A recent article in the Wall Street Journal by Peter Berkowitz, a political scientist at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, points out that our public universities are being politicized, and dominated by left-leaning professors and administrators. As proof, he notes that last year the American Association of University Professors officially endorsed the Occupy Wall Street movement. Certainly the Occupy movement was significant and should be addressed in courses on political and social science, but to endorse it outright is indicative of the type of liberal bias that is so prevalent in our universities today.

We at ADF are contacted on a regular basis by college students who are vilified, disciplined, and sometimes even removed from a course of study because they espouse pro-life or pro-family views. Just this week, a student from a university in North Carolina reported on our Facebook page that her campus speech was censored because it encouraged students to vote for Amendment One, which would preserve marriage as between one man and one woman in North Carolina. Her plight is just the tip of the iceberg. Students like Julea Ward at Eastern Michigan University are being forced out of their chosen field of study because they dare to believe and speak out on what the Bible has to say about sexual immorality. And religious student groups that have the audacity to require their leaders to actually believe the religious principles the group stands for are being thrown off public and even private campuses like Vanderbilt that were founded on religious principles.

As a Christian father of two teens that will be heading off to college in the next few years, this is particularly concerning to me. Especially since it’s recently been widely reported that almost half of students lose their faith when they go away to school. The answer is students have to be willing to stand for what they believe in – even in the face of opposition from overbearing professors, and pressure from their classmates. And we as parents, youth leaders, and pastors must work to prepare students for the trial of their faith we all know is coming. Merely believing because your parents believe no longer cuts it at college. Students and their leaders must do the hard work of studying the Bible to understand what they believe and why.

The good news is, we at ADF have the back of students when they do take a stand. For instance, we recently successfully defended Julea Ward in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court recognized that she had a valid claim that the university had wrongly discriminated against her because of her religious beliefs.

If you or someone you know is experiencing discrimination on campus, contact us today at telladf.org/university or 1-800-TELL ADF.

The United States Supreme Court decided not to hear a case today.  Alpha Delta Chi (ADX) v Reed.  But that’s not really news considering that they decide not to hear about 99% of the cases brought to them.  What is news though is that the issue in the case of whether religious groups can chose leaders who share their religious beliefs remains hotly contested on the national level.

If you keep up with the news, you know that universities across the country are singling out religious groups and claiming that it is “discriminatory” for them to choose leaders that share the same religious beliefs.  Like in this case where a Christian sorority and fraternity wanted to be lead by Christians.  I know, you are probably thinking—you are kidding me, right?  Isn’t it just common sense that every church, synagogue and other religious group has the right to be lead by pastors, rabbis, etc. of the same religious persuasion?  I mean, wouldn’t we all be shocked if we went to church on Sunday only to find an avowed atheist in the pulpit?  Therein lies the rub.  This is law, not logic.

What’s even more disturbing, and indicative of the hostility that many public universities display toward religion, is that there is no requirement in the law that they prohibit religious groups from choosing like-minded leaders, only that they may—under certain circumstances—prohibit them.   And those circumstances are being fudged.  What do I mean by that?  Last year the Supreme Court held in CLS v. Martinez, based on a stipulation that all groups were required to accept anyone, that no group could then “discriminate” against anyone.  Sound fair?  Not if you dig a bit deeper.

By way of example, let’s examine that issue in this case, ADX.  The university is claiming that they too–like Martinez–have a so-called “all-comers” policy.  But they exempt all fraternities and sororities from the prohibition on gender discrimination, thus not requiring them to accept all-comers, and that is half of all clubs.  And this doesn’t even take into consideration that in real life student groups choose whomever they want, thereby excluding whomever they don’t want.  So it is really a “some-comers,” or more accurately, an “anyone-we-want-comers” policy.  And last time I checked, religious speech and exercise are protected not once, but twice in the First Amendment.   One would think that would weigh heavily in the discussion.

