Sonlight and CHEC

[Word Nerd]

Thank you for checking into this, dhudson. I find this answer to be puzzling, especially in light of the other vendors who are scheduled to be at CHEC. I think there is more to the story that we don't know. Maybe this group has done something wrong here, maybe they haven't. There isn't enough information to know that yet. I also think there is *a lot* of internet assumption and gossip and condemnation going around, and I don't think that's right.

 

I haven't seen any. I have, however, seen a lot of concern and questions being asked.

 

It seems like the definition that some have of gossip is any time women are involved in discussing a group or individual.

[Sophia]

Have you taken a look at the thread on pagans?

I haven't read much, but enough to determine that "the larger trend in the homeschool community" is that people are going to continue to choose their own paths including "the self-righteous thought-police group in Colorado."

And that's as it should be, right?

 

Sonlight isn't being made inaccessible to anyone.

CHEC has just chosen not to support it.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

Sonlight isn't being made inaccessible to anyone.

CHEC has just chosen not to support it.

 

Sonlight, after more than 10 years of attending, supporting, and selling at the CHEC, has been excluded without much notice and with no real change in their approach or practices to warrant this, and with no convincing justification given by CHEC, who has at least a moral obligation, as a Christian group, to behave honorably and justly in their dealings.

 

This is more serious than CHEC 'choosing not to support it'. This is a sudden change of policy and rejection, with no reasonable rationale. It is not right.

[Sophia]

Sonlight, after more than 10 years of attending, supporting, and selling at the CHEC, has been excluded without much notice and with no real change in their approach or practices to warrant this, and with no convincing justification given by CHEC, who has at least a moral obligation, as a Christian group, to behave honorably and justly in their dealings.

 

This is more serious than CHEC 'choosing not to support it'. This is a sudden change of policy and rejection, with no reasonable rationale. It is not right.

 

While I agree that CHEC has an obligation to behave honorably and justly, I don't agree that choosing to exclude vendors with whom they no longer feel they can work with is dishonorable.

 

In my previous post I pointed out the other thread on pagans and witches.

There are so may posters on there that it would not surprise me in the least to see them organize and hold a homeschool conference in the next few years.

It will also not surprise me when they choose to be selective in their list of acceptable vendors and speakers.

Putting on a conference is a tremendous amount of work-of course the organizers should be able to determine their own agenda.

 

Just as homeschoolers can choose to attend...or not.

[Erica in PA]

I haven't seen any. I have, however, seen a lot of concern and questions being asked.

 

It seems like the definition that some have of gossip is any time women are involved in discussing a group or individual.

 

We must define gossip differently, then, because this entire discussion, here and elsewhere, is based on conjecture and assumptions about a group of people, when no one knows the truth for sure. That is gossip, imo. **One disgruntled individual** posted his bad experience in a bitter blog posting, and many, many people have jumped into the fray based on that alone.

 

Just look at the language that has been used to describe CHEC and their decision on this board: legalistic crap, ridiculous, completely appalling, either stupid or dishonest, full of it, morons, and much more. It's a huge online pileup, based on very little concrete, objective fact. The fact that there are many women involved in the discussion has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Edited January 31, 2009 by Erica in PA

[Jane Elliot]

FYI, John just wrote another blog post with a lot more information on this matter at www.johnscorner.blogspot.com

 

Sorry if someone else already posted about this. I don't have time to look right now. I'm supposed to be cleaning the house. :D

[Sophia]

We must define gossip differently, then, because this entire discussion, here and elsewhere, is based on conjecture and assumptions about a group of people, when no one knows the truth for sure. That is gossip, imo. **One disgruntled individual** posted his bad experience in a bitter blog posting, and many, many people have jumped into the fray based on that alone.

 

Just looks at the language that has been used to describe CHEC and their decision on this board: legalistic crap, ridiculous, completely appalling, either stupid or dishonest, full of it, morons, and much more. It's a huge online pileup, based on very little concrete, objective fact. The fact that there are many women involved in the discussion has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

:iagree:

[coffeefreak]

While I agree that CHEC has an obligation to behave honorably and justly, I don't agree that choosing to exclude vendors with whom they no longer feel they can work with is dishonorable.

