Up for Debate: Vanderbilt feels policy pressure

Thursday, April 19, 2012 at 12:42am

How much of a negative effect do you think Vanderbilt University's "all-comers" policy has had and could continue to have on the school's reputation, as well as fundraising efforts? Is the university powerful enough to stand its ground? Or will it eventually be forced to readjust its stance on the policy?

187 Comments on this post:

By: gdiafante on 4/19/12 at 7:18

The CSA would have existed for a while, but my guess is that they would have been unable to defend themselves from Central American aggression or other foreign countries. Though cotton was king once, the industrial revolution would not have been kind to the South, who would have struggled to maintain its agrarian society.

Not to mention that eventually the slaves would have revolted.

The CSA would have been devastated by depression, revolution and foreign invaders.

By: yogiman on 4/19/12 at 7:20

Apparently no one's foresight is as good as their hindsight, including governments. If so, the world wouldn't be in constant wars.

Then, when you put egotism in the picture, more power grabs comes into view.

Just ask Barry.

By: Loner on 4/19/12 at 7:24

Speaking of a woman's right to choose, if and when Romney comes to this neck of the woods, I have a plan....I will hand out proposed questions for Romney to those GOP rally attendees....one of them can put the embarrassing questions, not me.

My handout will include this website:


They can Google it with their I-phones and verify my stats. Here's the text:

Some never asked questions for Mitt Romney:

There are close to 50,000 abortions in Israel every year. Here is a credible source for that figure: http://www.friendsofefrat.org/

Israel claims a population 7,624,600. The 50,00/year abortion rate in Israel is incredibly high. These abortions are provided for free, or reduced rate at state-run Israeli abortion clinics.

Bearing this in mind:

1. Do you, Mister Romney, support an Israeli woman's right to choose, but deny that right for American women?

2. Do you believe that the state of Israel has a right to exist; but the Israeli fetus has no right to life?

3. You have pledged to visit Israel as your first official visit as President of the United States, will you visit the Israeli abortion clinics and speak out on behalf of the unborn?

4. The US routinely denies aid to nations with state-sponsored abortion mills. Please explain to us, why does the state of Israel remain the number one recipient of US aid?

By: BenDover on 4/19/12 at 7:25

The black caucus in the US House rejected Steve Cohen because he's white even though he represents a majority black district from the State of Tennessee.

By: Loner on 4/19/12 at 7:33

Sounds like anti-Semitism, Ben, Cohen is Jewish....or is it just anti-whitey in general?

Again, here is a list of the official caucuses in the US Congress:


Every special interest has a caucus...now they have PACs and even Super-PACs. Government is OK with exclusionary clubs within government, but not outside of government.

Just look at the length of that list....oh yeah, we got Democracy Lite.

By: Captain Nemo on 4/19/12 at 7:34


I think they would have collapsed from their sure stupidity, because they had no factors or any plans of building any. There whole economy was based on cotton and slaves. Their wealth had been depleted by the end of the war and I don’t think that they would have any friends to speak of after the war. They would be ripe for plunder from foreign powers.

By: Moonglow1 on 4/19/12 at 7:43

Moonglow1: Whenever the Tennessee legislators are involved it is never good!!

Audi chose Mexico over Chatanooga. Volkswagen chose Chatanooga and is livid over the proposed guns in cars bill. Volkswagen can't find any engineers to hire so they are recruiting them from out of state. Tennessee is 39th out of 50 states in pay scales.

The legislators are now "sticking their noses" in Vanderbilt's decisions instead of passing legislation to attract new business & help the state. If you will recall, Vandy was against all the crazy stuff these idiots passed-like guns n bars, creationism, and on & on.

The Tennessee legislators are major screw ups & screw balls screwing us. All of them are a major embarrassment. Lincoln must be looking down & sayin "d..m, what have I done?

By: Loner on 4/19/12 at 7:48

Both the North and the South sacrificed their best and brightest for political ideals and religious passion....neither side was innocent when the slaughter finally ended....the nation suffered a sort of de-capitation....those unfit for military duty and the draft-dodgers, along with the surviving vets were left to rule and breed in the bitter aftermath of the senseless conflict.