So the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear this case just ensures that the battle continues.  Universities will continue claiming that they have legal cover to discriminate against religious groups, and religious groups will continue to fight to remain, well, religious.  And it is more important than ever for religious groups to continue fighting for this God-given right to be religious.  As the battle rages on, it becomes more and more likely that the Supreme Court will have to weigh in on the issue at some point.

__________________________________________

ADF will continue the fight for the rights of private student organizations to define their membership and select their leaders without interference or retaliation by state university officials.  Please contact ADF if you are encountering similar problems at your state university.

The Supreme Court let stand the lower court decision upholding San Diego State’s discriminatory exclusion of a Christian fraternity and a Christian sorority from access to the channels of communication with students on campus. In a one sentence order with no comment, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.  San Diego State prohibited campus Christian organizations from requiring their members and leaders to agree with the organization’s statement of faith, but allowed other student organizations to require members and leaders to agree with the viewpoints the groups advocate.  The Ninth Circuit upheld the San Diego’s State’s requirement as constitutional, and ADF appealed to the Supreme Court.

ADF attorney David Cortman issued the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s actions:

“Public universities should encourage, not censor, the free exchange of ideas. But for now, the supposed marketplace of ideas at San Diego State University will remain a stronghold for censorship. We wish the Supreme Court would have used this opportunity to make clear that the First Amendment protects the right of student groups to employ belief-based criteria in selecting their members and leaders.”

“Throughout the years of defending its policy, the university did not tell the Democratic club it must be led by a Republican, or the vegetarian club that it must be led by a meat-eater, but it did tell Christian groups that they must allow themselves to be led by atheists. Even its purported, 11th-hour policy change made at the doorstep of the Supreme Court continues to treat religious groups less favorably than many other student groups. When political conformity is placed ahead of the constitutionally protected rights of students, all students–including students of faith–suffer.”

ADF will continue the fight for the rights of private student organizations to define their membership and select their leaders without interference or retaliation by state university officials.  Please contact ADF if you are encountering similar problems at your state university.

The U.S. Supreme Court should announce Monday whether it will hear the ADX v. Reed case from San Diego State.   We have discussed this case before and it involves a bad decision by the Ninth Circuit upholding the decision of San Diego State officials to force a Christian fraternity and sorority on campus to allow non-Christians to join, even though SDSU allows secular student groups to exclude from membership and leadership students who disagree with the groups’ viewpoints.  So that means the student vegetarian club can exclude those who advocate for meat eating and animal hunting, but Christian groups cannot exclude those advocating atheism or Buddhism, etc.

This case is a follow up to the Supreme Court’s disappointing decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez in June 2010, in which it upheld an “all comers” policy at UC-Hastings Law School in San Francisco, a policy that forced all student groups to allow all students to join their club.   Late last year, San Diego State tried to subvert our appeal to the Supreme Court by abruptly adopting an all comers policy, even though it has defended its religion-specific policy for years in court.  The Supreme Court should realize its orders list at 10:00 am Eastern Time.  Stay tuned.

Dennis Prager urges college students and their parents to evaluate the value of going into debt for a college education in which students are bombarded for four years with withering criticism of every major value they hold. Prager does this by summarizing the major tenets taught at most public colleges and universities in the nation today.  Here are some of the those politically correct maxims:

God is at best a non-issue, and at worst, a foolish and dangerous belief.

Christianity is largely a history of inquisitions, crusades, oppression, and anti-intellectualism. Islam, on the other hand, is “a religion of peace.” Therefore, criticism of Christianity is enlightened, while criticism of Islam is Islamophobia.

Mothers and fathers are interchangeable. Claims that married mothers and fathers are the parental ideal and bring unique things to a child are heterosexist and homophobic.

 Universities need to be true marketplaces of ideas, and not ideological monopolies bent on purging ‘wrong thinking” from students and coercing them to accept “progressive thought.”  These are not the principles and values that made America great.  Read all of Prager’s insightful article here.

What are some of the anti-Christian messages you hear on campus?  Have you been punished because of your faith?  Comment below and let us know.