At Brooklyn College this week, it seems that everyone is talking about academic freedom.  A student group, Brooklyn College Students for Justice in Palestine, organized an event highlighting the “BDS” movement, which advocates for a boycott of Israel, urges people to divest companies that do business in Israel, and promotes sanctions against Israel.  Holding this event in Brooklyn naturally sparks controversy, and the controversy only grew when the political science department chose to co-sponsor it.

Hoping to quell the critics, President Gould issued a letter outlining her commitment to free speech and academic freedom.  She observed that “[s]tudents and faculty . . . have the right to invite speakers, engage in discussion, and present ideas to further educational discussion and debate.”  She noted that the “mere invitation to speak does not indicate an endorsement of any particular point of view, and there is no obligation, as some have suggested, to present multiple perspectives at any one event.”  Indeed, this is, in her mind, the very purpose of a university:  “Providing an open forum to discuss important topics, even those many find highly objectionable, is a centuries-old practice on university campuses around the country.  Indeed, this spirit of inquiry and critical debate is a hallmark of the American education system.”  Thus, she emphasized that “it is essential that Brooklyn College remain an engaged and civil learning environment where all views may be expressed without fear of intimidation or reprisal.”

Not only is this her position, but the political science department also “fully agrees and has reaffirmed its longstanding policy to give equal consideration to co-sponsoring speakers who represent any and all points of view.”  Those faculty also assured students that they “welcome—indeed encourage—requests to co-sponsor speakers and events from all student groups, departments, and programs.”

While many, such as Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School, may be skeptical, students should embrace the tremendous opportunity the President just gave them.  They now have an open invitation—from the President herself—to put the College to the test.  Does it really treasure academic freedom?  Does it really celebrate vigorous debate of “any and all points of view”—even controversial or “highly objectionable” ones?  Is it really an “environment where all views may be expressed without fear of intimidation or reprisal”?  Or is all of this just empty rhetoric administrators trots out when citizens object to leftist or politically correct ideas?

Well, as they say, actions speak louder than words.  Students can find out what the College really believes by organizing a whole series of events—complete with speakers and panel discussions—in keeping with the “BDS” theme:

Students United for Israel could call for a boycott of the PLO, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other groups that seek to destroy Israel; for the divestment of entities that financially support those racist—and often terrorist—groups; and for sanctions against those entities.

The Newman Catholic Club could call for a boycott of states that endorse same-sex “marriage” (including New York), for the divestment of groups that support same-sex “marriage,” and for sanctions against Catholics who stray from the Church’s teachings on this subject.

Chinese Christian Fellowship could call for a boycott of China due to its forced abortion policies and religious persecution, for the divestment of companies doing business in China, and for sanctions against China.

Brooklyn College Intercollegiate Studies Institute Group could call for states to boycott the Obamacare exchanges, for the divestment of groups that supported Obamacare (e.g., AARP), and for sanctions against Obama administration officials for implementing Obamacare.

The Coptic Christian Club could call for a boycott of the Muslim Brotherhood due to its persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, for the divestment of companies that do business in Egypt, and for sanctions against that country.

Intervarsity Christian Fellowship could call for a boycott of Planned Parenthood because it provides abortions, for the divestment of all businesses that support Planned Parenthood (e.g., Susan G. Komen for the Cure), and for sanctions against Planned Parenthood because of its taxpayer fraud.

Once these groups have organized their own BDS events and invited the speakers, they should ask the political science department—or even the President’s Office—to serve as co-sponsors.  Perhaps it could even be the College’s theme for the semester.

The responses to such invitations would be telling.  If the President and the political science faculty were to decline for one lame excuse or another or if they were to insist on a more “balanced” presentation, students could simply say, in the monotone the National Weather Service patented:  “This is a test.  This is a test of academic freedom at Brooklyn College.”  Then they could call a group that really believes in academic freedom—the Alliance Defending Freedom.

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.

Last October, Angela McCaskill, chief diversity officer at Gallaudet University, the nation’s premier university for the deaf, was placed on administrative leave for signing a Maryland petition to protect marriage.  We wrote to Gallaudet and expressed our serious concern about the many laws the university broke by punishing an employee for clearly protected speech.  After three months on leave, and with her employment uncertain, Gallaudet announced this week that McCaskill is back on the job.

The university correctly reinstated McCaskill, but we are troubled that the university let this drag on so long.  Several years ago, San Francisco State University conducted a seven-month investigation of several college students for sponsoring a speech event on campus.  The university eventually dropped the investigation, but it had already chilled the students’ free speech.  A federal court later enjoined the policy that allowed the university to investigate dubious charges.  No doubt, Gallaudet has accomplished the same result by suspending McCaskill for three months after she engaged in a constitutionally protected activity.  If Gallaudet had been a public university, McCaskill would have a strong First Amendment retaliation claim.  But even though it’s not, Gallaudet was close to breaking several federal and state laws.  We hope McCaskill won’t be dissuaded from expressing her personal beliefs in the future, and we caution that public universities should not follow Gallaudet’s speech-chilling example.

The Illinois Department of Human Rights has dismissed a charge of “sexual orientation” discrimination leveled at Benedictine University by a former employee.

Sharon “Laine” Tadlock served as director of the University’s education program at its campus in Springfield, Illinois.  In the wake of the Iowa Supreme Court’s invention of a state constitutional right to “same-sex marriage,” Tadlock and her female partner got “married” in Iowa.  Upon Tadlock’s return, she published a wedding announcement in the local newspaper.  In it, she identified herself as a Benedictine University employee.  By doing so, she publicly flouted the University’s religious teaching on marriage.  In response, the University transferred her to a different job position, with the same salary and benefits.  She failed to appear for work on the appointed day, thereby resigning her employment.

Tadlock complained to the Illinois Department of Human Rights that the University had discriminated against her on the basis of her sexual orientation.  The Department rejected her claim, reasoning that anything the University did to her (and it denies any adverse treatment) was motivated not by her sexual orientation, her sexual behavior, or her “marriage,” but instead by her public flouting — in a newspaper announcement in which she identified herself as a University employee – of the school’s religious teaching.

The Alliance Defense Fund assisted in the University’s defense.

On Tuesday, the North Carolina Senate followed the lead of the state House and approved a proposed state constitutional amendment defining marriage only as one man and one woman. North Carolina voters will decide whether to add the proposed amendment to the state constitution in a vote during the primary in May 2012.

North Carolina voters will join Minnesota voters in 2012 in deciding whether to add marriage definition amendments to their respective state constitutions. The Minnesota Legislature earlier this year approved a similar proposed amendment to the state constitution that would define marriage only as one man and one woman. Voters in the North Star State will decide whether to add it to the state constitution in November 2012. The Indiana Legislature also approved a marriage amendment, but it must pass the Legislature again after the 2012 election before it goes to the people for a popular vote.

Currently, 29 states have state constitutional amendments defining marriage.  Additionally, Hawaii has a provision giving exclusive jurisdiction to define marriage to the state legislature. Six states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex “marriage.” Three of the states (Massachusetts, Iowa and Connecticut) had same sex marriage imposed by court decrees. In three states (Vermont, New Hampshire and New York) and the District of Columbia, elected officials voted to change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples.

_____________________
Join the conversation Facebook.com/SpeakUpU
Sound off below – Leave a comment!