Talk:University of the Cumberlands

To make it Encyclopedic

As per the problem that Rlquall sets, I think this article would benefit from some more information about the college in general. The controversy can be warrented on this page if it recieved less emphasis. The problem that Rlquall shows is that the controversy is a recent scandal and has the feel of just news (see CNN's coverage on University of the Cumberlands). The solution to Rlquall's problem is expanding the history and other forms of information about the University so that the controversy is the only thing left. For example, Hampden-Sydney College has an article on Wikipedia, and the college has had issues with gay students, but the article does not focus on this. The article, instead, focuses on the schools history and gives facts before it talks about homosexual students.

Yes. Just like this one does. - Outerlimits 20:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University Policy Statement

I have reworded the statement that was made concerning the claim by the student involved in the April 8, 2006 controversy. According to the student, the policy on homosexual and pre-marital relations was not added to the university handbook until after his enrollment. While I can't speak with authority as to the policies after 1998, I can say that during the entire time I was a student at UC (I graduated in 1998), this policy was in effect and clearly stated in the student handbook. I felt that the students statements should be left in because that is what his attorney reported to the press but due to the first hand knowledge of the policies of the mid-90's it should be reworded. Dblevins2 16:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic?

Certainly there are many things that can be said about the expulsion of an openly gay student from a conservative Christian university. It can arguably be condemned as bigoted, narrow-minded, and discrimnatory. It can conversely be lauded as principled and a failure to bow before the winds of political correctness. All of this is POV-dependant. It can even be regarded as a local news story. But I don't know if it is encyclopedic. That a student would be expelled from a conservative school like this for being gay is not particularly surprising, nor would I say if put in a national, rather than local context, particularly rare. Does it really belong in what should be a NPOV encyclopedia article about the school? I won't do anything about it until there are several days to allow for discussion, if anyone has any. The only way that it can be encyclopedic in my opinion would be related to the subsequent dispute over public funding of the school of pharmacy. I don't really know about the stuff about the college president getting a faculty member removed over something supposedly said on a website is really encyclopedic, either. (Let's face it, that sort of petty stuff goes on at colleges all of the time.) Rlquall 15:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly it belongs. Also, you need to read the references provided regarding the inclusion of the pertinent policy in the student handbook: it's not simply an "allegation" by an interested party's lawyer, it was confirmed and reported in the reference cited. As Andrew Sullivan, writing for TIME, points out, intolerance is at the heart of this institution, so it clearly belongs in the discussion. The autocratic nature of the governance of the institution, in which the usual protections afforded to mployees and students of more enlightened institutions are lacking, and in which consultation with the faculty plays no role in the running of the institution, is also pertinent: most universities are not run as private fiefdoms of their presidents. - Outerlimits 20:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current Event

Due to the article giving more weight (page-space) to the current event than the university itself, I'd like to suggest that it be marked as such. Also, perhaps suggest that editors keep the page "on watch" for vandalism.

lilewyn 22:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC) (kylu and lilewyn, for gaia online ppl who brought this to my attn.)[reply]

Seems a bit excessive, as there's not likely to be a whole lot of new information developing, and as it has not attracted a single bit of vandalism whatsoever. Perhaps the big ugly tag could be removed until it's actually warranted? That is, unless you want to go ahead and list it as a current event, since the tag links there. - Outerlimits 22:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, I didn't actually want to add the tag myself, just suggest it. Looks like Jpers36 put it there originally and after the tag removal, Will Beback reverted it. Hehe, I'm not going anywhere near a revert. n.n

Anywho, anon user 68.255.241.26(Contributions) removed the "Current Events" tag as well as the entire "Controversy" section new window for this article

