The freedom of religious student groups at America’s public universities is under constant attack.  However, the Virginia legislature is the latest to fight back.

Way too many universities forbid religious student groups from choosing leaders and members that share their views.  Many schools contend that these groups “discriminate” on the basis of religion or sexual orientation.  Others have adopted so-called “all-comers” policies, which require groups to accept anyone as a leader or member, even if he or she rejects the group’s purpose, mission, positions, and perspective.  Sound absurd?

Well, the real goal is to marginalize theologically orthodox Christian groups that have statements of faith and sexual conduct standards.  The prevailing orthodoxy on America’s college campuses rejects (1) the exclusivity of Christ as the way of salvation; and (2) the contention that sexual intimacy outside marriage, including homosexual behavior, is immoral.  And, the campus orthodoxy has little tolerance for dissenting voices.  That’s why groups that have statements of faith and conduct standards are denied equal treatment.

Virginia lawmakers recently passed a bill that prevents politically correct university bureaucrats from punishing religious and political student groups that want their representatives to share their views.  The bill passed the House 73-27 and the Senate 22-18.  Both Republicans and Democrats voted in favor.

Foes of genuine religious freedom, like the Virginia ACLU, predictably oppose the bill.  They urge Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell to veto the bill.  The indispensable Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and the Virginia Family Foundation are among those asking McDonnell to sign the bill.

The Virginia legislature is not the first to address attacks on student group freedom.  Ohio enacted a law in 2011 that protects the associational freedom of religious students.  The Arkansas legislature is considering similar legislation.

Last year, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam vetoed legislation that would have protected student religious groups at Vanderbilt and other private universities in the state. The Tennessee legislature is currently considering another bill that would deny private universities state “police power” if they refuse to respect student group freedom.

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s unfortunate 2010 decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which held that a public law school did not violate the Constitution by refusing, under an “all-comers” policy, to recognize a religious student group, it is encouraging to see state legislatures take a stand for freedom.  We hope that elected representatives in more states take up the cause.

By Rory Gray, Alliance Defending Freedom Litigation Counsel

Like many of you, I have great childhood memories associated with scouting, from hiking, swimming, archery, and snow camp to jamborees and merit badges as varied as first aid and coin collecting, which I earned with ample help from my dad.  But scouting always promised to teach me more than how to do useful things.  Its oft-repeated goal was to teach me how to live in any situation.  Come on, say it with me, you know the words:  “A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.”

Unlike so many other activities that just give young people things to do, scouting answers the all-important question of why and how they should do them. In a culture where self-absorption is the rule, scouting focuses on the ethical obligations we owe to others. That is why every scout promises:  “To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”  This longstanding focus on moral duty is what sets scouting apart from mere “play” pursuits.  It is also the reason why Boy Scouts of America continues to thrive over 100 years after its founding, while most groups founded so long ago are dwindling or dead.

That track record of success is a good reason not to tinker with the Boy Scouts’ essential values.  But for well over a decade now activists have waged a relentless crusade to force the Boy Scouts to approve homosexual conduct and welcome avowed homosexuals into their ranks.  Of course, the freedom of association prevents such external interference with the Boy Scouts’ moral values and the importance of this right is not lost on you. As members of university student groups, many of you have been routinely attacked for not opening leadership and membership positions to those who vehemently disagree with your religious or policy views.  You know what it’s like to fight battles to keep your club’s recognized status, student-fee funding, and freedom of association from being stripped away.

Just as Alliance Defending Freedom stood with you to ensure that your freedom of association was respected, we stand in support of the Boy Scouts now. And we need your help.  Let the Boy Scouts know that you support their decision to stand by their values by signing our petition and then sharing it with your family and friends.  And pray for the Boy Scouts, as they remain a strong bulwark against the moral relativism that is tearing our nation apart.

If educational institutions are primarily about worship, what do the activities of Christians, those protected by the First Amendment, have to offer these institutions? Quite a lot. I want to spend this post and a few others thinking out how a “worship paradigm” can illuminate the value of Christian practices in the educational environment and the need to protect these activities.

