Skip to main content

It's not just Southern colleges that caught the crazy.

Boston College threatens discipline against students distributing condoms.

Boston College officials are threatening to take disciplinary measures against a group of students who are distributing condoms out of their dorm rooms, calling the act a violation of the university’s mission as a Catholic institution.

So let me get this straight.  BC student health services don't offer condoms because safe sex makes the pope cry.  Students who care about other student's health are subject to disciplinary action if they make the pope cry.

And it goes without saying that any student who gets pregnant or a STD has only her slutty self to blame.

It's not the first time a Boston-area Catholic college has made it difficult if not impossible for students to educate themselves about safe sex:

This is not the first time a ­local Catholic college has tried to prohibit the distribution of birth control on campus.

In 2009, the Globe reported that a student at Stonehill College in Easton collected hundreds of free condoms from two family-planning agencies. She and ­approximately 20 classmates placed the boxes of condoms in student dormitories.

When college officials learned of the students’ actions, they confiscated the boxes ­because of the school’s ban against distributing birth control.

I imagine there are some college students who are not sexually active.   When I went to college in the 80's, I knew of 2-3 girls and several boys who weren't.  I doubt much has changed, even at Catholic schools.  

I can understand the school not wanting to officially offer birth/STD control.  But to forbid informal, unofficial distribution of health information?  To forbid contraception that can prevent spread of disease and unintended pregnancies?

All to forward a fantasy that college students live monastic, sexless lives?  

Why is it in any way moral or right to base policy on fantasy?


Were you sexually active in college?

72%64 votes
13%12 votes
10%9 votes
3%3 votes

| 88 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I will almost guarantee you that if you ask any (13+ / 0-)

    college student who is not sexually active why they are not active they will tell you it's not for lack of trying.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 06:27:55 AM PDT

  •  Indefensible (12+ / 0-)

    I do not agree that a college interfering with access to birth control and STD prevention is understandable.  BC is saying in essence that church doctrine is more important than the health and welfare of the students, an indefensible position.  

    •  They did choose a Catholic school. nt (4+ / 0-)
      •  BC covers contraception (0+ / 0-)

        From the Wall Street Journal: "Boston College (Mass.) Plans cover contraception but not the morning-after pill" (  There is at least a mixed message there as far as condoms are concerned.

        The school's threatening letter cites a section from BC’s student handbook and lists of school policy to the effect that unmarried couples should not be engaging in sexual activity at the residence halls.  That's not much of a limitation.  It was long ago, but in my youth I remember dating several Catholic girls who were not under the impression that their Church forbade sexual activity, whatever its views on birth control.  Catholic boys certainly didn't think they had accepted temporary vows of chastity as a consequence of their religion, even if one discounts locker room banter substantially.  Those kids are acting as though they had a reasonable expectation of a college experience like everyone else's.  So, even without touching on priestly hypocrisy, it does not follow from the choice of BC that students should have expected their school would do more than preach about birth control and STD protection.  If there was a warning that such intrusions were going to place student's at risk, it was not obvious or even explicit.  I'll stick with indefensible.

        •  No mixed message (0+ / 0-)

          the health insurance plans they offer comply with Massachusetts state law.  The message is that they comply with the law.  

          Really, anyone who thought a Catholic institution would be ok with students passing contraception - clear violations of Catholic teaching both in the sexually active message and the contraception message -- out of a dorm room run by the Catholic institution based on Catholic values was delusional.  

        •  Plan B IS birth control, just bigger dose at once (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          god I hate the misinformation

    •  That's ridiculous. It certainly IS defensible (6+ / 0-)

      for a religious institution to set rules in conjunction with their religious beliefs, no matter how ridiculous others think their religious beliefs are.   That's what a private, religious institution is all about -- providing that service (the education) in accordance with their religious beliefs.  

      Students who cannot live with those rules have the option to attend another school.  

      If it were a public university, you would be absolutely correct -- that would be indefensible.  

    •  Why did these student choose to go to a Catholic (5+ / 0-)


      If this was a public university then I completely agree but being that they attend a college that is private and Catholic....well they chose to go there and knew ahead of time the school's beliefs and practices.