By: Captain Nemo on 4/19/12 at 7:52

The Tennessee legislator has always been screw ups and now with the moral teabags intrusions into everybody business, it has gotten worst.

By: Captain Nemo on 4/19/12 at 7:54

If only God had seen it our way.

Sons of the CSA-

By: Moonglow1 on 4/19/12 at 7:58

Moonglow1: Romney & his wife are sickening. I am not so thrilled with Obama, but in comparison to the Romney's, he is a genius. Romney's wife is fake as they come. Married at 19, how the h.ll is she the expert on economic policy. She was over heard at a Florida fundraiser that it is their turn to be in the White House. Right!! Not I want to help the USA be great again, be innovative, help with jobs. Oh no!! The goal is to be installed in the White House to repeat personal power.
I am for religious freedom, but I do think more should be said about the Mormon's. For example, are the Romney's going to tithe their taxpayer funded White House salary to the Mormon Church. Read about the Mormon founder in Wikie. Another crack pot screw ball like the Tennessee legislators.

We need an atheist in the White House. Someone with a brain and not brainwashed! These so called religious nuts are just that-nuts with nukes who advocate for Holy Wars, against abortions, but love to kill, love war and guns and would rather starve the masses than cut funding for the military which goes to private contractors.

By: Captain Nemo on 4/19/12 at 8:00

I had heard somewhere that the South was planning world conquest, if it had not been for the Northern intrusion.

I. B. Wright.

By: Captain Nemo on 4/19/12 at 8:04

The worst thing a politician can do is to tell the truth.

Captain Nemo and a bunch of other people-

By: Captain Nemo on 4/19/12 at 8:07

I don’t care who is as President, they could not please all and if they could then someone is lying.

By: Captain Nemo on 4/19/12 at 8:08

I made a yogi

shb I don't care who is President.

By: Loner on 4/19/12 at 8:13

Amen, Brother Moonglow.

I've been to the Hill Cumorah Pageant, in Palmyra, NY....it's not far from here...Profound Bullshit, IMHO.

I do NOT want any believer of that stuff anywhere near the White House...Christianity is Jewish heresy and Mormonism is heresy upon a heresy....if Romney gets in, we can expect more Holy War...lots more.

Check it out here:


By: dargent7 on 4/19/12 at 8:17

MoonGlow1 @ 8:58am: Best post of the decade.
The Romney's, all 7 of them, are superficial.
All 5 "sons" didn't enlist in the military, while "Uncle Mitty" championed the two Middle East wars. Father and grandfather were born in Mexico. And to nutz, "they're Natural born American citizens.
Wifey lived in Gross Point Park, next to Henry Ford, jr. and Lee Iacoccoa.
What a joke these two would bring to the W.H.

By: gdiafante on 4/19/12 at 8:20

So now we're complaining if the President feels charitable and gives something to the religion of his choice? Is that where we are as a nation?

What's next? Seriously. It's not like the President doesn't earn the salary, he should be able to spend it how he chooses, even if it goes to support a religion.

By: Loner on 4/19/12 at 8:22

Romney is one of the more pugnacious of the repugnant Republicans....plans to visit Israel as POTUS right off the bat...to take his marching orders, from the repugnant Princes of Pugnacity who currently rule Israel - the State of Perpetual Pugnaciousness, Pity and Piety.

By: BenDover on 4/19/12 at 8:22

If freedom of association is not challenged in the US congress even under the condition of overt racial discrimination then how would it not apply to our individual liberty?

Since a freedom of association is protected under the 1st; and individual liberty is protected under the 5th; and the 14th extends the protection from the government to a responsibility of the government to maintain; it would seem to me that unless someone could show damage from not being allowed to participate in a group that they ostensibly hold in contradiction to their own beliefs; then freedom of association would include the freedom not to associate or in this case to refuse access to the potential saboteur.

I would see that a private men's group could exclude women, a private women's group could exclude men, a black group could exclude whites, a white group could exclude blacks.

