Talk:University of Northwestern – St. Paul

Controversy

There is currently a controversy going on at the school over the president and over the school's theology. This section needs to be watched carefully for opinion based remarks that have been posted recently. What is written now is both objective and tactful.JimmyOrangeSeed (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Title IX exemption

An unregistered editor is objecting to the inclusion of the following sentence at the end of the "Academics" section:

The university was granted an exception to Title IX in 2016 which allows it to legally discriminate against LGBT students for religious reasons.

This material is neutrally written, supported by reliable sources, and pertinent to the subject of this article. One brief sentence for this topic is appropriate weight. Suggestions to edit the text are welcome; deleting it simply because you think that it's embarrassing or because you agree with the university's ideological stance is not acceptable. ElKevbo (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree the weight is appropriate and the text factual. I'm curious to hear from User:Constant314 who restored the text then reverted the restoration. Jno.skinner (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I was reviewing random edits with WikiLoop DoubleCheck. My first impression was that was lack of neutrality, but then on second thought, I realized that it could be true and that I did not have enough information. Sorry if I caused any disruption. Constant314 (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The unregistered editor who still refuses to engage in this discussion has again removed this material, this time using the edit summary: "This statement is made on the basis of an ideological re-interpretation of Title IX. It is ill-informed, ideologically slanted, and, even if one felt the need to include it as a way of besmirching a Christian campus for organizing itself according to its own convictions (which, unlike other claims, is actually protected by the constitution of the United States), it should be included in another subsection, since this section focuses on academic programs." It's clear that this editor believes that this information should be removed because it's embarrassing for the institution, a clear WP:NPOV violation.

The "this information doesn't belong in the 'Academics'" section complaint has some merit. This information would be better placed in a "History" section but unfortunately no one has yet bothered to write one. If there is an existing section where this information would fit better, feel free to move it. If it would fit better in a new section, feel free to write one.

Continuing to edit war in the face of consensus among multiple editors, in a way that clearly violates a core policy, and without any attempt to participate in discussion will lead to either this article being protected from edits by unregistered editors or that editor being blocked from editing any article. I strongly recommend not continuing that behavior. ElKevbo (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Although, I have no opinion, I looked at the sources. I have no reason to think that they are not reliable, but I think that they might be biased. That doesn't mean that they are unusable. Many reliable sources are biased. I think that, in this case, it would be helpful to find an additional reference that was mainline news source. Constant314 (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I have tried to parse the statement "The university was granted an exception to Title IX in 2016 which allows it to legally discriminate against LGBT students for religious reasons." very carefully. Here what I get:

• "The university was granted an exception to Title IX in 2016" - That seems to be exactly correct.
• "allows it to legally discriminate against LGBT students for religious reasons." - I think that needs to be fine tuned. As written, it could be interpreted to mean that the university has carte blanche to discriminate in all ways. It is narrower than that. It means the university is exempt from certain penalties under title IX. The difference is rather than being "legally allowed", the university is rather "not legally disallowed".

I am not sure if tis makes any difference to the objection by the iP editor. Constant314 (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

References

I am open to fine-tuning the statement, but I don't see these particular objections bearing out.

The school's exceptions to Title IX include most everything a university does: admissions, housing, classes, athletics, financial aid, employment, etc. I think carte blanche is the right impression.

I'm guessing that some people object to the term "discriminate against" because they find it a charged term. We could find a way of avoiding this term, like "they have the legal ability to exclude LGBT students." But this is just a longer euphemism for the same thing. Jno.skinner (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that changing the language doesn't alter the underlying reality and in most cases would simply obscure it. We should aim for the most concise, accurate language that is supported by the sources and clear to readers - the current language seems to do that just fine. Editors who are unhappy that this paints the university in a bad light are encouraged to work with the university to change their practices. ElKevbo (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Discriminate may be a trigger word, but I think that it is accurate. I agree, leave the language alone until the IP editor joins the discussion and explains their exact objection. Constant314 (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)