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.

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!

  The New York Times last Sunday published an opinions piece by Stanford Law Professor Ralph Richard Banks that essentially argues that American society has not achieved “marriage equality” by allowing same sex couples to marry. He argues that polygamy and incestuous marriage between adults should be legalized in order to evolve to full marriage equality:

Historically, both polygamy and incest have been more widely practiced, and accepted, than the Supreme Court, and most Americans, seem to believe.  Over time, our moral assessments of these practices will shift, just as they have with interracial marriage and same sex marriage. We will begin to take seriously questions that now seem beyond the pale: Should a state be permitted to imprison two cousins because they have sex or attempt to marry? Should a man and two wives be permitted to live together as a family when they assert that their religious convictions lead them to do so?

    So, as I and others have argued, the real issue is “marriage deconstruction” not “marriage equality” in the debate over whether same sex couples should be allowed to marry.   In other words, the fight is between those who believe that societies should encourage people to have sex and make babies only within a public institution called marriage, defined uniformly for all as one man and one woman.  The opposite view is not “allow same sex couples to marry,” but to abandon any common, culture-wide definition of marriage and allow each person to do what he or she thinks is right in regards to marriage, sex and family.  However, the harmful results societies suffer from this “self autonomy” view of marriage have caused world cultures to reject it. The common experience of human societies since the dawn of history is that the “self autonomy” model of sex, marriage and family causes men to act irresponsibly (because it is all about one’s self-fulfillment),by exploiting women and neglecting the children the men produce.

A society cannot sustain itself over time when it allows each person to define marriage and responsible sexual activity any way he wants.

Join the conversation: Facebook.com/SpeakUpU

Author: ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum

Something is rotten in the states of America… And it isn’t the state of marriage.

Despite a relentless pop-culture, a Big Media and education establishment-led propaganda campaign, and flawed polls screaming that marriage as we know it is doomed in the U.S., support for this foundation of our society is actually alive and well.

For those who believe the support for marriage as a union between one man and one woman has gone asunder in America, we direct you to a scientific survey sponsored by the Alliance Defense Fund and completed by Public Opinion Strategies last month.

When all the numbers were tallied up from what is believed to be the most extensive national research survey of its kind to date, it was confirmed that 62 percent of Americans believe that “marriage should be defined ONLY as a union between one man and one woman.”  A majority (53 percent) of Americans strongly agreed with this sentiment, and a slim 35 percent disagreed.  This comprehensive study of 1,500 Americans’ attitudes toward marriage included research from 14 focus groups from coast to coast.

If this isn’t enough to dispel the misguided claims and misrepresentative polls posturing that marriage in America is passé, please note that this survey is a strikingly accurate reflection of official polling results from the ballot box on this issue – putting the troubled leftist pipe dream in peril.  We’re talking about election statistics spanning from 1998 to 2008, when voters from 31 states were asked to support or reject a state marriage amendment.

California, back in the ancient days of 2008, when an ultra-right-wing presidential candidate received 137 percent of the state’s vote, a marriage amendment passed, sure.  Oh wait, that’s not what happened.  Despite being outspent by $3.5 million and lacking the support of every media, entertainment, cultural, union, educational, and political power structure, marriage proponents were able to pass Proposition 8 by four percent, with 52 percent of the vote.

Note also that Smurf-Blue Maine voted in 2009 to reverse a legislatively imposed redefinition of marriage and restored marriage in the state as it’s always been understood – the union of husband and wife – nothing more, nothing less.

In the 31 states that voted on a marriage protection amendment to determine whether the definition of marriage should stay as a union between a man and a woman within their borders, 63 percent of more than 63 million voters tipped the scales at “yes.”  Only 37 percent said “no.”  That’s nearly 40 million voters affirming marriage to some 23 million rejecting it – a decisive victory for the American family.

But what about the remaining states without such an amendment protecting marriage? (The federal government, along with 45 states, has preserved the definition of marriage either through constitutional amendment or statute.)  If would-be marriage re-definers are so confident, why do they oppose “taking it to the polls” and putting this very public policy decision in the hands of the public?  Some judges have already beat voters out of their right to decide the issue.

In Iowa, the voters reacted to the state supreme court’s imposition on same-sex “marriage” on the state by – in unprecedented fashion – throwing three of the justices off the court.  Iowans would likely have ejected all seven had they been given the opportunity.  Of the five states that issue “marriage” licenses to same-sex cohabitants, none have had marriage redefinition approved by the people, with three states having it forced on them by the courts.

So, in a day and age when it appears as if marriage is about to be swept under by a relentless wave of an anti-marriage culture, all we need to do is grab our [election] boards and say “surf’s up!”  Remember, we’re riding above the wave – not below it.

John Piper, the influential and wise Christian preacher, recently wrote an insightful blog post about the opportunity Minnesota voters will have in 2012 to define marriage as one man and one woman in their state constitution (Piper is pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in downtown Minneapolis).

Here is one salient point from his post, urging us to use accurate terminology in defining marriage:

I don’t think we should use the term “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage.” I think in our everyday discourse, we should say “so-called gay marriage” or “so-called same sex marriage.” I would encourage politicians, pastors, and people to adopt this simple habit.  The reason is that in God’s eyes, there simply is no such thing as so-called “gay marriage.” It does not exist. It cannot be made to exist by desires or decisions or language or laws. God ordained marriage with the words: “A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Marriage is the union of a man and a woman in a lifelong covenant as husband and wife.

Piper then goes on to discuss how the Biblical theology of marriage should apply to human law and human societies, to protect and benefit everyone.  Ultimately, there is really only one alternative to God’s design for marriage –that of societies abandoning a common and uniform definition of marriage and family, and instead allowing every person to do whatever they want to find self-fulfillment in the areas of sex, family and children.  That may sound enlightened and liberating, but in actual practice, it is not.  The consensus of human experience throughout the centuries shows that many people suffer tragically by the hands of individuals seeking their own personal sexual fulfillment absent significant societal restraint. In order to minimize human suffering and maximize human fulfillment, the Bible instructs all of us to have sex only within a marriage of one man and one woman in which both spouses commit to be sexually faithful to each other for life. There is no “separation of church and state” violation here, because a society that adopts the Biblical definition of marriage protects and benefits all people, just like the Bible’s prohibitions on stealing and lying protect and benefit everyone (not just Christians) in a society that adopts them.  A good public policy idea is still a good idea, and is not “tainted” and constitutionally ”off limits” because it comes from the Bible.

John Piper’s entire post is worth reading.   One additional note:  John Piper’s church, Bethlehem Baptist, is also spearheading efforts to help those devastated earlier this week by the destructive tornadoes that ripped through the northern part of Minneapolis, one of the poorer areas of the city.  John Piper and the Christians he leads strive to implement all that the Bible teaches to help and love others, whether it is urging them to adopt the right definition of marriage or helping his neighbors who are suffering.