Granted, this was after your comment that the (imho) vandalism was performed, but I figured better safe than sorry, ne? :D

lilewyn 02:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We really don't stick such tags on things pre-emptively, and we don't stick such tags on every article that has had a single act of vandalism. Every article would be tagged! I understand your good intentions, but the tag doesn't belong here. - Outerlimits 03:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what tag did you mean specifically? I don't see the link between the current events tag and vandalism? I just suggested that people (who are interested, of course) keep the page on watch "just in case" something does happen. :(

lilewyn 04:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you that it's hard to see that the "Current Events" tag fulfills any useful purpose. And people can certainly watch articles without tagging them, no? As it is, since the article does not appear on Wikipedia's "current events" page, I'll remove the tag. - Outerlimits 05:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get what tag you are referring to as pertains to watching the page? In my mind, there was no direct link between the "Current Events" tag and just putting the page on your watchlist. I really hope that makes sense, it did when I thought it, but between the brain and fingers sometimes the intent gets lost, y'know? :D lilewyn 23:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't add the CE tag (it's back again) but mentioned it on the CE talk page. I don't know if current-event tagged articles have to be mentioned on the CE main page or not (considering the number of events that happen on the planet at any given time, I'd hope not) but I'll leave the decision to "really, truly" CE this article up to them. *shrug* Kylu t 17:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't understand what you think the tag is for. If this is a current event, it should be on the current events page. Since it isn't, we shouldn't have the tag, which does nothing for the reader or the article. - Outerlimits 04:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello : ) I think I can answer you question. The way we cover current events is seen as unencycopedic by some hard core encyclopedists. Using a current event tag is a compromise way of dealing with this concern. The current event tag alerts readers to the fact that the event is ongoing. This is important because in breaking news situations the first reported facts are sometimes incorrect. Over the course of weeks, months, and years a stable set of facts emerge. I hope this explains why many people use them on articles that are unstable from changing facts. FloNight ^talk 05:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we do it because we do it? I can see using the tag for a rapidly changing, breaking news story, but this isn't one of those. I very much doubt that Wikipedia is well served by keeping such tags on articles for weeks, months, and years! Since the tag links to the current events page, I would suggest that if this event isn't current enough or important enough to appear there, the tag shouldn't appear here. I see no signs of instability here, or of incorrect -or even uncited- facts! - Outerlimits 05:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outerlimits, I'm certainly not suggesting that the tag stay on for weeks or months. I gave a reasonable explanation for why the tag is used. I thought you wanted to know. I have no intention of debating the merits of the tag with you. If you have strong feeling against the tag, take it off. But don't be surprised if someone else puts it back on. Most people don't think of it as an eyesore the way you do. ; ) FloNight ^talk 06:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should I guess there's no actual policy for this kinda thing, then? (insert cute googley-eyed confused smiley here)

Kylu t 06:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Lifestyle"

Why wouldn't the current accreditation standards saying that persons can't be discriminated against in pharmacy education over "lifestyle" cover sexual orientation already? - This unsigned comment was posted by the user at IP:160.254.108.24

An additional complication is that the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education, the accrediting agency for all American pharmacy schools, explicitly prohibits discrimination against gays. Its current guideline states that approved schools must have a policy on student affairs, including admissions and progression, that assures non-discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, lifestyle, national origin, or disability. As of July 1, 2007, this will be revised to include the phrase "sexual orientation".

From what I read on it, the current accreditation council has both parts already covered, so until July 1, 2007, the point is moot. While challenge could be made for or against the phrase including sexual orientation after that point, at the moment there is zero leeway on the issue.

Since:

The restriction on homosexuality in the student handbook was not put in place until after the student was already admitted, and,
The accreditation council's restrictions currently state that there is not to be discrimination on the basis of homosexuality,

then the rules lawyer in me is of the opinion that the school has basically voluntarily removed itself from accreditation, and should not be allowed to accept further students into its pharmacy programs.

On the other hand, I work retail instead of being an educator, pharmacist, nor attorney of any stripe.

Kylu t 22:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we can't decide this on our own. If the relvant sources indicate the program is accredited then that is what we should write, even if there is reason to believe that it should not be accredited. -Will Beback 00:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]