonian
Talmud (the main Jewish religious book) allows sexual relationships with
a girl less than three years and one day because her hymen according to the
Jewish rabbis purportedly grows back after a sex act and her virginity is
naturally restored. See The
Babylonian Talmud, Kethuboth, Volume 1, Soncino Press, 1936, p
54-58. (more) Or Brand may accept and defend Elementary
Composition’s sex components because of his personal home life. Brand’s second wife Peg Zeglin Brand is an
adjunct professor at Indiana University in the “Gender Studies”
Department. Her specialties are
Sexuality and Feminist Art. (more) Professor
Brand co-taught an |
|
|
|
Brand’s Jewish religion and personal
proclivities…whatever they may be…do not provide an institutional
justification for his destruction of a Christian Young Lady’s academic
career. |
|
|
|
Nineteen Counts of Anti-Christian Religious
Discrimination Against the Christian Young Lady at Brand’s Indiana University |
|
|
|
The anti-Christian
discrimination and intimidation acts taken against the 16-year old Christian
student by Brand and his senior Indiana University officials include: |
|
|
|
Count One. |
|
|
|
During Brand’s tenure, Indiana University (Bloomington) Department of English and Indiana University School of Continuing Studies created a “religious test” as a component of the course English W131 Elementary Composition. This religious test is the requirement that a Christian Young Lady be forced to subject herself to certain intimidating course work requiring the analysis of a propagandistic Jewish magazine article dealing with fornication and homosexuality. (more) |
|
|
|
This degrading article…degrading to Christian sensibilities…is not uniquely necessary for the course and serves only to force a Christian Young Lady to wallow in an exercise that is abhorrent to her sincerely held religious faith. |
|
|
|
Count Two. |
|
|
|
Associate Dean Lawrence Onesti (religion unknown) of Indiana University’s School of Continuing Studies refused to consider a religious based non-discrimination request for a substitute article. Dean Onesti wrote: “Since there’s no compulsion on the part of the University [for a Christian Young Lady to take a course or pursue a degree at Indiana University], there is no need to analyze whether an exemption on religious grounds would be appropriate.” (see Evidence) |
|
|
|
[Please note: an “exemption” was never requested, a substitute article was requested.] |
|
|
|
Count Three. |
|
|
|
Associate Dean Onesti of Indiana University’s School of Continuing Studies refused to allow a substitute article and instead gave the victim, the Christian Young Lady, only one “option.” This option was simply for her to make her exit by withdrawing from the course. |
|
|
|
Dean Onesti was fully aware that the victim’s withdrawal from the course would make it impossible for the Christian Young Lady to earn the desired Bachelor’s degree at Indiana University. |
|
|
|
Dean Onesti’s proposal was an outright revocation by a senior Indiana University official of the Christian Young Lady’s opportunity to earn a degree at Indiana University for no reason other than her desire to adhere to her Christian faith. |
|
|
|
Count Four. |
|
|
|
Department Chair Stephen Watt (religion unknown) of the Indiana University Department of English, Bloomington, abdicated his clear responsibility as Department Chair to intervene in the matter when he was requested to do so. |
|
|
|
Count Five. |
|
|
|
Dean Jeremy Dunning (religion unknown) of Indiana University’s School of Continuing Studies after “careful investigation” and “careful consideration” of the matter also refused to allow a substitute article and instead also gave the victim, the Christian Young Lady, the sole “option.” Again, this only option was for her to make her exit by withdrawing from the course (and thus the potential of a degree). |
|
|
|
As with Dean Onesti, Dean Dunning was fully aware that the victim’s withdrawal from the course would make it impossible for the Christian Young Lady to earn the desired Bachelor’s degree at Indiana University. |
|
|
|
Dean Dunning’s concurrence with Associate Dean Onesti’s proposal was an outright revocation by a second senior Indiana University official of the Christian Young Lady’s opportunity to receive a degree at Indiana University for no reason other than her desire to adhere to her Christian faith. |
|
|
|
[Both Onesti and Dunning hold faculty positions in the Geology department. They’ve personally shared a close long-term professional relationship. Together, they co-authored at least one book, one educational CD, and one journal article. Dunning’s decision was not the decision of an unbiased University official. His act was intentional collusion with his close personal friend’s improper conduct. Brand and Dunning failed to exhibit any integrity by revealing Dunning’s conflict of interest relationship with Onesti. Instead Brand and Dunning chose to conceal Dunning’s conflict of interest in all aspects of this matter.] |