Let me first begin by explaining what I mean by a “worship paradigm.” In his interesting book Desiring the Kingdom, Professor James K.A. Smith draws on Augustinian anthropology to argue that humans are inherently and primarily worshiping, desiring creatures.[1] Our institutions reflect this nature, and so they too inherently involve worship. These institutions are constantly shaping our desires and prodding us to worship different things by engaging us in certain practices (or “liturgies”).

For example, Smith points us to the mall where mannequins (Smith calls them icons of a sort) frequently appear in store windows and thus subtly bombard us with a vision of the good life: buy this, look like this, value this, desire this, and you’ll be happy. The point is that the mall is structured in such a way to promote a practice (gazing upon the displays) that appeals to and shapes our desires. The same is true, Smith argues, about educational institutions. Schools are not simply communicating ideas and knowledge. They are forming the desires of students and prompting them to worship certain values through practices that occur in the classroom, in the dining hall, and in the dorm spaces. Thus, Smith claims, our educational institutions are not primarily about conveying information but about transforming our hearts and desires.

So this is what I mean by “worship paradigm”: it’s simply the idea that we can re-conceptualize the culture and institutions around us in terms of worship, rather than think in exclusively cognitive terms or limit the worship concept to stereotypical “religious” settings (e.g., a church building). Under this paradigm, we can, like the apostle Paul, tell the members of the Athenian Areopagus (the Academy) that they are in fact “religious” in every way.

Now, if we view educational institutions under this “worship paradigm,” the activities of Christians at educational institutions become vitally important, not simply because they communicate true ideas but because they are a set of practices (liturgies) that reshape the desires of those who participate in and observe them. Thus, by distributing literature on a university campus or by gathering to study the bible or by meeting to pray, Christian student groups conduct activities that others can see and/or participate in and in turn be shaped by. Somewhat like the window display in the mall, the Christian groups are encouraging others to value, desire, and worship certain things and worship in certain ways. And this witness is quite powerful because it arises in the context of a larger worshiping community (the university itself) that is engaged in an alternative set of liturgies — a worship of an alternative set of values.

Well, great. Christian practices are valuable in the educational context partly because they shape people’s desires and counter the worship promoted elsewhere in the educational system. But how does this idea relate to the legal context? Well, does this idea not suggest that it is extremely important to protect the ability of Christian groups to engage in these worship forming practices? — practices of gathering together, choosing their leaders, praying together, etc. And does it not suggest that we need to protect these activities even if others find no cognitive value in them?  And does it not suggest that efforts to undermine the legal protection of these activities are a grave threat? Unfortunately, I will need another post to explore these ideas in the concrete legal context. But there is no better place to begin this exploration than New York City’s 18 year effort to prevent churches from “worshiping” in public school buildings after school, even though other “secular” groups can “worship” in these buildings.

Since Pastor Giglio withdrew from the upcoming presidential inauguration due to leftist outrage over a sermon about homosexual conduct, a variety of voices have rallied to his defense.  These voices include fellow ministers like Albert Mohler, constitutional attorneys like Jordan Lorence, and others like Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.  But recently, two younger voices—and former Alliance Defending Freedom clients—highlighted how those who advocate for tolerance the most display it the least. 

After recounting Pastor Giglio’s wide-ranging ministry, Ruth Malhotra and Jennifer Keeton describe just how “tolerantly” leftists treats those who disagree with them:

The extreme opposition to Giglio was yet another example of a tragic lesson we learned firsthand as students at public universities.  And that lesson is this:  unless you embrace, applaud, and advocate for the homosexual lifestyle and same-sex marriage, your views, your voice, and even your work on behalf of the poor and suffering are not welcome in the public square.

Despite all the sacrificial efforts one may have invested into humanitarian causes for the greater good, there is this rabid insistence that in order to do anything in the civic arena—including offer a prayer at a monumental event for our nation—you must not have, at any time in your history, spoken in a way that is disagreeable to a certain group of activists.

