Misconduct.org

 

Disclaimer

 

Anti-Christian Discrimination

At Indiana University

 

A Comparative Analysis

of

The Standards That Robert Knight Violated

(That Myles Brand Used to “Justify”

Ending Robert Knight’s Coaching Career)

 

vs.

 

The Standards That Myles Brand Violated

(In Ending the Young Christian Student’s Academic Career)

 

Part Two

 

 

 

 

Brand’s Victimization of the 16-Year Old Christian Young Lady

 

You’ve analyzed the Standards that Robert Knight purportedly violated and that were used to “justify” Myles Brand’s firing of Knight.  (Part One)

 

Now, examine the Standards that Brand and other senior Indiana University officials violated in their destroying the academic career of the 16-year old Christian student at Indiana University…

 

Indiana University’s controversial Jewish President Myles Brand has personally confirmed that Indiana University’s policy is:

 

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.

 

Indiana University’s policy is directed against 16-year old Indiana University student Christine LeVin.  LeVin has completed 7 credits at Indiana University and is currently enrolled in a full 16-credit course load.  Should LeVin fail to take the particular core requirement course, she’ll be unable to meet the degree requirements.  Brand’s action is simply the unilateral, heartless and apparently illegal destruction of the Christian Young Lady’s academic career.

 

 

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.

 

The matter arose when the Christian Young Lady discovered obnoxious course matter in English W131 Elementary Composition.  The course required the student to analyze a Jewish magazine article that dealt with fornication and homosexuality…and then to share her analysis of this offensive material with a total stranger (a male).  (more)

 

She found this assignment to be highly offensive to her Christian sensibilities.  Her father, on her behalf, carefully detailed why the assignment was offensive and requested a substitute article.  He stated that the assignment rose to the level of a “religious test” since it represented a clear anti-Christian obstacle to the student’s participation in the course.  (evidence)

 

An Associate Dean responded by stating that the request for a substitute article WOULD NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED because a Christian is not required to take courses or earn a degree at Indiana University.  He said the University’s solution was for the student to withdraw from the course.  He added that the full course fee would NOT be refunded.  (He did not indicate what amount…if any…would be refunded.)  (more)

 

A cavalcade of anti-Christian hostility, intimidation, and discrimination followed with University President Myles Brand personally adding to the anti-Christian religious discrimination and intimidation and confirming that the anti-Christian actions are official Indiana University policy.  (evidence)

 

The actions of Brand and the other senior Indiana University officials were and are direct violations of Federal Law, Indiana State Law, official published Indiana University policy, and a long list of published and publicized official Indiana University representations.

 

Use of the Words “Violation” and “Violate”

 

Important note:  No Federal or Indiana State Court or Regulatory Authority has ruled on any actions listed here.  When the words “violation” and “violated” are used here, the reader must understand that the meaning is “a reasonable allegation of violation” and not a final decree of a formal court or regulatory agency.

 

Brand’s and Others’ Violations of Published Federal Law

 

Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964…Title IX of the Educational Amendment of 1972 to the Civil Rights Act of 1964…and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 all address the prohibition of religious discrimination by institutions receiving Federal funds and by the employees of such institutions.

 

Brand and senior Indiana University officials can reasonably be considered to have violated the above Federal Laws as follows:

 
  1. The Department of English Bloomington and the School of Continuing Studies violated Federal Law by incorporating an anti-Christian “religious test” in English W131 Elementary Composition.

 
  1. English Department Chair Stephen Watt violated Federal Law by failing to remove the anti-Christian religious test for the particular student when requested to do so.

 
  1. Associate Dean Lawrence Onesti violated Federal Law by refusing to remove the anti-Christian religious test for the particular student when requested to do so.

 
  1. Dean Jeremy Dunning violated Federal Law by refusing to remove the anti-Christian religious test for the particular student when requested to do so.

 
  1. Associate Dean Kim Walker violated Federal Law by failing to remove the anti-Christian religious test for the particular student when requested to do so.

 
  1. Vice President Charlie Nelms violated Federal Law by failing to remove the anti-Christian religious test for the particular student when requested to do so.

 
  1. President Myles Brand violated Federal Law by refusing to remove the anti-Christian religious test for the particular student when requested to do so.

 
  1. Dean Onesti violated Federal Law by outright refusing to even consider a sincere religious-based request for a substitute article to replace the offensive “religious test” coursework for the particular student.

 
  1. Dean Dunning violated Federal Law by accepting Dean Onesti’s outright refusal to even consider a sincere religious-based request.

 
  1. Dean Walker violated Federal Law by allowing President Brand to accept (on her behalf) Dean Onesti’s outright refusal to even consider a sincere religious-based request.