|
|
|
Count Six. |
|
|
|
Dean Dunning, the Dean of the Indiana University School of Continuing Studies, added additional intimidation to this religious discrimination matter. Dean Dunning added a closing “P.S.” to his “drop out” email (in which he denied the Christian Young Lady the opportunity to earn a Bachelor’s degree through the Indiana University School of Continuing Studies). Dean Dunning ended his email with a promotion of the exact program that he just denied to the Christian Young Lady! |
|
|
|
Dean Dunning ended his email with: “Now available: IU’s first online bachelor’s degree! Visit the School of Continuing Studies Website for details: http://scs.Indiana.edu” |
|
|
|
Count Seven. |
|
|
|
Indiana University imposed a financial penalty on the Christian Young Lady in response to a request for a simple religious accommodation based upon sincerely held religious beliefs. |
|
|
|
Both Dean Onesti and Dean Dunning in their emails gave the totally unexpected and unreasonable “drop out” decree when the “religious test” aspect of the course was identified and a simple religious accommodation was requested. Both Deans were clear to point out that Indiana University would charge a “withdrawal processing fee” if the course was in fact dropped. They did not state the amount of the fee, but the Indiana University School of Continuing Studies Student Handbook indicates that the penalty, in the circumstances, may be as high as the entire course fee! (The total cost of the course including all additional fees was $502.15.) |
|
|
|
No matter what the amount, Dean Onesti’s and Dean Dunning’s financial penalty (“withdrawal processing fee”) in circumstances directly related to sincerely held Christian beliefs is a blatant act of anti-Christian intimidation and discrimination by Deans Onesti and Dunning. (more) |
|
|
|
Count Eight. |
|
|
|
Indiana University illegally penalizes a Christian Young Lady with a reduced grade in English W131 Elementary Composition. |
|
|
|
The refusal of Dean Onesti and Dean Dunning to allow a substitute article creates the religious disability for the Christian Young Lady of having to take a “zero” for 9.5% of the course grade (should she decide to continue at Indiana University by continuing with the course subject to a reduced grade). It also denies her the benefit of instructor comments on the initial course work…that in turn will adversely impact her performance in the remainder of the English Composition course …and in other courses for which the English Composition course is a prerequisite. |
|
|
|
The net result is that because Indiana University refuses to even consider making a simple accommodation to a Christian Young Lady in a matter involving her Christian faith, the Christian Young Lady must accept a penalty of at least one full grade in English W131 Elementary Composition in order for her to continue towards earning the desired Bachelor’s degree at Indiana University. |
|
|
|
Count Nine. |
|
|
|
Indiana University has a blatantly discriminatory Discrimination “Complaint Procedure.” |
|
|
|
Indiana University’s “Nondiscrimination Policy” states: “Indiana University prohibits discrimination based on arbitrary considerations of such characteristics as age, color, disability, ethnicity, gender, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, or veteran status.” |
|
|
|
Indiana University then immediately turns around, vaporizes its “Nondiscrimination Policy,” and selects the Indiana University Affirmative Action Hearing Board Panel based on blatant, carved-in-stone intentional color, ethnic, gender, national origin, race, and (indirectly) sexual orientation classifications. Specifically, advocates of particular favored groups are granted the permanent right to appoint 43% of the members of the Affirmative Action Hearing Board Panel. These group advocates being the Dean of Afro-American Affairs, the Dean of Latino Affairs, and the Dean for Women’s Affairs. |
|
|
|
Indiana University violated its own Nondiscrimination Policy in order to create a demographically rigged Affirmative Action Hearing Board Panel. |
|
|
|
This overt institutionalized discrimination has created a hostile environment for the Christian Young Lady. The fairness of the Indiana University Formal Discrimination Complaint Procedure (evidence) is questioned to the extent that the Christian Young Lady cannot avail herself of this purported Discrimination Complaint Procedure. She is thus denied another of the benefits of Indiana University. |
