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.

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.

A surprising menace to free speech lurks on school campuses around the country – an outbrake of being “nice.” I’m not talking about being polite, considerate, or thoughtful. Those traits should be valued and pursued diligently. Being nice is usually viewed as the opposite of being “mean,” and students are considered “mean” if they dare to disagree with a classmate on practically anything except their favorite ice cream flavor.

Several years ago Chase Harper dared to disagree with his Poway High School teachers’ insistence that homosexual behavior is completely healthy and something to be celebrated. He was sent home for engaging in “offensive” and “derogatory” speech. More recently Jen Keeton made the terrible mistake of expressing to her classmates at Augusta State University that she thought she could help people who wanted out of the homosexual lifestyle. She was kicked out of her counseling masters program. And just this Fall students in a Christian group at Snow College in Utah were told that they couldn’t participate in homecoming festivities by painting a mural with a cross because one of the school officials was offended by it.

Students from grade school to grad school are being conditioned to believe they should keep quiet if what they say might possibly offend someone – even if that is not their intent at all. Failure to adjust their speech to avoid anything other students or administrators may perceive as offensive is considered mean spirited. Or even worse, they risk being labeled with the dreaded “B” word – “Bully.”

Students expressing views that align with biblical morality are especially at risk. That’s because “truth” is no longer something that can be determined in an objective sense, but is an idea each person must discover for themselves, like figuring out which flavor of ice cream you like best. But I digress. The real issue is whether we as a society will allow our students to express views that others may not like, and may even be offended by.

The answer is a resounding “yes.” As the Supreme Court determined in Texas v. Johnson (where a communist activist was arrested for burning an American flag) these are exactly the kind of views the First Amendment was designed to protect. We don’t need a law protecting speech everyone agrees with, because no one wants to censor “nice” speech. But if that’s all our students are allowed to express, then that’s pretty much all we are likely hear in the new future – politically correct niceness.

Our latest newsletter highlights the prevalence of university speech codes and the “you can’t say that” atmosphere they create on campus.  These speech codes—which about 65% of public universities have on the books—forbid students from saying anything that university administrators deem offensive, intolerant, or emotionally upsetting.  Taken literally and applied across the board, these policies would shut down virtually all discourse on campus (including even presidential debates), turning the “marketplace of ideas” into a ghost town.  But they are only enforced selectively to silence particular viewpoints, usually conservative and Christian ones.  To university administrators, secular or leftist speech is “provocative” or “challenging” and thus celebrated as essential to the academy.  But conservative or Christian ideas are “offensive” or even “hateful,” threaten the university community, and so the students espousing them must either be silenced or sanctioned.  So in practice, speech codes allow university officials to decide what ideas can be expressed on campus and to punish anyone who says anything that they do not want students to hear.

Of course, one might wonder whether these dangers are just theoretical.  Our newsletter describes how speech codes stifle speech, but Fordham University provides a recent, vivid example of this speech code mentality.  College Republicans at Fordham invited Ann Coulter to campus.  Unsurprisingly, this sparked significant controversy on campus, leading Fordham’s president, Rev. Joseph McShane, to chastise the group publicly.  In a statement, he wrote:  “To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the College Republicans . . . would be a tremendous understatement.”  Why?  In his eyes, Ann Coulter’s “rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative—more heat than light—and her message is aimed squarely at the darker side of our nature.”  In fact, it constitutes “[h]ate-speech, name-calling, and incivility,” causing him to feel both “disgust” and “great contempt.”

Sadly, in the face of this campus outrage and presidential belittling, College Republicans wilted, rescinded its invitation, cancelled the event, and apologized for sparking controversy.  And President McShane duly congratulated its contrite leaders because they “acted quickly, took responsibility for their decisions, and expressed their regrets sincerely and eloquently.” 

Of course, as a Catholic institution, Fordham is not obligated to protect free speech like a public university must, but President McShane’s response to this lecture still illustrates the “you can’t say that” mentality embodied in speech codes.  He decided that Ann Coulter’s ideas and method of expressing them had no place at Fordham, and he used the bully pulpit of his office to scold and manipulate students into silencing themselves.  Yet his handwringing about “Fordham’s values” is incredibly selective.  After all, a Fordham professor invited Peter Singer—the infanticide-advocating Princeton professor—to lecture on campus, and some law professors are demanding funding for the theatrical pornography of The Vagina Monologues.  Yet curiously, President McShane has not issued any statements questioning the “judgment and maturity” of these leftists and their events. 

Whether the tool is shaming or sanctions, the goal of speech codes and the mentality that flows from them is the same:  to limit campus discourse only to those voices and viewpoints that academia deems acceptable.  But the First Amendment has a different goal:  to promote full, free, and unfettered debate.  And when students are willing to take a stand, university administrators discover a startling truth:  when speech codes collide with the First Amendment, speech codes lose.

_______________

If you face unconstitutional speech codes on your campus give us a call at 1-800-835-5233 or email us here.

Today, Alliance Defending Freedom is launching a new tool with important information and up to date information about your rights on  campus. The Speak Up University Newsletter will cover a range of topics relevant to college students and their parents, as well as faculty and staff, keeping you informed about your constitutional right to Speak Up.

Take a look at the first newsletter here, and sign up to receive the newsletter in your inbox each month.