 

In my previous post I pointed out the other thread on pagans and witches.

There are so may posters on there that it would not surprise me in the least to see them organize and hold a homeschool conference in the next few years.

It will also not surprise me when they choose to be selective in their list of acceptable vendors and speakers.

Putting on a conference is a tremendous amount of work-of course the organizers should be able to determine their own agenda.

 

Just as homeschoolers can choose to attend...or not.

 

Sophia,

I agree with you to a certain extent. But, as Christians we are held to a higher standard. When a Christian organization can't give a straight answer, or they say one thing (ie Sonlight is not Christian enough) and do another (invite vendors that are NOT "Christian" at all), that is not acceptable. That is lying. If they had issued a statement saying that they can choose who comes and who doesn't, and that's that, I would still be annoyed, but not as angry. The fact that they're giving different answers all around and not holding anyone else to the "standard" they're holding Sonlight to, suggests something else is going on.

 

Unfortunately, we may never know what's really going on.

Blessings!

Dorinda

[Erica in PA]

While I agree that CHEC has an obligation to behave honorably and justly, I don't agree that choosing to exclude vendors with whom they no longer feel they can work with is dishonorable.

 

In my previous post I pointed out the other thread on pagans and witches.

There are so may posters on there that it would not surprise me in the least to see them organize and hold a homeschool conference in the next few years.

It will also not surprise me when they choose to be selective in their list of acceptable vendors and speakers.

Putting on a conference is a tremendous amount of work-of course the organizers should be able to determine their own agenda.

 

Just as homeschoolers can choose to attend...or not.

 

:iagree:

[Erica in PA]

:iagree:

 

LOL, I just responded exactly the same way to your post above, Sophia!!

[Blessedfamily]

I don't have any gossip to offer, but would say the OP did the right thing. She can read one side of the story on a blog. She went directly to the source to get the other side of the story. She reported the response here, because no other statement from CHEC (that I saw anyway) was posted.

 

Sure, a company has a right to not support another company, and people have a right to not support the convention. But I think it's a good thing to discuss the principle behind these actions.

 

I personally don't need a convention excluding material to that degree for me. If they do so, I'd like to know, because I will assume there may be some suitable (to me) material not represented at that conference, and I will skip it or hold off on my purchases until I see more that is available.

 

IOW- exercise whatever guidelines you want (like excluding companies that are Christian, but don't teach XYZ), but just come out and say so, and I will make my decisions accordingly.

Edited January 31, 2009 by Blessedfamily
correct the c word.

[Erica in PA]

I don't have any gossip to offer, but would say the OP did the right thing. She can read one side of the story on a blog. She went directly to the source to get the other side of the story. She reported the response here, because no other statement from CHEC (that I saw anyway) was posted.

 

Sure, a company has a right to not support another company, and people have a right to not support the convention. But I think it's a good thing to discuss the principle behind these actions.

 

I personally don't need a convention censoring material to that degree for me. If they do so, I'd like to know, because I will assume there may be some suitable (to me) material not represented at that conference, and I will skip it or hold off on my purchases until I see more that is available.

 

IOW- exercise whatever guidelines you want (like excluding companies that are Christian, but don't teach XYZ), but just come out and say so, and I will make my decisions accordingly.

 

I agree with you completely, on all points.

[Sophia]

I guess I just have a problem with calling Sonlight's exclusion censorship.

 

So if a secular conference excludes Christian materials are they censoring or just choosing companies with whom they agree and align with their own beliefs?

 

Who goes to a conference assuming all materials will be represented? I certainly don't.

[DB in NJ]

Friends,

 

With great concern, I called the CHEC office to get BOTH sides of the story as I didn't want to jump to any conclusions and as I am always telling my kids - that there are always two sides to a story. The President of CHEC called me back and spoke to me at length, which I greatly appreciated.

 

This is not a young earth/old earth debate as such. This is also NOT about Usborne books as many, if not most, curriculum's use Usborne. What the gentlemen told me was that it was about Sonlight having 93 % of it's books (a figure from Sonlight) secular. They are concerned that parents who think they are getting a curriculum that is Christ/Bible based because it is on the CHEC floor will be misled. Whether we agree with this or not, we do have to note that CHEC is Christian Home Educators of Colorado and only 7% of it's curriculum being Christian in nature is not a lot. If a Classical Education Convention were being held we wouldn't expects say, Abeka, to be there.