|
|
|
This overt institutionalized discrimination by Indiana University in the selection procedure for its Affirmative Action Hearing Board Panel is an act of intimidation and discrimination against non-privileged group members, specifically including the Christian Young Lady. |
|
|
|
Count Ten. |
|
|
|
University President Myles Brand signed a “Statement” entitled “College Presidents Decry Intimidation on Campuses,” a Statement that the vast majority of college Presidents refused to endorse. |
|
|
|
This Statement endorsed by President Brand was made in partnership with The American Jewish Committee, a controversial Jewish supremacist organization. (more) |
|
|
|
The fact that President Brand went out of his way to endorse and lend the Indiana University name to a blatantly biased Jewish Supremacist Statement rather than a group-neutral Statement is itself an act of intimidation. It serves to create a hostile environment for those not willing to constantly submit to the continuously escalating demands of the less-than-3% Jewish minority. |
|
|
|
Indiana University President Brand’s Jewish Statement coming at the time of Indiana University’s anti-Christian discrimination against the Christian Young Lady is a specific act of intimidation against the Christian Young Lady since it creates a hostile environment in which the Jewish religion, and only the Jewish religion, is made to appear worth more at Indiana University than all other religions. |
|
|
|
Count Eleven. |
|
|
|
University President Brand responding for himself, Charlie Nelms (the Indiana University Vice President for Student Development and Diversity, religion unknown), and Kim Walker (Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, religion unknown), stated that he had “reviewed the entire course of communications and the resultant analysis” including the first ten counts above. Brand purposefully refused to address the issue of the “religious test” nature of the fornication/homosexual component of English W131. Brand thereby endorsed and left stand the “religious test” that was the reason for the original request for a minor accommodation based upon sincerely held Christian beliefs. |
|
|
|
Count Twelve. |
|
|
|
President Brand responding for himself, Vice President Nelms, and Associate Dean Walker, endorsed the policy of Deans Dunning and Onesti that refused to EVEN CONSIDER a religious based non-discrimination request for a substitute article, “Since there’s no compulsion on the part of the University [for a Christian Young Lady to take a course or pursue a degree at Indiana University], there is no need to analyze whether an exemption on religious grounds would be appropriate.” |
|
|
|
President Brand’s concurrence with Dean Dunning’s and Associate Dean Onesti’s refusal to even consider a Christian’s request for a minor religious accommodation added three more senior Indiana University officials to the group taking the position that Christian religious accommodation requests need not even be heard since Christians are not compelled to take courses or earn degrees at Indiana University. |
|
|
|
Count Thirteen. |
|
|
|
President Brand responding for himself, Vice President Nelms, and Associate Dean Walker, endorsed the policy of Deans Dunning and Onesti that refused to allow a substitute article and instead gave the victim, the Christian Young Lady, the sole “option.” Again, this only option was for her to make her exit by withdrawing from the course (and thus the potential of a degree). |
|
|
|
As with Dean Onesti and Dean Dunning, President Brand was fully aware that the victim’s withdrawal from the course would make it impossible for the Christian Young Lady to earn the desired Bachelor’s degree at Indiana University. |
|
|
|
President Brand’s concurrence with Dean Dunning’s and Associate Dean Onesti’s proposal was an outright revocation by a third, a fourth, and a fifth senior Indiana University official of the Christian Young Lady’s opportunity to earn a degree at Indiana University for no reason other than her desire to adhere to her Christian faith. |
|
|
|
Count Fourteen. |
|
|
|
President Brand responding for himself, Vice President Nelms, and Associate Dean Walker, completely failed to address the complaint that Department Chair Stephen Watt of the Indiana University Department of English, Bloomington, abdicated his clear responsibility as Department Chair to intervene in the matter when he was requested to do so. |
|
|
|
Count Fifteen. |
|
|
|
President Brand responding for himself, Vice President Nelms, and Associate Dean Walker, endorsed and left stand the Dunning/Onesti policy allowing Indiana University to financially penalize the Christian Young Lady in response to a request for a simple religious accommodation based upon sincerely held religious beliefs. |