As they explain, this extreme intolerance of those who hold Biblical views extends from high-profile events like an inaugural benediction to university campuses, where it is pervasive.  And it involves a range of tactics:  “Sometimes—as in the case of Giglio—the tactic of the far-left involves attempts to shame and shun those they disagree with, and other times they actually use the force of law to silence those who do not share their worldview.”

For Ruth and Jennifer, this effort to purge the public square of any viewpoints the left deems “offensive” or “intolerant” is far from theoretical.  Instead, they speak from personal experience, as they have both stood courageously to defend their convictions and freedoms at Georgia Tech and Augusta State University:

We were repeatedly censored, threatened, and condemned for our refusal to conform to a narrow agenda regarding human sexual behavior.  We were told by administrators and professors that we must change our Biblical beliefs, follow impossibly vague speech codes, and undergo comprehensive programs of thought reform.  Our cases, filed by Alliance Defending Freedom, defended the freedom of Christian and conservative students to speak on matters of public importance and to pursue our fields of study without compromising our convictions.  In response to our lawsuits, the Tolerance Inquisition unleashed its fury.  We faced everything from snide insults to false attacks on our character to threats of rape and murder so serious that Ruth was put under police protection.

Sadly, Pastor Giglio’s experience illustrates how the mindset so typical on university campuses is beginning to leech into the rest of society.  The only way for this to change is for Christians—whether on campus or off—to ignore the social stigma and stand up for their beliefs.  When they do, we stand ready to assist them and to insist that their freedom to exercise and proclaim those beliefs be respected.

Update:  Ruth’s and Jennifer’s column is also available at The Atlanta Journal Constitution and The Christian Post.

Years ago, Abigail Thernstrom described universities as “islands of repression in a sea of freedom.”  More recently, several columnists have highlighted how the effort to indoctrinate students pervades virtually every aspect of campus life.

Last month, George Will’s Washington Post column outlined how campus speech codes actually train students to support censorship.  In so doing, universities stifle the robust debate and exchange of ideas they claim to support.  And because these speech codes affect every aspect of student life—from the classroom to the dorm room—they are a particularly pernicious method for suppressing unpopular ideas.

Just today, Thomas Sowell’s column, The Role of ‘Educators,’ highlights how this indoctrination occurs in the classroom.  After all, far too many professors see them­selves as “agent[s] of change” who are “strategically placed, with an opportunity to condition students to want a different kind of society.”  Of course, some openly ad­mit this.  For example, Richard Rorty—a long-time philosophy professor—explained that he “like most Americans who teach humanities or social science in colleges and universities . . . try to arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homo­phobic religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own.”  He even warned parents that he and his colleagues “are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist re­ligious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than dis­cussable.”  As Sowell notes, having discarded the job of teaching people how to think, these professors seek to undermine the values that made America great.

Last week, Jeremy Tedesco’s column at Townhall.com trumpeted Julea Ward’s victory against indoctrination efforts cloaked as practicum assignments.  After she took an unpopular stand for years, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed her conviction that she should not be forced to endorse behavior she considered immoral by ruling that public universities “cannot compel students to alter or violate their beliefs . . . as the price for obtaining a degree.”  This is a tremendous victory for religious freedom, one that will benefit students far beyond just Eastern Michigan University.

Last month, Mike Adams critiqued the Supreme Court’s unfortunate ruling in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which extends indoctrination efforts into the extracurricular arena.  In Cleaning Up After Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Mike highlights some of the flaws of the decision, but he also describes how his university has stretched Martinez to violate the freedoms of religious and political student groups.  In A Queer Need for Rejection, he explains how Martinez exposes some student groups—such as a Christian group that expects its leaders to live by Biblical principles—to harassment and the constant threat of discrimination charges.

Of course, if you have experienced any of these avenues of indoctrination, please contact us.  Your rights may well have been violated, and you may be in a position to secure not only your own freedoms but—like Julea Ward—those of countless others as well.