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.

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 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

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.

     The Minnesota House of Representatives late Saturday night approved an amendment to the state Constitution defining marriage as one man and one woman only. The proposed amendment, passed earlier by the state Senate, will now appear on the ballot in November 2012. Voters must approve it for it to become part of the state Constitution.

   House members voted mainly along party lines, although some voted against the majority of their party.  Four Republicans voting against the marriage amendment, and two Democrats voting in favor of the marriage amendment.  In the state Senate, one Democrat joined all of the Republican state senators to approve the amendment.

     This historic vote became possible last November when Minnesota voters unexpectedly gave Republican legislators a majority in both houses of the state legislature.  Democrats had promised in their campaigns to legalize same-sex marriage, as well as other measures, but Minnesota voters denied them the majorities in the legislature they had held for years.  The governor has no role in the amendment process, so Democratic governor Mark Dayton, narrowly elected last November and who strongly supports redefining marriage to include same sex couples, can do nothing as governor to stop the measure from going to the ballot.

    Marriage measures have appeared on the ballot in 31 states, and voters in all 31 states have rejected redefining marriage to include same sex couples. Thirty of the 31 statewide votes involved approval of state constitutional amendments. In the 31st state, Maine voters in 2009 used the referendum process to repeal a state law the legislature enacted to redefine marriage.