      It would be the same as handing out beer at a Southern Baptist university or fried pig skins at a Muslim one.  

      I get it that it is a health concern but if you feel that hard core about it....maybe skip the Catholic universities in your quest for higher education.

  •  Imagine getting thrown out of college for... (6+ / 0-)

    ... distributing condoms.

    What a joke. Boston College, like the Catholic Church, is seeking to appeal to a continually shrinking slice of the populace.

    I'm sure their defense is, "We're not concerned with what is popular. We're concerned with what is moral and in line with our mission."

    All fine and good, but as the baby boom echo recedes, they mind find themselves appealing to fewer and fewer young people.

    Suggested liberal gun lovers' motto: "More liberal than the NRA on everything except guns."

    by Bob Johnson on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 06:52:21 AM PDT

  •  Just to stick it to BC (10+ / 0-)

    the students ought to set up a free condom cart just outside the BC Gates on Comm. Ave. In fact I'd donate to to help them buy or build said cart.

    Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?

    by jsfox on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 06:53:41 AM PDT

  •  the students should stick to their principles to (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tracker, ExStr8, merrywidow, Lujane

    the point of expulsion, if necessary -- then sue on the grounds of First Amendment violations.

    It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

    by Murphoney on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 07:01:49 AM PDT

  •  I was drafted. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Johnson, ExStr8, Lujane

    Poll assumes too much.
    I didn't Cheney out.

    "I'm gonna dance between the raindrops"

    by IB JOHN on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 07:14:58 AM PDT

  •  does this mean the college security will now (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lujane, Eyesbright

    start tossing dorm rooms for condoms the way they did for weed back in The Day?  I would observe that it appears their only option to be consistent with the RCC's stance on condoms (so that partners of HIV positive and other STD pts cannot use condoms for disease prevention because it could prevent a possible conception) would be to ban condoms from the campus altogether and discipline any student found in possession of one.

    Then they could decide about the presence of balloons on seems some officials have entirely too much time on their hands    

  •  I am not outraged. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cryonaut, nextstep, gfv6800, erush1345, VClib

    This is a private, Catholic institution.  They are allowed to set rules in conjunction with their religious beliefs.

    Students who are unwilling to live with Catholic rules set in accordance with the Catholic religion should should not attend a Catholic University.   Anyone attending that school is aware, going in, that it is a Catholic University.  It is incumbent on those choosing the university to see what religious rules they set, and to decide for themselves if they can live with those.  If not, they should choose another university.  

    There is a huge difference between what is right and appropriate at a public university (which is the government) and a private, religious university.

    If you believe in the First Amendment, you must respect rules that are set by religious institutions in accordance with their religious beliefs, even if you disagree with those religious beliefs.  That is what the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause is all about.  

    I respect the rights of a private, Catholic institution to set rules in accordance with their private, religious beliefs.

    •  agreeing with the right to religious belief (0+ / 0-)

      doesn't entail abiding by that religion nor its rules.

      moreover, the rules laid out in an institution's "mission" are not necessarily the same, not part-and-parcel with a religion nor its observance.

      It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

      by Murphoney on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 07:58:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you freely choose to attend a Catholic (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cryonaut, Bailey2001, erush1345, VClib

        institution, then yes, you agree to live by its rules.  That is the nature of a private entity.  As long as there is no discrimination as prohibited by federal civil rights laws, a private entity can set whatever rules it wants, and by choosing to attend that school, you agree to live by those rules.  A private entity could decide it doesn't like the color green and prohibit students from wearing green to class -- and students who choose that school either live by that rule or go somewhere else.  

        These students were distributing condoms -- a violation of Catholic teaching (whether I agree with that teaching or not) -- out of their dorm rooms, private rooms owned and run by a Catholic institution. Students agree to abide by the university's rules when they agree to attend the university and live in the university-provided housing.  The Catholic institution is allowed to set those rules.  Students who do not feel they can live with those rules should choose another school.