 
  1. Vice President Nelms violated Federal Law by allowing President Brand to accept (on his behalf) Dean Onesti’s outright refusal to even consider a sincere religious-based request.

 
  1. President Brand violated Federal Law by accepting Dean Onesti’s outright refusal to even consider a sincere religious-based request.

 
  1. Dean Onesti violated Federal Law by stating that a Christian’s religious-based request need not even be considered because a Christian is not “required in any way to pursue either course or degree requirements through the Indiana University School of Continuing Studies.”

 
  1. Dean Dunning violated Federal Law by accepting Dean Onesti’s anti-Christian justification for refusing to even consider the sincere religious-based request.

 
  1. Dean Walker violated Federal Law by allowing President Brand to accept (on her behalf) Dean Onesti’s anti-Christian justification for refusing to even consider the sincere religious-based request.

 
  1. Vice President Nelms violated Federal Law by allowing President Brand to accept (on his behalf) Dean Onesti’s anti-Christian justification for refusing to even consider the sincere religious-based request.

 
  1. President Brand violated Federal Law by accepting and confirming Dean Onesti’s anti-Christian justification for refusing to even consider the sincere religious-based request.

 
  1. Dean Onesti violated Federal Law by stating the University’s “solution” for a Christian who objects to a “religious test” component in coursework is for the student to withdraw from the course.

 
  1. Dean Dunning violated Federal Law by confirming that the University’s “solution” for a Christian who objects to a “religious test” component in coursework is for the student to withdraw from the course.

 
  1. Dean Walker violated Federal Law by allowing President Brand to confirm (on her behalf) that the official University policy for a Christian who objects to a “religious test” component in coursework is for the student to withdraw from the course.

 
  1. Vice President Nelms violated Federal Law by allowing President Brand to confirm (on his behalf) that the official University policy for a Christian who objects to a “religious test” component in coursework is for the student to withdraw from the course.

 
  1. President Brand violated Federal Law by confirming that the official University policy for a Christian who objects to a “religious test” component in coursework is for the student to withdraw from the course.

 
  1. Dean Onesti violated Federal Law by stating the University’s “solution” for a Christian who objects to a “religious test” component in coursework is for the student to withdraw from the course when he was fully aware that this meant the Christian was being blocked from earning the desired degree.

 
  1. Dean Dunning violated Federal Law by confirming that the University’s “solution” for a Christian who objects to a “religious test” component in coursework is for the student to withdraw from the course when he was fully aware that this meant the Christian was being blocked from earning the desired degree.

 
  1. Dean Walker violated Federal Law by allowing President Brand to confirm (on her behalf) that the official University policy for a Christian who objects to a “religious test” component in coursework is for the student to withdraw from the course when she was fully aware that this meant the Christian was being blocked from earning the desired degree.

 
  1. Vice President Nelms violated Federal Law by allowing President Brand to confirm (on his behalf) that the official University policy for a Christian who objects to a “religious test” component in coursework is for the student to withdraw from the course when he was fully aware that this meant the Christian was being blocked from earning the desired degree.

 
  1. President Brand violated Federal Law by confirming that the official University policy for a Christian who objects to a “religious test” component in coursework is for the student to withdraw from the course when he was fully aware that this meant the Christian was being blocked from earning the desired degree.

 
  1. Dean Onesti violated Federal Law by stating the University’s “solution” for a Christian who objects to a “religious test” component in coursework includes the levying of a financial penalty on the Christian student.

 
  1. Dean Dunning violated Federal Law by confirming that the University’s “solution” for a Christian who objects to a “religious test” component in coursework includes the levying of a financial penalty on the Christian student.

 
  1. Dean Walker violated Federal Law by allowing President Brand to confirm (on her behalf) that the official University policy for a Christian who objects to a “religious test” component in coursework includes the levying of a financial penalty on the Christian student.

 
  1. Vice President Nelms violated Federal Law by allowing President Brand to confirm (on his behalf) that the official University policy for a Christian who objects to a “religious test” component in coursework includes the levying of a financial penalty on the Christian student.

 
  1. President Brand violated Federal Law by confirming that the official University policy for a Christian who objects to a “religious test” component in coursework includes the levying of a financial penalty on the Christian student.

 
  1. Dean Onesti violated Federal Law by forcing the Christian Young Lady victimized by the “religious test” component to suffer the religious disability of a reduced course grade and the lost benefit of instructor comments should she attempt to continue working toward a degree in the anti-Christian discriminatory circumstances created by himself and other University officials.

