Controversy continues to swirl around an anti-Israel “BDS” event at Brooklyn College on February 7, in which police removed four Jewish students from the event advocating for “BDS,” which is “boycott [of], divestment [from] and sanctions [against])” Israel. School officials are now investigating the removal, according to an article in the Jewish Daily Forward.

Earlier, Travis Barham reported on the academic freedom aspects of this event.  Brooklyn College elevated the controversy when the school’s political science department agreed to co-sponsor the event.  Some argued that the college should have not taken sides in such a controversial debate, because official sponsorship by the school gave greater legitimacy to the anti-Israeli views, according to an article in the New York Times. Others said the public pressure raised questions about academic freedom of the school’s political science department.

BDS advocates make the controversial comparison of current day Israel and its treatment of its Palestinian residents to the apartheid regime that ruled South Africa and how it treated its black citizens.  They urge universities to “boycott, divest and sanction” Israel today as they did South Africa in the 1970′s and 80′s.  Many supporters of Israel strongly dispute that comparison to South African apartheid, by pointing out that Israel has the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, and treats its residents much better than many of the nearby Arab neighbors treat their citizens.

The event sparked another First Amendment controversy when campus security removed four Jewish students from the event.  It is not clear why campus security ordered the four students to leave. Some report that the Jewish students were not disruptive so that cannot be the reason why the security people removed them.   Campus officials are conducting an investigation of this event.

If the investigation finds that someone ordered campus security to escort the Jewish students out of the meeting because they disagreed with the anti-Israel views of the BDS movement, this incident raises serious concerns about an open marketplace of ideas on that campus, and whether the school protects the First Amendment rights of its students.

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.

I’ve never been in the military.  But I’ve known a few good men and women who have served our country.  And I know that when they are putting their life on the line, the comforting prayer or counsel from a military chaplain has made a huge difference.  That’s why I was disturbed to see last month that Americans United for Separation of Church and State sent a letter to the United States Military Academy at West Point.  AU wrongly claims the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is offended whenever military chaplains solemnize an event with an invocation or benediction, which only occurs at a handful of events each year.  Alliance Defending Freedom responded by sending a letter to West Point on behalf of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, confirming that West Point’s practice of solemnizing events with invocations or benedictions is completely constitutional.  Here’s why.   

The United States Army has offered soldiers the opportunity to hear solemnizing prayers since the Revolutionary Days.  General George Washington asked his chaplains to pray for the troops during those critical days at Valley Forge.  West Point has offered invocations and benedictions at important events in cadet careers since its founding in 1802.  In fact, before the ratification of the First Amendment, Congress authorized the appointment and use of commissioned chaplains, in part to offer solemnizing prayers at crucial moments in a soldier’s life and our Nation’s history.   If this tradition was established before ratification of the Establishment Clause, then the Founding Fathers clearly didn’t think it was a problem.  

The purpose of West Point’s prayers is to allow military chaplains to partner with the academy’s leadership in the development of future leaders of character and offer words of encouragement in support of the particular event’s intent.  The invocations and benedictions are opportunities to dignify milestone events in a cadet’s career, not moments to advance one religion over another.  Moreover, cadets are not compelled to participate in the prayers, or even listen to them.  But the prayers offer them time to reflect on the significance of their education and training.

One of West Point’s tasks is to help cadets learn how to celebrate the religious diversity in the Army.  This is done not by stripping “the public square of every last shred of public piety,” as a federal court of appeals said.  Learning to celebrate the religious diversity in the Army is accomplished by providing a positive view of America’s rich religious diversity.   West Point’s acknowledgement of religious and non-religious practices of various kinds aligns with the non-establishment philosophy embodied in the First Amendment.

We hope West Point doesn’t capitulate to AU’s demands, but continues this vital tradition for future soldiers.

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.