I would think that if the group had some other cause though, like Jr. Achievement, for example, where the association is not based on some social, cultural or religious advocacy then denial of access based on race, religion or sex, etc. would necessarily be challenged.

I don't know what the case history looks like but I'd be shocked if there's not a long line of legal precedent here to go on.

If Vandy wants, however, to define what a morally repulsive club might be I would think that within their rights to do so as a private organization but not to discriminate on the position against freedom of assembly. This is where it gets fuzzy... could they ban the Klan or even a revival of the "He-Man Women Haters' Club". The test would seem to be whether they allow other contrary radical groups like the New Black Panthers or N.O.W. to be sanctioned organizations... and if so they could be held to maintain an equal standard.

The main problem seems to be that minority of loud-mouth activists want to sh*t all over our right of freedom of association so they can shut up the people they disagree with. It will probably be like the 'Fairness' doctrine and simply serve to quell freedom of speech and ideas in the public forum. No one will be able to associate to advance their cause without some crack-pot suing for equal time so all but the associations of the Political Correctness will cease to exist.

By: pswindle on 4/19/12 at 8:28

Does Vanderbilt have to crumble before the Lergislative Body? I think not. When did the crazy nuts on the hill start telling private institutions what they can and cannot do. If Vanderbilt lets this Dunn and 22 others get their way, we have thrown all of our freedoms away. They need to tell them to take their ideas where the sun doesn't shine.

By: Loner on 4/19/12 at 8:29

Ben...we must be channeling each other...I was about to cite the He-man Women Hater's Club....Those little rascals! When they filmed "Our Gang", the word "gang" was a lot less tarnished....Buckwheat went on to convert to Islam...he became Kareem of Wheat...that's when Hollywood black-balled him.

By: Loner on 4/19/12 at 8:32

Pswindle...if Vandy takes taxpayer-generated funds, then government calls the tune...same for all the taxpayer-assistance-accepting universities and colleges...you gotta pay the piper, man...or you get no tunes to dance to....'twas ever thus.

By: slacker on 4/19/12 at 8:33

Fraternities & Sororities are exempt from this.
Please don't think i'm a misogynist for listing Fraternities first.

By: govskeptic on 4/19/12 at 8:35

The race at Vandy to become an Ivy League want-to-be never ends.
Other than the 2 Ingram brothers, most of the Board of Trustees
are from the nether lands beyond the State and Region.
Their rules would allow: A teabagger to head up their College
Young Democrats. A Yankee descendent to head up the
Vanderbilt Sons of the Confederacy, an avowed Atheist to head
up the Christian Athletics, and a deeply committed communist
to head up the Student Governing Body. The Catholic Organization
has done the right thing by just saying forget it, we'll drop the
Vanderbilt from our name and move on!

By: Moonglow1 on 4/19/12 at 8:37

Moonglow1: Thanks for the kind words darg & Loner and for the hillcumorah link. Notice how some get all riled up when I champion an atheist over a "holy man. "

Another comment concerning the Secret Service-the guy could only afford $30. 00 versus $800.00 for the hooker. In my view the rank and file must figure if those in charge (Congressmen running away with Argentine mistress, misappropriation of funds, illegal wars, war crimes, and more) can do whatever and get by with it, well they may as well have some fun too. Heck their retirement is at risk, health care at risk, and on call 24\7 for the losers they are called upon to protect including putting their lives at risk. Does it make what they did right? No of course not. But illegal behavior is becoming the norm on The Hill in Washington DC. The agents are just mimicking the behavior of "our leaders. " The problem was "those in charge" can afford the $800. 00 fee for the hooker. The poor agent could not afford it.

By: BenDover on 4/19/12 at 8:41

"Kareem of Wheat" roflmao

By: gdiafante on 4/19/12 at 8:56

If you are referring to me, moonglow, yes, I get riled up when someone complains about how a person spends their salary. It's really none of your business.

If he donates his entire salary to the Mormon church, I don't care. If he starts to encorporate Mormanism into the government, then I care.

By: BenDover on 4/19/12 at 8:58

Moonglow seems to be another one of those 'superiority of reason' people who want to use his/her immediate rational assessment (which is really just a rationalized anti-religious bias) to throw away all the long forgotten lessons sewn into our cultural, social and religious fabric over the centuries.