 
  1. Dean Dunning violated Federal Law by forcing the Christian Young Lady victimized by the “religious test” component to suffer the religious disability of a reduced course grade and the lost benefit of instructor comments should she attempt to continue working toward a degree in the anti-Christian discriminatory circumstances created by himself and other University officials.

 
  1. Dean Walker violated Federal Law by allowing President Brand to confirm (on her behalf) that the official University policy forces the Christian Young Lady victimized by the “religious test” component to suffer the religious disability of a reduced course grade and the lost benefit of instructor comments should she attempt to continue working toward a degree in the anti-Christian discriminatory circumstances allowed by herself and other University officials.

 
  1. Vice President Nelms violated Federal Law by allowing President Brand to confirm (on his behalf) that the official University policy forces the Christian Young Lady victimized by the “religious test” component to suffer the religious disability of a reduced course grade and the lost benefit of instructor comments should she attempt to continue working toward a degree in the anti-Christian discriminatory circumstances allowed by himself and other University officials.

 
  1. President Brand violated Federal Law by confirming that the official University policy forces the Christian Young Lady victimized by the “religious test” component to suffer the religious disability of a reduced course grade and the lost benefit of instructor comments should she attempt to continue working toward a degree in the anti-Christian discriminatory circumstances created by himself and other University officials.

 
  1. Dean Walker violated Federal Law by failing to address the formal complaint that the 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.

 
  1. Vice President Nelms violated Federal Law by failing to address the formal complaint that the 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.

 
  1. President Brand violated Federal Law by refusing to address the formal complaint that the 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.

 
  1. Dean Walker violated Federal Law by failing to address the formal complaint that Indiana University’s overt institutionalized discrimination in the selection procedure for its Affirmative Action Hearing Board Panel made it impossible for the Christian Young Lady to accept that the Panel would be impartial…causing her to be denied the benefit of its intended services.

 
  1. Vice President Nelms violated Federal Law by failing to address the formal complaint that Indiana University’s overt institutionalized discrimination in the selection procedure for its Affirmative Action Hearing Board Panel made it impossible for the Christian Young Lady to accept that the Panel would be impartial…causing her to be denied the benefit of its intended services.

 
  1. President Brand violated Federal Law by refusing to address the formal complaint that Indiana University’s overt institutionalized discrimination in the selection procedure for its Affirmative Action Hearing Board Panel made it impossible for the Christian Young Lady to accept that the Panel would be impartial…causing her to be denied the benefit of its intended services.

 
  1. President Brand violated Federal Law by creating a hostile and intimidating environment at Indiana University for the Christian Young Lady by lending Indiana University’s name to a Jewish supremacist organization’s Public Statement which made the Jewish religion, and only the Jewish religion, to appear worth more at Indiana University than all other religions.  (more)

 
  1. Dean Walker violated Federal Law by failing to address the formal complaint that President Brand created a hostile environment at Indiana University for the Christian Young Lady by lending Indiana University’s name to a Jewish supremacist organization’s Public Statement which made the Jewish religion, and only the Jewish religion, appear to be worth more at Indiana University than all other religions.

 
  1. Vice President Nelms violated Federal Law by failing to address the formal complaint that President Brand created a hostile environment at Indiana University for the Christian Young Lady by lending Indiana University’s name to a Jewish supremacist organization’s Public Statement which made the Jewish religion, and only the Jewish religion, appear to be worth more at Indiana University than all other religions.

 
  1. President Brand violated Federal Law by refusing to address the formal complaint that he created a hostile environment at Indiana University for the Christian Young Lady by lending Indiana University’s name to a Jewish supremacist organization’s Public Statement which made the Jewish religion, and only the Jewish religion, appear to be worth more at Indiana University than all other religions.

 

All of the above apparent violations of published Federal Law were premeditated and intentional acts.

 

Brand’s and Others’ Violations of Published Indiana State Law

 

The Indiana Civil Rights Act of 1971 prohibits religious discrimination by educational institutions.

 

Brand and senior Indiana University officials can reasonably be considered to have violated the above Indiana State Law as follows:

 

The 47 violations of Federal Law discussed above are equally violations of Indiana State Law and are incorporated here.

 

All of the above apparent violations of published Indiana State Law were premeditated and intentional acts.

 

Brand’s and Others’ Violations of Official Published Indiana University Policy

 

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.”

 

Brand and senior Indiana University officials can reasonably be considered to have violated the above Official Indiana University Policy as follows:

 

The 47 violations of Federal Law discussed above are equally violations of Indiana University’s published “Nondiscrimination Policy” and are incorporated here.

 

All of the apparent violations of published official Indiana University policy listed above were premeditated and intentional acts.

