Talk:University of the Cumberlands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Kentucky Portal University of the Cumberlands is within the scope of WikiProject Kentucky, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Kentucky and related subjects in the Wikipedia. Template Usage • Change Patrol • Articles Requested! • Become a Member • Project Talk
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.

	Portal This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Anabaptist work group. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 To make it Encyclopedic 2 University Policy Statement 3 Encyclopedic? 4 Current Event 5 "Lifestyle" 6 Robert Day introduction

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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.)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I appreciate your efforts, but yes, my question was about the applicability of the tag here rather than generally. The tag is quite useful, say, when the pope dies, and all of a sudden 200 people want to edit his article simultaneously. Used here, I think it's not useful, and worse, just wrong: it doesn't seem all that current, or subject to rapid change to me. But I'll try to abide the ugliness of the tag for as long as people find it useful. - Outerlimits 03:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Policy here is generally a statement of what people have actually done rather than what people should do. :) - Outerlimits 03:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny, it tends to work like that in the Real World sometimes, too. :D Kylu t 05:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "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)

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)

*squeak* Ack, I was chatting generally, not making a "let's reword the article" type statement for anyone to base changes on. I've generally gotten to the point where I don't consider anything especially actionable on talk pages unless:

• They say "We should do this now" in some manner, or "Do this, please, to this page." or,
• They say, "This is policy on articles|formatting|other" and it has to be done.

I've read enough arguments (both acted upon and not) on talk pages for various articles that I've learned that you don't just go changing the facts of an article based on people's opinions, and I'd never suggest someone did it based on my opinions! I'm way, way lowest person on the totempole around here, being a registered editor for, what, a whole half a month. :D

(Though from what I've seen, that makes it about time for me to RfA! *cackle*)

Kylu t 01:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there is no accreditation that covers the entire university. The college and the pharmacy school would be accredited by different accrediting agencies. In the past, when Southern colleges found themselves unable to come up to academic standards or abide by non-discrimination clauses, they arranged for the government to certify new accrediting agencies that would not impose these standards upon them. This would be harder to do for the pharmacy school ,as there's only one agency that covers the entire U.S., and the scheme would be transparent - as well as take longer to set up than it would to actually build the school. - Outerlimits 03:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit late to do it tonight, but I think tomorrow I'm going to do some reading (on wikipedia, of course! *cackle*) on how the college accreditation system works. I realize my comments before were a bit out of bounds (especially granted I'm just a persnickety opinionated minor wiki editor and not actually even involved in the situation, just... upset about it) but I still think that if a college blatantly and contemptably violates the rules of its accreditation, it should at the least have that accreditation suspended, though preferably in a manner that acts punitively towards the college but not that college's students.

I'm curious... while the accreditation doesn't cover the whole university, I know that there are restrictions on discrimination for businesses. If I tried to make a resteraunt or school and said "Sorry, no [insert ethnic group] allowed" I really seriously doubt I'd have my business license for very long.

I suppose I'd be just as outraged that I couldn't do what I wanted to, if I were on the other side of the pond with different attitudes. "We have to allow what into our school?" perhaps. Always two sides to every story, ne? Kylu t 04:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you have *quite* applied what I meant to say yet: the accrediting agency for the prospective pharmacy school will not accredit a pharmacy school which discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, but the accrediting agency for the undergraduate college (the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools ) will gladly accredit such a school. Clearly, those who believe that public accomodations should not discriminate would prefer that discriminatory school not be accredited, but so far the politics favor those who want to discriminate and still grant degrees. So the University of the Cumberlands could, if it chose, expel all black students and still be accredited (though it would have other legal difficulties if it tried!). And if it builds a pharmacy school and applies for accreditation, it will not get it if it expels pharmacy students because they are gay, but it is entirely possible for its undergraduate program to be accredited (by the Souther Association of Collegs and Schools) and for its pharmacy school to be unaccredited. (Remember, an unaccredited pharmacy school is a step up for Kentucky, which currently has no pharmacy schools). - Outerlimits 04:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

May I assume that the lack of accreditation is what lets the "Universal Life Church" sell degrees? (from page): "These degrees are not academic, and you do not need one to be a minister. We offer them because so many people wish to have them. All are accredited by the International Accrediting Association, the accrediting arm of the church. Upon issuance, degrees are recorded in the official records and may be verified by Universal Life Church Headquarters."
So...and please tell me if I'm misunderstanding, but if UotC had an unaccredited pharmacy school (such as if they did lose accrediting in this manner) then, even though the degrees are academic, they wouldn't have much more professional standing than one of the ULC "buy me" degrees? I may have been misunderstanding how pharmacy works, but I was under the impression it worked similarly to that of medical doctors, in that if you misrepresent yourself in the field that it could have legal consequences?
So, if you did have a degree from an unaccredited university, would it be worth the paper it's printed on? (cliche, yes) Kylu t 05:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

For your reading pleasure, let me suggest diploma mill, school accreditation, Liberty University and Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools. And, like you, I very much doubt that a state licensing agency (which would license pharmacists) would be interested in granting a license based on a degree from an unaccredited pharmacy school! - Outerlimits 05:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC) (BTW, the University of the Cumberlands's prospective pharmacy school wouldn't be losing accreditation, it would simply never have been accredited. - Outerlimits 05:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, in this case, yes, but in the cases that a school in this situation did violate the rules of its accreditation, it would in fact lose them still, right? (Simplistic question, I realize.) Kylu t 22:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

p.s., think the guys at the various other articles (esp.diploma mill and school accreditation) would be interested in this conversation? Enough that I should leave them a link to this talk page?

those articles werre mostly for background - there's not much going on with them - but it wouldn't hurt to add a link. When an accredited school goes for reaccreditation, and there is a problem, usually they are given several opportunities to fix that problem before they would lose accreditation - but if they don't fix it, yes, they'd lose accreditation. - Outerlimits 04:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Link added! Sig changed, yet again! Love and Justice triumphs once again! ~Kylu (u|t) 04:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Day introduction

"This is not the first time President Taylor has severed relations with someone from the school because he didn't like what they had written on the Internet." I am not sure this is a necessary statement as anyone who talks ill of their employer is likely to face disciplinary action. It is also quite presumptuous as to the nature of the University's president and therefore not objective. Any thoughts on removing it? Or at least saying that Day was arguably exercising the idea of academic freedom? Xmidwayx 20:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. At best, the statement is borderline POV. I think the sentence could be salvaged with a NPOV rewrite, but I'm not familiar enough with the situations in question to make that edit. In the absence of a rewrite, I'd support removal per POV. Acdixon 21:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as each section doesn't necessarily need its own intro I would think it best just to remove it all the way. Xmidwayx 04:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)