        I would be outraged, perhaps, if a student had sought some kind of prohibited reproductive services off campus, and that student was expelled for that.   I don't think that when you contract with a university to attend that university, you agree to abide by their rules off campus.  But you CERTAINLY agree to abide by their rules on their campus.  If you break one of their rules on their campus -- no matter how ridiculous you or I think the rule is -- they are entitled to take the action they deem appropriate for a rules violation.  

        •  But was such a rule governing the individual and (0+ / 0-)

          private action of a student spelled out in the recruiting literature?  If not, then would not the student be reasonably entitled to think that such private action would be permitted?

          •  They are pretty clear on their website (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erush1345, gfv6800, VClib

            I think the fact that they say this on their website is notice enough:  

            Jesuit, Catholic Tradition
            finding god in all things

            Boston College is committed to maintaining and strengthening the Jesuit, Catholic mission of the University, and especially its commitment to integrating intellectual, personal, ethical, and religious formation; and to uniting high academic achievement with service to others.

            Any student reading that has to understand that their mission is promoting religious -- Catholic religious -- values.

            Or how about the message from the President:  

            Boston College is uniquely capable of answering this call, of speaking to this world. As an institution of higher education, Boston College is committed to the discovery and transmission of knowledge. But reflecting its Jesuit and Catholic heritage, it also seeks to integrate excellence and religious commitment, to both inform and form its students.
            I think that's notice that they don't want you directly undermining Catholic teaching (no matter how ridiculous you think that teaching is) on their campus.  
          •  And it's not "private action" if it's in (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erush1345, gfv6800, VClib

            a university dorm room.  

            It's "private action" if it's off campus.

            •  that is an odd definition of privacy. (0+ / 0-)

              being in a privately held building does not wrest all nature of privacy from an individual.  

              The inherent privacy of the individual would be more sharply defined when occupancy of the private building by the individual involves a tenancy agreement.

              It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

              by Murphoney on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 10:14:18 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Have you seen typical (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                college dorm agreements and rules?  

                No, it's not all that private.  Not like a tenant on a private lease.  

                •  have you? it's not a prison-inmate situation. (0+ / 0-)

                  It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

                  by Murphoney on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 11:53:46 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  All colleges retain the right to determine (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    what is appropriate in their dorms.  Most even provide that they can inspect your dorm room for cleanliness, for example.  

                    If, as another example, you constantly used racial slurs and insults against your roommate in your own dorm room, or even against others in the dorm when you are in communal areas, I suspect you'd be gone in a second.  Certainly, most good private schools would give you the boot (there's some issue with whether the government could kick you out of a dorm because of speech). A private landlord can't kick you out because you are an open bigot in your rented apartment.

                    A dorm room is not the same as a private rental apartment.  It is an extension of the school, and -- especially with a private school -- you have to agree to abide by the school's standards and principles.  If the private school has a policy of tolerance and diversity and you engage in racial slurs and insults in the dorm, they can take disciplinary action.  If the private school has a policy of promoting Catholic teachings, and you constantly undermine that, they can take disciplinary action.  

        •  Boston College violates this same "catholic (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ScienceMom, Eyesbright

          teaching" that you claim you know about.

          They are required by Massachusetts state law to offer contraception as part of the student health plan, and they do.

          It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

          by Murphoney on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 09:25:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Are you sure? (0+ / 0-)

            Do you have a cite, perhaps?
            It's not so much that I doubt it as that I'd expect they'd have a religious exemption, etc.

            To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men. -Abraham Lincoln

            by Eyesbright on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 11:15:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  BC Health Insurance Covers Birth Control (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              BC Health Insurance Covers Birth Control

              BC Health Insurance Under Review

              Effective June 5, 2002, Massachusetts state law mandates that all employers provide “benefits for outpatient prescription drugs and devices shall provide benefits for hormone replacement therapy for peri and post menopausal women and for outpatient prescription contraceptive drugs or devices which have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration under the same terms and conditions as for such other prescription drugs or devices…”

              The law does provide an exemption for Church and Church-controlled institutions but Boston College is ineligible to receive such an exemption. Patrick Rombalski, Vice President of the Offices of Student Affairs, commented that “the state of Massachusetts views BC as an independent organization and not part of the Church. Of course we are related to the Church but Boston College is an independent not-for-profit, separate from the Church. That would be true of all Catholic universities and colleges with very few exceptions.”