 

Brand’s and Others’ Violations of Nationally Publicized Public Statements and Official Published Indiana University Representations

 

Brand defied, violated, and broke various nationally publicized public statements made by himself.

 

Brand defied, violated, and broke a nationally publicized public statement made by John Walda, (former) President of the Indiana University Trustees.

 

Brand defied, violated, and broke various official Indiana University representations made by himself, Charlie Nelms, Sharon S. Brehm, Gerald L. Bepko, and Kim Walker.

 

Brand on behalf of Nelms and Walker defied, violated, and broke various nationally publicized public statements made by Brand and Walda.

 

Brand on behalf of Nelms defied, violated, and broke various official Indiana University representations made by Nelms, Brand, Brehm, Bepko, and Walker.

 

Brand on behalf of Walker defied, violated, and broke various official Indiana University representations made by Walker, Brand, Nelms, Brehm, and Bepko.

 

Dunning, Onesti, Watt, and Breckenridge all defied, violated, and broke various nationally publicized public statements made by Brand and Walda.

 

Dunning, Onesti, Watt, and Breckenridge all defied, violated, and broke various official Indiana University representations made by Brand, Nelms, Brehm, Bepko, and Walker.

 

Here’s a sampling of nationally publicized public statements and official Indiana University representations:

 

“I want our new freshmen—and their parents—to know that besides your family and friends, the entire university community stands behind you…They are caring, and they are compassionate.  Individually, and as a group, we will all reach out a hand to help you find your way.  We will help you open the many doors in this house of possibility, but it is up to you to walk through them.”  Myles Brand1, Indiana University President

 

“We do want each of you to succeed.  We know you can do it, and we are here to help you.  Friends and advisors are everywhere, including the president’s office.  I often hold open hours, and you can e-mail me directly.  The address is pres@Indiana.edu.”  Myles Brand1

 

“We expect character.  We expect you to uphold the highest values of this community—values of honesty and hard work, self-discipline, and an intense devotion to learning that embraces all that is best about who and what we do.”  Myles Brand1

 

“You are in college to meet new people, some of whose creeds and cultures are vastly different from you own.  You hail from different climates, worship in different churches…these factors have made you who you are…treat each other with kindness and respect.”  Myles Brand1

 

“I would like to congratulate those parents…who helped our freshmen develop the qualities that will enable them to thrive at IU.  I know that this is a historic moment for each of the families here today, one that has required hard work and in many cases, significant sacrifice.”  Myles Brand1

 

“While we will strongly protect academic freedom and First Amendment rights on our campuses, harassment and ethnic hatred directed toward any of our students will not be tolerated.”  Myles Brand2

 

“Those who do scapegoat members of any ethnic or religious group will, in their own small and petty way, only be furthering the cause of those who attack this country in hopes of undermining what makes our society strong.”  Myles Brand2

 

“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.”  Myles Brand3

 

“Our classrooms will be open to all students, and classroom discussions must be based on sound ideas…We will take steps to uphold these standards.”  Myles Brand3 

 

“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.”  Myles Brand3

 

“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.”  Myles Brand3

 

“We understand the feelings of students who were deeply offended by the advertisement [which argued against forcing taxpayers to give Blacks money for ‘reparations for slavery’].  They have every right—indeed, they have a responsibility...to express their opinions…”  Myles Brand4

 

“Indiana University long has been committed to efforts to recruit and retain a diverse student body, faculty and staff.  The university is just as determined to maintain a climate that is respectful to and supportive of all our students.”  Myles Brand4

 

“We must make an absolute commitment to the academic mission and integrity of the university.”  Myles Brand5

 

“To promote academic excellence, colleges and universities must maintain a safe and sane learning environment.”  Myles Brand6  [So why desensitize students to destructive personal behavior such as fornication and perverted sex by having offensive required coursework that conditions the students to embrace such behavior as acceptable and normal?]

 

“It is the job of every trustee to advance, protect, and preserve an atmosphere in which the pursuit of knowledge and truth, and the transfer of its value to the next generation, takes precedence over all else.  We are responsible to the public for doing that job correctly.”  John Walda7, President of the Indiana University Board of Trustees (at the time of the Knight firing)

 

“The institution’s core values [include] respect for diversity of opinion…”  John Walda7

 

“[Each] trustee should be familiar with the personnel policies and issues within…departments.  Do the people who work with our [students] respect the values of the institution?  Are they supporting academic rigor?  How are [students] doing academically?  How many graduate…?”  John Walda7

 

“What alarmed me most was that this lack of respect for our core values was, in some instances, being passed on…”  John Walda7

 

“Unacceptable behavior…was allowed to take place without reprimand.”  John Walda7

 