 

If you have any concerns, I would encourage you to call or e-mail the CHEC office and hear BOTH sides of the story.

 

I am not sure if I agree with CHEC's stance or not, but at least I understand it now.

 

I apologize if this offends anyone, as that was not my intent.

 

CHEC has never looked at a Sonlight IG have they?? Good grief.

 

The books SL uses are mostly secular -- and they're good books! They go out of their way to offer balance in their notes to the teacher in the IG's.

 

This stuff just gives me a headache...

[Blessedfamily]

.....Who goes to a conference assuming all materials will be represented? I certainly don't.

 

I don't think they're all there either. In fact, some conferences are really hard to get invited to because of space and other issues.

 

But a big company like Sonlight, who's (by all accounts) been at this conference every year for years?

 

I would be expecting to see them this year too. I think that's a reasonable expectation.

 

 

 

ETA- I forgot to add, I wouldn't use the term censorship either.

Edited January 31, 2009 by Blessedfamily

[Melinda in VT]

I guess I just have a problem with calling Sonlight's exclusion censorship.

 

So if a secular conference excludes Christian materials are they censoring or just choosing companies with whom they agree and align with their own beliefs?

 

Who goes to a conference assuming all materials will be represented? I certainly don't.

 

I don't think it is censorship.

 

The problem I see is that it seems the current leadership of CHEC is excluding vendors based on whether or not they agree and align with the beliefs of the current leadership, not the published and commonly held beliefs of the membership.

 

I don't think people who joined CHEC understood the group to stand for what the current leadership seems to stand for.

 

(Insert all kinds of disclaimers here. My understanding based on what I have read, etc.)

[Sophia]

I personally don't need a convention censoring material to that degree for me.

 

Sorry if I misunderstood you. I thought you were implying they were censoring with the above comment.

[Murphy101]

I don't think it is censorship.

 

The problem I see is that it seems the current leadership of CHEC is excluding vendors based on whether or not they agree and align with the beliefs of the current leadership, not the published and commonly held beliefs of the membership.

 

I don't think people who joined CHEC understood the group to stand for what the current leadership seems to stand for.

 

yeah, that's howit sounds.

by their own SoF standard, sonlight is fine.

by their new standard against sonlight, a lot of their own members should be booted from their roster

 

I don't know that I'd call it censorship.

I'd call it black-balling or maybe slander.:glare:

 

And I really am not a fan of sonlight and never really have been.

But I wouldn't go so far as to say they are so unchristian as to not be welcome at a christian book convention. And yes, there's a couple homeschool providers that I would feel that way about, and they are listed as being on the vendor list for CHEC.

[Sophia]

The problem I see is that it seems the current leadership of CHEC is excluding vendors based on whether or not they agree and align with the beliefs of the current leadership, not the published and commonly held beliefs of the membership.

 

I don't think people who joined CHEC understood the group to stand for what the current leadership seems to stand for.

 

 

Yes, current CHEC members should certainly have a voice or withdraw membership if their conscience so dictates.

 

I still think conference organizers should be able to organize their own conference, be it secular or Christian.

 

A pp stated CHEC is held to a higher standard because of their Christian foundation.

This is certainly true and I suspect is the basis for the current leadership making the decisions they have: They are seeking to please God and not men.

[Blessedfamily]

"Sorry if I misunderstood you. I thought you were implying they were censoring with the above comment."

 

 

You're right Sophia I did use that term. I replaced that word with exclusion, but lost my post and re-pasted it and didn't make the correction. I didn't even realize you were referring to my post.:001_smile:

 

Now, FWIW exclusion is OK with me to a degree.

 

If I choose a Christian homeschool conference, I already know some materials won't be there. I'm expecting that exclusion.

 

Now, if they go further and say something like, "Only Christians who are young earth", or "Only Christians who use a certain percentage of explicitly Christian materials", that's a level of exclusion I don't really need.

[Blessedfamily]

Yes, current CHEC members should certainly have a voice or withdraw membership if their conscience so dictates.