|
|
|
Count Sixteen. |
|
|
|
President Brand responding for himself, Vice President Nelms, and Associate Dean Walker, endorsed and left stand the Indiana University policy that illegally penalizes a Christian Young Lady with a reduced grade in English W131 (should she continue with the course in an attempt to continue towards a degree at Indiana University). |
|
|
|
Count Seventeen. |
|
|
|
President Brand responding for himself, Vice President Nelms, and Associate Dean Walker, refused to address the religious intimidation and discrimination complaint that Indiana University has a blatantly discriminatory Discrimination “Complaint Procedure”…that Indiana University has a purposefully demographically rigged Affirmative Action Hearing Board Panel…and that this overt institutionalized discrimination has created a hostile environment for the Christian Young Lady…thereby denying the Christian Young Lady another of the benefits of Indiana University. |
|
|
|
Count Eighteen. |
|
|
|
President Brand responding for himself, Vice President Nelms, and Associate Dean Walker, refused to address the religious intimidation and discrimination complaint that President Brand himself has personally created a hostile environment for the Christian Young Lady by his endorsement, in his capacity as President of Indiana University, of the biased Jewish supremacist statement of the Jewish supremacist American Jewish Committee. |
|
|
|
Brand’s failure to investigate
and act upon this complaint puts the lie to his endorsement of the
statement: “These
practices and others, directed against any person, group or cause, will not
be tolerated on campuses. All
instances will be investigated and acted upon so that the campus will remain
devoted to ideas based on rational consideration.” |
|
|
|
Count
Nineteen. |
|
|
|
University
Trustee Cora Breckenridge publicly called for all Chancellor positions at
Indiana University to be filled by individuals meeting official race and religion
qualifications. Trustee Breckenridge
is publicly insisting that only non-White or non-Christian persons be
eligible to hold any of the eight Chancellor positions in the Indiana
University system. |
|
|
|
No
action, censure, or penalty was taken against this high ranking Indiana
University official who publicly advocates blatantly violating Federal Law,
State Law, published Indiana University policy, and the numerous statements
made by Indiana University officials such as Myles Brand, Gerald Bepko (religion
unknown), Sharon Brehm (Roman Catholic), and Charlie Nelms whereby they claim
that Indiana University is a discrimination-free University. |
|
|
|
(Contrast
Trustee Breckenridge’s call for defying the law by institutionalizing massive
racial and religious discrimination with Robert Knight petty “offenses” that
Brand used to end Knight’s illustrious 29-year career.) |
|
|
|
This
University Trustee’s uncensored blatant call for outright racial and
religious discrimination against 70% of the U.S. population further establishes
the hostile environment for those not fitting Indiana University’s preferred
racial and religious profiles as established during Brand’s tenure. Trustee Breckenridge’s public statement
coming at the time of Indiana University’s anti-Christian discrimination
against the Christian Young Lady is a specific act of intimidation against
the Christian Young Lady since it creates a hostile environment in which a
White Christian student is once again made to appear worth less at Indiana
University than a Black, Latino, Asian, Jewish, or Islamic student. (more) |
|
|
|
Conclusion |
|
|
|
The Myles Brand policies that deprive
a decent and innocent 16-year old Christian girl of a fair chance at a
University degree are reprehensible.
This young American citizen had already paid the full fees and was
enrolled in the course. She is not an
illegal alien asking for an additional free ride. She’s an honest, decent, hardworking
American teenager whose only crime was that she was the wrong race and the
wrong religion as far as the Myles Brands of the world are concerned. |
|
|
|
Brand’s legacy of racial and religious bias, discrimination,
bigotry, injustice and intolerance is disgraceful. No decent human
being can justify or defend Brand’s anti-Christian actions. |
|
|
|
Go back to your “cunt” art,
Myles Brand! Your “academic standards”
are a fraud. |
|
|
|
All the 16-year
old Christian Young Lady wanted was a fair chance |
|
to
continue working toward a degree at Indiana University |
|
without
having to compromise her Christian Faith.… |
|
but
Jewish President Myles Brand |
|
and his
senior Indiana University officials |
|
would
not tolerate this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