“Is it any wonder we hear about…dismal graduation rates…?”  John Walda7

 

“At Indiana University, diversity is more than a symbolic gesture.  We value and embrace people from all walks of life and are committed to the academic success of each student.”  Charlie Nelms8, Vice President, Indiana University

 

“Civility, tolerance, and respect for differences are regarded as crucial for both personal development and rigorous intellectual activity.”  Sharon S. Brehm9, Chancellor, Indiana University

 

“The Chancellor invites each student to make the Indiana Promise…I promise that…I will take personal responsibility for what I say and what I do, I will respect the dignity of others, treating them with civility and understanding.”  Sharon S. Brehm10

 

“We have dedicated ourselves to creating an environment where individuals can succeed because each person is important.  When any one of our members is prevented from doing her or his best, the entire community is diminished.”  Gerald L. Bepko11, Interim President, Indiana University

 

“We are also an institution of higher learning.  Our institutional ethic compels us to foster the best possible environment for doing our work as educators, learners, and supporters of the educational process.”  Gerald L. Bepko11

 

“When there are messages displayed that promote divisiveness in our academic community, we have an obligation to condemn those messages as being antithetical to our university ideals and sense of shared responsibility for each other’s welfare.”  Gerald L. Bepko11

 

“If we are to be true to our commitment to diversity and be welcoming to all, everyone must do his or her part.”  Gerald L. Bepko11

 

“When apathy leads us to permit discrimination or harassment because we ourselves are not objects of such behavior, we have failed our community.”  Gerald L. Bepko11

 

“We do have policies designed to eliminate discrimination and prevent harassment.  Our [purposefully racially and ethnically rigged] Office of Affirmative Action enforces these polices and assists in educating the campus community about acceptable and unacceptable behaviors.”  Gerald L. Bepko11

 

“I can assure you that Indiana University has approved principles and a policy to ensure freedom of religious observance throughout our increasingly diverse population.”  Kim Walker12, Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, Indiana University

 

For footnotes identifying the sources for the above quoted official, published Indiana University representations, (click here).

 

Brand and senior Indiana University officials violated the above public statements and official Indiana University representations as follows:

 

The 47 violations of Federal Law discussed above are equally violations of the nationally publicized public statements and official published Indiana University representations recited above and are incorporated here.

 

In addition to the 47 violations of Federal Law, there are two additional violations of the public statements and official Indiana University representations:

 
  1. Dean Dunning, the Dean of the Indiana University School of Continuing Studies, added additional intimidation to this religious discrimination matter by adding 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:  “Now available:  IU’s first online bachelor’s degree!  Visit the School of Continuing Studies Website for details:  http://scs.Indiana.edu”

 
  1. 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 public statements and official representations made by Indiana University officials.  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)

 

All of the violations of published and publicized official Indiana University representations listed above were premeditated and intentional acts.

 

Summary

 

In their various discrimination actions against the 16-year old Christian Young Lady, Myles Brand and the other Indiana University officials:

 
  • knowingly and intentionally repeatedly violated Federal law,
  • knowingly and intentionally repeatedly violated Indiana State law,
  • knowingly and intentionally repeatedly violated official written Indiana University policy,
  • knowingly and intentionally repeatedly violated a nationally publicized public statement signed by Indiana University’s President Myles Brand,
  • knowingly and intentionally repeatedly violated written representations made by Indiana University’s Trustees, President, and senior officials,
  • knowingly and intentionally repeatedly violated written statements or representations made by themselves (Brand, Nelms, and Walker),
  • knowingly and intentionally illegally denied to the Christian Young Lady the opportunity to continue taking advantage of her chosen Indiana University program,
  • knowingly and intentionally illegally denied to the Christian Young Lady the opportunity to continue working toward her chosen Indiana University degree, and
  • knowingly and intentionally illegally discriminated against the Christian Young Lady on the basis of race, ethnicity, and religion.

 

Conclusion

 

Indiana University’s controversial Jewish President Myles Brand personally confirmed that Indiana University’s policy is:

 

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.

 

For nothing…absolutely NOTHING…Indiana University’s Jewish bigot Myles Brand fired Robert Knight…Indiana University’s most famous faculty member who had dedicated his life to the University.

 

Solely because of her desire to adhere to her Christian faith, Indiana University’s Jewish bigot Myles Brand slammed Indiana University’s door in her face.

 

The true law violator Myles Brand has now moved up to the Presidency of the NCAA, and his fellow bigots continue to run the show at Indiana University.

 

Hang your heads in shame Indiana University.  Hang your heads in shame.  Your senior officials are liars, bigots, and frauds!  Shame on you!

 

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.