Talk:Silliman Institute

Was it founded as a seg academy?
There's a little edit war brewing here. Please discuss. I just added a source that says it was.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The school is a successor organization to several previous educational institutes dating back to 1852. The present organization was formed in 1965, prior to the desegregation issues that came to the forefront in the local area in 1969.  All of the sources that I can find on the desegregation orders in the parishes surrounding Baton Rouge seem to be 1969, three years after this school (in it's present form) was brought into being.  This source on page 5 shows East Feliciana (where the school) is located to have a desegregation order with a date of 1969.  If it is a segregation academy, the founders would have had to be able to see 4 years into the future to "guard" against something that hadn't happened yet.  Also, keep in mind that the school claims lineage back to 1852 as shown on their official crest. In my opinion, the answer is no, but by no means am I an expert, as I am still learning about segregation academies.  Alf, it just seems to me that you want to label every private school founded in America in the 1960s as a segregation academy.  In my opinion you seem to have an agenda and point of view that you are trying to enforce on all of these articles dealing with private schools.  While some, maybe even a lot, of the articles you have applied this "agenda" to may legitimately be segregation academies, I think this is one that is not.  This article is a perfect example of what I was talking about on some other articles when I stated that there doesn't seem to be a standardized criteria for calling a school a segregation academy.  Being founded between the 1950s-1970s, combined with being a private school does not automatically make an institution a segregation academy, and so far that seems to be the main (if not only) criteria I have seen used mostly. Sf46 (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * They did not have to see into the future. Do you contend that they didn't realize that Brown v. Board was going to be brought to Louisiana, by force if necessary?  Do you think they didn't read the newspapers during the federal occupation of Little Rock?  The fact that the school bought the buildings of a completely different school that was founded in 1852 has nothing to do with the current school.  Not even if they put it on their crest.  Face reality.  Or don't face reality, but face what's written in reliable sources. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

When was it founded?
The school was not originally founded in 1852 and then reopened. These were two entirely different organizations. It is specious to claim that there's any connection between them other than that the later one bought the campus of the earlier one.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As stated just above, and on the school's website. They claim to be a successor organization to the original Silliman Institute of 1852.  It's kind of like when military units claim the lineage of an earlier unit, and claim it's battle honors and establishment date.  Also consider companies that get bought out and their founded on (or in) date is still claimed as such by the entity still operating under the same name. Sf46 (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but they're not a reliable source for that information. The previous institution was a Presbyterian women's college.  This is a secular high school and a former segregation academy.  The claim that they're related in any way is controversial (and wrong), and so self-sourcing is not reliable for it.  Find a real source or remove the claim.  No company was bought out, no lineage was carried on.  They bought some buildings from a college that had been defunct for 3 decades and used them to house a high school.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Segregation academy
This was a segregation academy at its founding. Is there any defensible reason not to have it in the category?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

why was it founded
By "parents who opposed government intervention in education?" A ridiculous euphemism. It was founded to evade racial segregation of public education and RS say so. As a sanity check, one might wonder why "parents who opposed government intervention in education" would accept financial support from the state government of Louisiana to run their school. They were opposed to integration, not "government intervention."&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

OR regarding nondiscrimination
This: Changes to the school's admission's policies, as evidenced by the non-discrimination policy posted on the school's official website, were later instituted, allowing for its graduates to qualify for the TOPS scholarship. strikes me as OR. The school has a non-discrimination policy. That should be stated and self-sourced. That the change in policy allowed its graduates to qualify for the scholarship is OR. If a claim is made that the state law requires non-discrimination for grads to receive the scholarship and the school made the change, then this would be synthesis rather than valid support of the claim.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)