This is a common malady with society these days (and the acme of arrogance in my mind); and the jury is still out on whether it's going to result in improvement or desolation. Recent history of the results of this movement doesn't bode well for us if it is the civilizational vector we face.

By: Moonglow1 on 4/19/12 at 9:07

Moonglow1: Loner, I just checked out the hillcumoragh site. Wow. What would be the difference in electing a Wicken (spelling?) over a Mormon. They all act similar-pageants, medieval times, etc.
I stand by my earlier comment: an atheist would be a more sane choice for the White House and also to replace all of the losers in the Tennessee Legislature.There would be no more "holy wars. " Benjamin N (The Israeli PM) surely does run Washington. And The Romney"s are the biggest suck ups next to Gingrich.
The Vanderbilt news would not be happening without the right wing Holy Religious pretenders that comprise the Tennessee legislature.

By: Moonglow1 on 4/19/12 at 9:12

Moonglow1: gdiafonte, I only bring up salary because The President's salary is paid for by the taxpayer. Since we have this dialogue going about cutting funding for this and that, I am only saying I don't want my tax $$$ to fund the Mormon church.

By: Loner on 4/19/12 at 9:12

Slack adds a bit of slackness to the tightening rope...thanks, we needed that.

Ben, glad you had the ROFLMAO experience....do you feel like lighting up now? It was good for me too....I'm lighting up here too...just made a fresh latte...life is good.

Once again, Benjamin Dover...as a civilizing influence, organized religion is highly over-rated....IMO.

Gd is right, the Prez can spend or donate his salary however he sees fit...but his generosity could have its consequences....keeping it above the table is all I ask.

By: Moonglow1 on 4/19/12 at 9:18

Moonglow1: ok I'm chilling too! Taking a break.

By: slacker on 4/19/12 at 9:24

Moonglow, Romney didn't take a salary as Gov., probably won't as Prez.. if elected.

By: Loner on 4/19/12 at 9:36

Yeah, slack, the guy is a donatin' fool....No, he don't need no steeenking salary...he would be satisfied with simply screwing the country, he doesn't need to be paid chump change for the stud service....it's simply a matter of personal gratification.

Mitt is the son of a war profiteer who never served in uniform...Mitt's five healthy sons never served either....Mitt went to France during the Vietnam War...on a LDS Mission....the Republican Party considers that resume to be sufficient for a Commander-In-Chief of US armed forces...the GOP wants a war-monger for POTUS, not a combat veteran who has seen war up close & personal....and these Republicans call themselves patriots....stranger still, millions vote for that view and agenda.

The best that the GOP can offer the American voter today is an incredibly wealthy, draft-dodging heretic as their choice for President of the United States....Abe Lincoln would not recognize his own party.

By: BenDover on 4/19/12 at 9:42

That's pretty harsh there loner... I think got some spittle on my face from reading that one.

By: brrrrk on 4/19/12 at 9:42

Let's get this straight, as a white man I can join the NAACP..... but as a Deist/Agnostic/Atheist/yata yata yata, I can't join a university sanctioned Christian group?

The real question is, is the group considered a social group or a religious group? If it's a social group, like a fraternity, then anyone should be allowed to join. But if it's a religious group, and in particular a religious group who wants to restrict membership, then it shouldn't be sanctioned by the school in the first place.

By: slacker on 4/19/12 at 9:48

brrrrk, if a person is an Atheist, what's their motivation to join a Christian group?

By: Loner on 4/19/12 at 9:50

Back to the topic:

When I read the headline on this thread and saw "all-comers", I thought of something other than religious discrimination...funny how the word "come" has been effed with....would Vandy tolerate an "All-Cummers Club"?

Any and all alert, adult, hedonists would be welcomed...Puritans could join the club and be allowed to watch the action, while they protest sin from within.

By: yogiman on 4/19/12 at 9:50


No where in the Constitution requires you to be a veteran to serve as president. If elected, you'll have all of the military advice you need. You're only required to be a natural born citizen 35 years old. Mitt Romney has those requirements, Barack Obama doesn't. He never did and never will.