              It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

              by Murphoney on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 11:28:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  That doesn't waive their rights to (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            make sure that their students don't undermine their religious beliefs.  The fact that the state of Massachusetts forces them to offer  a health plan that includes contraceptive coverage -- again, which students may or may not choose to use -- does not mean that they must allow a student to actively undermine their teaching.  

            The students know what the mission of that university is when they go there.  If they feel compelled to undermine Catholic doctrine that they find ridiculous, they should not attend a Catholic school.  

            It is unreasonable to go to a school that blatantly says that its mission is to "form students" in conjunction with Catholic teachings and then be shocked -- shocked! -- when they don't like the fact that you are undermining Catholic teachings.  

            •  now you're just winging it; making it up. (0+ / 0-)

              "undermine their religious beliefs" -- from where comes the Freedom from Disagreement and on what basis do you form this fear of foundations being rocked?

              It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

              by Murphoney on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 12:02:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Because it is a private institution. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Bailey2001, VClib

                The students have no First Amendment rights -- no rights of any kind, really -- to publicly disagree with the principles of a private institution and remain students of that private institution.  None.  Zero.  Nada.  Zilch.  

                It is no different from my private home.  In public, for example, the government cannot stop a person from talking about his religious views.  In my private home, I can say, anyone who mentions God is out of here.  And I can do it, because nothing in the First Amendment prohibits what speech and ideas I allow in my private home. I can have "freedom from disagreement" in my private home if I want it.  In my private home, I can even promote bigoted views if I were so inclined, and have freedom from disagreement.  I can say, anyone who thinks that Asians are equal to other races cannot enter my home, and if you say anything like that, you must leave.  If I have a party and invite the whole block, and 30 minutes into the party at my house, someone says, I think Asian Americans should have equal rights with all Americans, I can say, "Get out," and if they don't leave immediately they are trespassing.  I can have freedom from disagreement in my home.  

                With respect to a privately-owned business the exact same principle applies.  The ONLY  limitation that is different is the federal (and state) civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on things like race, ethnicity, etc.  In most states, for example, I can, in my privately-owned business, say "I will not tolerate any talk or signs or whatever promoting conservative candidates" because it's my property, my business, my rules about what views are allowed there.  Here in New Orleans, I can say, "I will not tolerate people talking bad about the New Orleans Saints, and if you do, I will fire you."  I can do that, because there are no civil rights laws protecting football opinions, and absent that, I get to completely control the views I want in my business. I certainly, certainly can have "Freedom from disagreement" as long as I don't infringe on the civil rights (or labor) laws.  

                It's the same with a religious university.  The only difference is that they have more protection from the government than you or I do because the First Amendment guarantees that the government won't interfere with the free exercise of their religious views.  There is no such special governmental protection for my football views in my business.  If you undermine the principles of a religious institution and they ask you to leave, they may have to give your tuition back (depending on what your contract says).  But certainly they can tell you to leave if you are undermining their religious mission.  There is no obligation for them to tolerate disagreement that undermines the fundamental purpose of their private institution.

                So yes, in a private institution, if the institution wants "Freedom from disagreement" they can do it.  If you don't agree with how they are running their private institution, you are free not to go there.  

  •  all the students have to do is say (0+ / 0-)

    "we're just gifting."

  •  Orchestrating their own irrelevance (0+ / 0-)

    A tiny minority of self-identified Catholics in America follow church teachings on birth control. I see episodes like this as temper tantrums on the part of the Church hierarchy. They are telling people what to do, nobody is doing it, that makes them angry, so they use what power they do have to make a scene. There will be a temporary uproar and then everybody will go back to doing what they did before.

