Quote:
Originally Posted by myboynoah
Let me play my brother's advocate.
The kids knows of the requirement to maintain an EE, just like every other student. Did the Bishop just spring this on him? None of us know the Bishop's side to this and probably never will. As Mike has pointed out many times, tithing funds subsidize tuition in a very significant way (would it be unreasonable to say that BYU students pay only 10% of the costs invovled?). We all know that supply does not meet demand for those wanting to go to BYU.
Then why should a kid, regardless of whether or not he/she is an athlete, be allowed to attend if he/she cannot maintain an EE? It's very simple and the easiest aspect of staying qualified to attend the university. Or is much of this just about how it appears to the outside world?
I have little sympathy for people who can't follow simple instructions. Kind of like those folks in Florida in 2000 who wanted to vote for Al Gore but ended up voting for Pat Buchanan.
I guess this puts me firmly in the mullah camp.
|
I hope you aren't a mullah or I would have to fall in that camp too. I support the Bishop's right to do what he did. I do not feel I have the right to attack him personally. He didn't molest a child after all.
I do feel I have the right to disagree though with what he did. I look at it as having a difference of opinion. If in fact this kid is attending 50% of his meetings I find it hard to believe all Bishops wouldn't give this kid a EE. If this is the case, then you can't say EE is a standard that all kids are held the same too.