 

I still think conference organizers should be able to organize their own conference, be it secular or Christian.

 

A pp stated CHEC is held to a higher standard because of their Christian foundation.

This is certainly true and I suspect is the basis for the current leadership making the decisions they have: They are seeking to please God and not men.

 

The OP said the CHEC rep said the exclusion was because Sonlight uses 93% secular materials.

 

The part that was puzzling to me is that Sonlight has always had a large percentage of secular materials. But that includes math and grammar and other subjects where Christianity might not come up anyway.

 

I just don't understand why this year is different.

[chaik76]

I've loved Sonlight for the younger grades. We're on our sixth Core, but I've always had to separate Holzman from the curriculum. :D

 

That's funny...I too feel a bit that way as far as his notes, etc., but I like him personally (as much as I know him from his posts on the SL forum).:001_smile:

[chaik76]

Here's John's new blog post:

http://johnscorner.blogspot.com/2009/01/change-of-interpretation-on-chec.html

[Cornerstone Classical]

Ouch!

 

I read the whole post, and this is the best part, YOU GO!!!!

 

"Or, perhaps,

 

• Change CHEC's name to make its true character better known:
  
  
  • Fundamentalist Christian Home Educators of Colorado.
    
    
  • Christian Young Men's Apprenticeship, Mentoring and Entrepreneurship League of Colorado.
    
    
  • Or some such. "
    

   

   

 

[chaik76]

I guess I just have a problem with calling Sonlight's exclusion censorship.

 

So if a secular conference excludes Christian materials are they censoring or just choosing companies with whom they agree and align with their own beliefs?

 

Who goes to a conference assuming all materials will be represented? I certainly don't.

Me! Me! I do...I've only been to one like that and it was the greatest thing ever. I choose my curricula based on academic standards...at this point I have to attend FOUR conventions to find what I need. How I WISH that everything was represented!!!!

 

(I need to start a convention like that!)

[Blessedfamily]

Me! Me! I do...I've only been to one like that and it was the greatest thing ever. I choose my curricula based on academic standards...at this point I have to attend FOUR conventions to find what I need. How I WISH that everything was represented!!!!

 

(I need to start a convention like that!)

 

 

Well, I don't expect them all...just Rainbow Resource. They have everything:001_wub:. If they're not coming then I can't make it!

[Carol in Cal.]

While I agree that CHEC has an obligation to behave honorably and justly, I don't agree that choosing to exclude vendors with whom they no longer feel they can work with is dishonorable.

 

 

It will also not surprise me when they choose to be selective in their list of acceptable vendors and speakers.

Putting on a conference is a tremendous amount of work-of course the organizers should be able to determine their own agenda.

QUOTE]

 

Yes, they do have an obligation to the honorable and just. And yes, they do have a right to determine their own agenda.

 

Choosing to exclude vendors with whom they had a longterm good working relationship goes beyond being selective, in my view. If they had never included Sonlight, fine. But to change their minds about Sonlight, with no precipitating event, doesn't seem right to me. That's my point.

 

And I, personally, don't consider it censorship. But it still doesn't seem right.

[Night Elf]

They are seeking to please God and not men.

 

So God is pleased with the following secular vendors who will be at CHEC:

 

National Driver Training Institute

Right Start Mathematics

Quality Science Labs, LLC

Teaching Textbooks

The Critical Thinking Company

 

I think CHEC has made a huge mistake. I don't see God excluding Sonlight but allowing these other TOTALLY secular materials. Of course CHEC has a right to allow or disallow vendors, but I think it's wrong to suggest they are doing so because they are following God's lead.

[Blessedfamily]

So God is pleased with the following secular vendors who will be at CHEC:

 

National Driver Training Institute

Right Start Mathematics

Quality Science Labs, LLC

Teaching Textbooks

The Critical Thinking Company

 

I think CHEC has made a huge mistake. I don't see God excluding Sonlight but allowing these other TOTALLY secular materials. Of course CHEC has a right to allow or disallow vendors, but I think it's wrong to suggest they are doing so because they are following God's lead.

 

They aren't allowing Sonlight on the basis of being 93% secular, but they're allowing these companies?