    If the hierarchy keeps insisting that people can’t be good Catholics without following doctrine to the letter then a lot of them will stop being Catholics.  

    Also, take an institution like Boston College and even though it is affiliated with the Catholic Church that fact is immaterial to the reasons that many of its students choose to go there. Maybe some applicants will think of going elsewhere if they think the dudes in frocks are going to be sticking their noses into their personal lives.

    Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

    by Joe Bob on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 08:40:40 AM PDT

    •  Exactly. They should choose to go elsewhere. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joe Bob, erush1345

      This is a private college.  If they want to insist on uniforms, or no leaving the dorms after 9, or religious participation to attend other classes, or no hats on Fridays or whatever other dumb rule they is still a private school and thus can make a 10 inch thick book of rules, if they want.

      Everyone attending this school has done so by choice and by signing up and paying for the services.  If they are not Catholic or do not agree with the rules, then go somewhere else and take their money to a place that believes as they do.  

      It is really that simple.

      •  It is only that simple if the rules are spelled (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joe Bob

        out in advance.  If students go the University knowing that there will no coverage of contraceptives in the student health program, fine; they made that choice.  But if the University suddenly decides that distribution by individuals is against their rules, then the entering student has not had fair warning.

        •  They are definitely aware that promoting (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joe Bob, erush1345

          Catholic values is part of the mission of the university.  See my post above quoting from their website.  

          Students at a private school who actively undermine the mission of the university (no matter how ridiculous they think that mission is) don't need "direct notice" that the specific conduct undermines their mission.  Do they need to say, "If you stand in the quad and give a speech about the Pope being evil, we will take disciplinary action"?  Do they need to spell out everything you could possibly do to undermine Catholic teaching?  of course not.  You CHOOSE a school that tells you UP FRONT it is about promoting Catholic values.  If you feel compelled to undermine Catholic values, you should choose another school.  

        •  Honestly. If you are unaware that you might have (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          a little problem handing out birth control in the hallways of a Catholic university, then you might need to reconsider higher education in any regard.

          My goodness....this is really a "duh" kind of quandary.  The answer is so simple it's not even questionable.

          •  when the college, itself, provides contraception, (0+ / 0-)

            any conflict manifested by the institution becomes more academic than you describe it.

            It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

            by Murphoney on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 11:13:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, the college doesn't "provide contraception" (0+ / 0-)

              You pointed out that the law forces them to provide a health insurance policy that covers contraception if the beneficiary of that policy chooses to use it.  

              Really, this is kind of a hypocritical statement.  The Administration, and many many many people here argue that it's not a violation of their Free Exercise rights under the First Amendment to be forced to provide health insurance that includes contraception, because they aren't forced to actually provide contraception itself, but only health care coverage.  If that's what you believe, then you can't turn around and argue that they are violating their own religious beliefs by providing health insurance that covers contraception.

              •  your distinciton is thinner than a razor's edge, (0+ / 0-)

                and one that the Church, proper, doesn't recognize and has argued against directly.

                It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

                by Murphoney on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 12:04:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So you think that the ACA is unconstitutional (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  because forcing a Catholic institution to offer health insurance that includes contraception violates their religious principles?

                  That's why the Catholic church has filed some 40 lawsuits against the ACA.  You seem to be siding with them -- that it violates their religious principles to offer health insurance with contraception coverage, so they can't complain when their students undermine their religious principles.  

                  In contrast, my view is that, as you pointed out, BC is complying with the law. I do not think that means that they have given up all rights to promote Catholic teaching on their campus.  No matter how ridiculous their religious teaching may seem, that does not mean that they have to tolerate students handing out condoms on their campus any more than they have to tolerate atheists promoting the idea that there is no God on campus, any more than they have to tolerate the people saying the Pope is evil on campus, or a whole host of other things that would undermine their religious teachings.  

                  People are certainly entitled to think whatever they want about Catholic teachings.  They simply aren't allowed to use a private Catholic university to undermine those Catholic teachings unless the private Catholic university chooses to allow it.  

