:Added/clarified this in the entry. Thanks. "The college, like many other fundamentalist Christian schools, is not accredited due to concerns about governmental control over policy or curriculum." - changing this to: "The college, like many other fundamentalist Christian schools, has not sought accreditation due to concerns about governmental control over policy or curriculum." I assume this is correct and more acurrately reflects that BJU's lack of acreditation is their idea rather than imposed by government. If this is wrong please correct. |
Oh, well - other than the dates, I added what *I* care about, which is the Museum. I can't tell you how odd it is to find a museum like this in Greenville, SC. --MichaelTinkler
One question I'd like answered is "Do any African-American students actually attend the university?" --Robert Merkel
Is it correct to say that Ronald Reagan "supported the school's racial discrimination", or that Ronald Reagan "supported the school's right to racially discriminate". There's a world of difference. I'm making the change right now on the assumption that Reagan, a semi-libertarian in some respects, might well have supported their right as a private institution to admit who they like, while at the same time not supporting their policy itself. --Jimbo Wales
Well, the issue was not about whether they had the right to racially discriminate; it was about whether they were entitled to a tax exemption if they were going to do so. Withdrawing the tax exemption still hasn't stopped the racial discrimination that lead to its withdrawal. Frankly, I think the main reason Reagan supported them was because of his desire to get conservative South Carolina voters, a significant percentage of whom like Bob Jones University. I agree though that he probably supported them being allowed to have the policy and still get a tax exemption, without actually agreeing with the policy. But I don't like the formulation "supported the school's right to racially discriminate" -- it seems to imply that they have a right to racially discriminate, and he was supporting their right -- it really should say he supported the school's alleged or claimed right to racially discriminate. -- SJK
I accept your change. My wording was based on my own view -- racial discrimination in any form is vile and despicable, immoral collectivist behavior -- but that private religious organizations do in fact have a right to engage in it if they so desire. Your wording is more limited and unless and until we find out what Reagan actually did say, is certainly less speculative.
Anyway, good rewrite of the article.
It is understood by speakers of English. It is well formed (see Morphology in linguistics, entry compounding?; still to be written)
"After that it adopted its current racially discriminatory policy, which it retains to this day (2001)."
"The college, like many other fundamentalist Christian schools, is not accredited due to concerns about governmental control over policy or curriculum."
- changing this to: "The college, like many other fundamentalist Christian schools, has not sought accreditation due to concerns about governmental control over policy or curriculum."
I assume this is correct and more acurrately reflects that BJU's lack of acreditation is their idea rather than imposed by government. If this is wrong please correct.