Single university president signs school contract agreeing not to "cohabitate"[W188]

[Jerry]

Re: Single university president signs school contract agreeing not to "cohabitate"[W1

I've never been a very big fan of that particular correlation. Every relationship is way too unique and comes with its own set of baggage and complications for these studies to hold any kind of water in my book. And as one of your links points out, there are studies that have found no such correlation at all.

What? No, no they're not "way too unique". Variations on a theme.

Either way, this is an individual decision that people should be free to make without outside interference. I personally have no issue with the arrangement in the OP, though. She agreed to it, it looks perfectly legal to me.

What evidence do you have that the new university president was coerced? Surly you don't think that this thread = coercion.

 

[Arcana XV]

Re: Single university president signs school contract agreeing not to "cohabitate"[W1

What? No, no they're not "way too unique". Variations on a theme.

I disagree. :shrug:

What evidence do you have that the new university president was coerced? Surly you don't think that this thread = coercion.

I never implied such a thing. Quite the opposite in fact. She was most certainly not coerced into anything. What I did imply is that she voluntarily agreed to the limitation in her choices. She's perfectly free to do so.

 

[Hard Truth]

Re: Single university president signs school contract agreeing not to "cohabitate"[W1

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's religious. Here's the contract itself, perfectly secular.

The belief that cohabitation without marriage is "wrong" is based primarily on religion, and it is a belief that most people no longer share. Whoever made that rule was attempting to impose their personal religious beliefs on an employee.

 

[Hard Truth]

Re: Single university president signs school contract agreeing not to "cohabitate"[W1

I absolutely agree with what you have said.

But,on the other hand, unlike what goes on in some other countries(With governments controlled by various religions.), no one forced the lady to sign the contract.

She did that of her own free will. And she is going to make $300,000 sleeping in that bedroom by herself. With $300,000/year, you can rent a lot of motel rooms.

We all have to make choices in our life. That lady made her choice.

I am not particularly concerned about this particular person. When people don't speak out against government imposing religious-based rules on government employees it is more likely to happen again.

 

[Jerry]

Re: Single university president signs school contract agreeing not to "cohabitate"[W1

The belief that cohabitation without marriage is "wrong" is based primarily on religion...

Yeah, you go tell Physiology Today that their study was based on religion. Good luck with that.

 

[Hard Truth]

Re: Single university president signs school contract agreeing not to "cohabitate"[W1

What? No, no they're not "way too unique". Variations on a theme.


What evidence do you have that the new university president was coerced? Surly you don't think that this thread = coercion.

They didn't have enough trust in this highly accomplished adult's willingness to comply with their ethical standards to leave out the clause.

 

[Hard Truth]

Re: Single university president signs school contract agreeing not to "cohabitate"[W1

Yeah, you go tell Physiology Today that their study was based on religion. Good luck with that.

There are many studies showing benefits to premarital cohabitation. In addition, many interpretations of the studies assume that the ending of the relationship is an undesirable outcome. In my view, saving someone from a messy divorce is a major benefit.

 

[Jerry]

Re: Single university president signs school contract agreeing not to "cohabitate"[W1

There are many studies showing benefits to premarital cohabitation.

No links backing up your claim. That figures. There's nothing about this contract or the signing parties which is based on any religious authority. I think you need to get over it and move on.

 

[shrubnose]

Re: Single university president signs school contract agreeing not to "cohabitate"[W1

I am not particularly concerned about this particular person.

When people don't speak out against government imposing religious-based rules on government employees it is more likely to happen again.

True but that $300,000/Year salary gives the school a lot of leverage.

 

[Hard Truth]

Re: Single university president signs school contract agreeing not to "cohabitate"[W1

Marriage, Cohabitation Provide Similar Health Benefit
- See more at: Marriage, Cohabitation Provide Similar Health Benefit | Psychological Well-being | LiveScience

Cohabiting couples are happier than wedded ones | Cornell Chronicle

Does Marriage Really Make People Happier? Study Finds Few Well-Being Advantages to Marriage Over Cohabitation Does marriage really make people happier? Study finds few well-being advantages to marriage over cohabitation

Those are just a few among the many found with a Google search of "study benefits of cohabitation"

 

[Hard Truth]

Re: Single university president signs school contract agreeing not to "cohabitate"[W1

Further evidence of the religious basis of the cohabitation restriction is that it discriminates against gays and lesbians.

 

[scatt]

Re: Single university president signs school contract agreeing not to "cohabitate"[W1

There isn't any.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Re: Single university president signs school contract agreeing not to "cohabitate"[W1

Further evidence of the religious basis of the cohabitation restriction is that it discriminates against gays and lesbians.

No moral person cares. Only sick perverts, and those who take their side.

 

[Hard Truth]

Re: Single university president signs school contract agreeing not to "cohabitate"[W1

No moral person cares. Only sick perverts, and those who take their side.

and supporters of the principals embodied by our Constitutional Bill of Right's first and fourth amendments, which say that government should not be promoting any particular religion or invading the private behavior of consenting adults.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

Re: Single university president signs school contract agreeing not to "cohabitate"[W1

Some might say that what she privately agrees to in a contract is nobody's business either.

Yet somehow it is. :doh Who spilled the beans? The college or the president?

 

[vasuderatorrent]

Re: Single university president signs school contract agreeing not to "cohabitate"[W1

Unless co-habitation is illegal in that state,

It's Alabama.

Besides. A marriage license is a license to have sex. Of course it's illegal. Our current Sheriff openly fires deputies who are in suspicion of committing adultery or engaging in pre-marital sex. He hasn't went to jail yet.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Single university president signs school contract agreeing not to "cohabitate"[W1

That is a ridiculous agreement.

What she does in her office is the schools business, What she does in her bedroom is nobody's business.

She never signed an agreement about not banging the hell out of ten guys a night though... just so long as they don't live with her.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Single university president signs school contract agreeing not to "cohabitate"[W1

There are many studies showing benefits to premarital cohabitation. In addition, many interpretations of the studies assume that the ending of the relationship is an undesirable outcome. In my view, saving someone from a messy divorce is a major benefit.

And the "for better or worse" argument is bunk too... my ex hid her BPD fairly well, or always had reasons as to why her behaviour was justified... we were then married and it was just insane. Almost literally... Divorce was best for me and for the kids. We had a terribly messy divorce that lasted years (including other Court issues). I whole heartedly recommend pre-marital living to everybody.

 

[Cryptic]

Re: Single university president signs school contract agreeing not to "cohabitate"[W1

Unless co-habitation is illegal in that state, it is a first amendment violation for a government agency to enforce a religious based prohibition on an employee's off-work behavior. It should only be allowed for key personnel of a religious employer.

Did they explicitly say that the prohibition was religous based? Atheists can also be opposed to sex outside of marriage. But yes, in all probability, it is religous based.

That aside, employers in the United States can legally place all kinds of stipulations into employment contracts governing conduct while not at work such as smoking, wearing certain clothing, drinking certain brands of alcohol, participating in parties that the school district does not approve of, driving foreign cars etc.