                  •  The College, itself, admits that the law sees B.C. (0+ / 0-)

                    as a non-profit institution affiliated with but separate from The Church.  As the separate institution, it does not enjoy the exemption that a Church Institution does.

                    It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

                    by Murphoney on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 03:24:09 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It is a private college. They can have any rules (0+ / 0-)

                      they wish.  If you don't like them, you can leave or never show up to begin with.  It makes no difference if the private college is a church one or not, it is a private college.

                      •  Whether the ACA is Constitutional does NOT (0+ / 0-)

                        rely on colleges being "not-private."

                        B.C. isn't a "Catholic Institution", it is a private institution -- a private college does NOT get to make up its own rules under the ACA law.

                        It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

                        by Murphoney on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 03:57:18 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

  •  Didn't Pope Francis just say Condoms for disease.. (0+ / 0-)

    ... prevention were OK. For true believers, this alleged university sure doesn't know how to obey the dictates of the churches leader.... why it's almost like they would like to pick and choose which dictates of the church they choose to follow, hmmmm.

    Of course, it isn't condoms or catholic doctrine that would have me admonishing the students over this.... it is the choice they made to pay $50K+/yr for a dumbass undergraduate degree.

    Demonstrating a level of idiocy far in excess of any instances of unprotected sex. ;P

  •  Free speech and this particular instance (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    As several have said, private institution can restrict speech on its premises. Some college codes of conduct also apply off-campus, or at least claim to. In this case, the students aren't just doing this privately or out of their own pockets, gifting, etc. They are part of a network of dorm rooms (and one off campus location) called SafeSites. They can get condoms (M &F) lube and literature. What the college is asking is that they stop distributing birth control, not the literature. They get outside funding for this and donations of the 'goods'.

    If it weren't an organized network using school property, they might have turned a blind eye. They could have handled it differently - the students seem upset that this was known to the college but only now are they cracking down. I don't know why this timing, but they are within their rights.

    One student is quoted as saying they should not have to choose between a world-class institution and 'their holistic health care'. Unfortunately, they chose a Catholic world-class institution, which does not see condoms as health care.

    I don't agree with Catholic teaching on contraception or much else (and I was born, baptized, and confirmed in the faith). But BC is within its rights - and I make these comments as a former dean at a private liberal arts New England institution - not Catholic.

    You get what you deserve, even if you don't deserve it (Issan Dorsey, Zen teacher)

    by kayak58 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 09:17:24 AM PDT

    •  Not entirely (0+ / 0-)

      IIRC in Massachusetts, dorms are covered to some degree by landlord-tenant regulations.  It's a basic principle that you have the right to do things that are legal and do not affect your neighbors in your own abode.  The standard outside that dorm room becomes more restrictive: you have the right to wave them around as a political statement but BC can probably ban their actual distribution since it generally is allowed to control what business is transacted in its property.  Their right to otherwise restrict it has nothing to do with their religious status; BC can generally regulate goods distribution on campus.

      BC has no particular privileges because it is Catholic; its tax exempt status derives from its status as an educational institution.

      BC may not be a Catholic school much longer.  Reportedly they don't want to be an ATM for paying for pedophile priest settlements, and the Vatican finds the campus culture rather foreign and increasingly interferes with academic matters.

      •  Interesting. (0+ / 0-)

        But I wonder if the sponsorship and using the college's real estate for other than strictly private purposes is an issue even if it's legal under the rules governing rental housing.

        You get what you deserve, even if you don't deserve it (Issan Dorsey, Zen teacher)

        by kayak58 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 02:24:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The ACLU may take legal action on students' behalf (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ScienceMom, Eyesbright

    It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

    by Murphoney on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 09:30:17 AM PDT

  •  Asdf (0+ / 0-)

    Um, since when can any school take legal action against someone for giving perfectly legal items freely to another in the rivalry of their rooms?

    I would imagine the ACLU will have a field day with this one.

    •  to be fair -- and I don't know it changes anything (0+ / 0-)

      -- but, B.C. threatens "disciplinary action" not so much "legal" action.

      It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

      by Murphoney on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 05:39:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site