Eskrine College: When accepted isn’t acceptance

As of last November, gay marriage is legal in South Carolina. 

However, the buzz surrounding two proud and openly gay NCAA volleyball players from Eskrine College has mobilized the school’s Board of Trustees into designating that their school doesn’t support such a lifestyle.

A theoretical “position,” such as Erskine College’s “Statement on Human Sexuality,” isn’t benign simply because it is not explicit policy. The school’s Board of Trustees adopted the document Friday, Feb. 20, after its submission by the college’s Student Services and Athletic Committee, largely made up of reverends. 

The Board created the statement, a contentious denouncement of homosexuality on campus, about a year ago in response to Drew Davis and Juan Varona coming out as gay. 

Many view this document as a behavioral ban on sexuality, reflecting the college’s alignment with the Associate Reformed Presbyterian tradition. As a private institution, Erskine has the authority to say that sexual relations outside of marriage or between persons of the same sex are immoral. The statement specifically notes that these afflictions “are spoken of in scripture as sin and contrary to the will of the Creator.”

However, Erskine’s audience — other colleges and prospective students — should not respond to the discriminatory behavior with understanding. College students and school officials alike should not support honor codes and idealized positions such as Erskine’s “Statement on Human Sexuality.” 

When schools or even individual coaches or administrators adopt anti-gay or restrictive sentiments, it’s difficult to regulate the line of preferred conduct. The conflict behind Eskrine’s statement, then, is not unprecedented. At Penn State, Rene Portland, the women’s basketball coach from 1980 to 2008, had a policy of “no drinking, no drugs, no lesbians,” according to ESPN. In 2005, Portland removed Division I basketball player Jennifer Harris because of her sexual orientation. While Penn State doesn’t have any explicit policies against homosexuality or premarital sex, an individual in a position of power implemented her own ideology about what is right and wrong, much like Erskine’s Student Services and Athletic Committee.

Even more drastically, in 2013, Baylor’s Waco, Texas, campus officials asked WNBA star Glory Johnson to remove a tweet about an ex-girlfriend, according to an interview with ESPN’s Kate Fagan. This is a blatant obstruction of personal privacy. Students should not have to worry about hiding or covering up their sexuality.

In response to the overwhelmingly negative response to its statement, Erskine released a counter on Friday dispelling any negativity surrounding its stance. 

“This statement describes a position. It does not prescribe a policy and does not ‘ban’ any individual or class of individuals from attending Erskine. No students have been asked to leave Erskine based on this statement.”

Erskine’s statement sets the tone for its campus. While the statement may not be policy in and of itself, it is the beddrock of the school’s discourse.

This line of thinking holds Erskine in a stagnant anti-gay dialogue. Colleges mold the minds of some of the brightest millennials who will rise through the ranks to be CEOs and politicians. Close-mindedness on college campuses may contribute to anti-gay environments in leadership over the years. 

Erskine College should revise this discriminatory statement and consider other forums for its ideals. Taking a backward stance on sexuality will only negatively affect the school’s image and diversity on campus.

Even if Erskine maintains that its “Statement on Human Sexuality” is not a strictly enforced policy, it doesn’t mean that student life won’t suffer and a mantra of alienating gay individuals won’t surface. Just because you aren’t being tossed out doesn’t mean you are welcome.