But running as a Democrat I guess he doesn't actually need them.

By: gdiafante on 4/19/12 at 9:52

brrrrk, if a person is an Atheist, what's their motivation to join a Christian group?

To piss people off.

By: brrrrk on 4/19/12 at 9:56

slacker said

"brrrrk, if a person is an Atheist, what's their motivation to join a Christian group?"

Intellectual curiosity? Seriously though, what if the group performs charitable work that you believe in and want to participate in? There are plenty of reasons to join groups that don't exactly match up with your views.

By: BenDover on 4/19/12 at 9:57

Our alternative would be the guy with all the communist mentors who's running the most divisive wedge campaign in the history of the country. He's doing everything he can to divide us on Race, Class, Gender, Sexual preference, union status, public/private, rural/urban... setting fire to the villages to distract from his abject failure as PotUS to do anything except glorify himself and diminish the USA.

He added $5,000,000,000,000 to the national debt in the last 3 years not even including the half trillion in TARP repayments he blew... running deficits $1,000,000,000,000+ over trend every year even while the costs of operations in Iraq has wound down.

He saddled us with more bureaucracy and more entitlement and more debt to the degree that taxes cannot be raised enough to cover them without reaching the point of diminishing returns of their negative impact on the economy upon which the very taxes depend.

All this hyperbole and hysteria about Romney is wholly unfounded as Romney has demonstrated himself to be far to the political left of even Reagan (and that may be his downfall)... yet even clicking back to the middle with a Romney administration will be a vast improvement over Obama who has objectively been a freight-train to the economic left, yet as in his last campaign the media lets his words displace any reporting of his actions and history.

By: brrrrk on 4/19/12 at 10:00


"All this hyperbole and hysteria about Romney is wholly unfounded as Romney has demonstrated himself to be far to the political left of even Reagan (and that may be his downfall)"

On which day?

By: slacker on 4/19/12 at 10:00

brrrrk, if you're an Atheist you've already decided on faith. If you want to join a Christian group out of intellectual curiosity, you must be an Agnostic...no?

By: slacker on 4/19/12 at 10:03

Or you just want to disrupt a group.

By: Loner on 4/19/12 at 10:03

By: BenDover on 4/19/12 at 10:42

That's pretty harsh there loner... I think got some spittle on my face from reading that one.

Ben is now foaming at the mouth? Look out! You call that "harsh"? Left-leaning wordsmiths and pundits are just beginning their verbal assault on the Mitt....you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

Brrrk, I agree...religion and government intrusion into a university's agenda is anathema to genuine higher learning and academic freedom.

The solution is very simple, however, simple but hard....Any university that wants total, unrestricted academic freedom must totally and genuinely disassociate itself from both church and state. Most universities cannot afford to do that, ergo we get what we got....it's all about the funding, not the learning process per se.

I'm not saying that there is not an upside to the present situation...there always is....I'm just talking about absolutes here....ideals....we should aim for the ideal, IMO.

By: BenDover on 4/19/12 at 10:08

I meant to imply that the spittle came through the screen and hit me in the face from your Romney comment loner.

By: slacker on 4/19/12 at 10:12

Loner, I think skeptic had it right. All the Christian groups would be better served moving off campus. All the ''joiner's'' could then look for other organizations to force themselves upon. Maybe crash some Christian Thanksgiving dinner.

By: brrrrk on 4/19/12 at 10:15

slacker said

"brrrrk, if you're an Atheist you've already decided on faith. If you want to join a Christian group out of intellectual curiosity, you must be an Agnostic...no?"

But in the end what difference does it really make, especially if what you're talking about is a social group? I would think a bunch of good Christians would like nothing more than a good crack at converting an Atheist (or any other "ist" for that matter) on their own turf. And besides, how strong can ones faith be if it can't stand the exposure to different ideas?

And I'll stand by my previous statement, if it's a religious group, and in particular a religious group who wants to restrict membership based on religion, then it shouldn't be sanctioned by the school in the first place.