As college students nationwide head back to campus, Kevin DeYoung has an excellent article about one of the biggest problems they will face.  No, it is not the intellectual assault from atheist or agnostic professors on their Christian worldview, though that is unquestionably a problem.  Instead, it is the rampant moral relativism that universities actively promote, the opportunity to experiment in just about any kind of conduct imaginable without the restraints of home, family, and church.  Only DeYoung says it more powerfully:

Churches and Christian leaders must not take their eyes off of this singular fact.  Take almost any college in the country, especially the big state schools, and I can just about guarantee that the biggest obstacle to Christian discipleship is not Richard Dawkins or Bart Ehrman or all the heady objections to Christianity that our apologetics are meant to counter.  We need apologetics.  I’m 100% for taking every thought captive to Christ.  But for most 17–22 year-olds the most common temptations to sin are alcohol and sex.  Even when there are intellectual objections to Christianity, these are often just cover for a debauched lifestyle.  Tens of thousands of college students walk away from the church this year or never give it a chance because their main goal each week is to get smashed and hook up.  Rare is the campus ministry that needs to talk about Derrida more than drunkenness.

Such temptations are hardly new.  The Apostle John long ago instructed Christians not to “love the world or the things in the world,” including the “lust of the flesh” and the “lust of the eyes.”  The university campus just features these old temptations in a particularly dangerous combination:  an intellectual assault against students’ Christian beliefs in the classroom, rampant hedonism everywhere else on campus, and all of this in an environment removed from restraining influences.  But even this is not entirely new.  Daniel and his colleagues survived very similar threats as the Babylonian court tried to change their identities, beliefs, and convictions, at a time when home was much further away than an e-mail or cell phone call.

So what can Christians do to help students?  Sadly, many Christians—from parents, to youth pastors, to campus ministries—have not thoughtfully engaged this question.  For example, when a parent at my church recently asked this question, the visiting campus minister stammered for several minutes before offering this inane advice:  “Just love on them more.”  (And he was from a national evangelical campus ministry.)  Fortunately, Kevin DeYoung provides ideas that are more substantive than “more pampering, please” and that are also thoughtful, Biblical, and practical, but you will have to read his article to see them.

The effort to normalize homosexual behavior on America’s college campuses continues apace.  The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that Elmhurst College in Illinois “has become the first institution to include a question about sexual orientation and gender identity on its undergraduate admissions application.”  The reason?  “To connect students with campus programs and services.”

An applicant’s answer to the question will also help the college determine eligibility for institutional scholarships given to applicants from “underrepresented groups.”  A student who declares that he consider himself “to be a member of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) community” will be eligible for the college’s Enrichment Scholarship, which covers one-third of tuition.

Elmhurst is a college of the United Church of Christ, perhaps the most liberal denomination to still call itself “Christian.”

If you believe, as I do, that premarital sexual behavior (including same-sex conduct) is both morally wrong and personally damaging, then you will conclude, as I do, that this is an unwelcome development.  That isn’t my point.  My point is this:  should colleges with a different view of human sexuality also be free to “actualize” their commitments?  Should they be free to deny admission to applicants who reject the Bible’s sexual ethics in word and deed?  Should they be free to work lovingly with students who fall into sexual sin?  Should they be free to shape their students’ beliefs about sexual morality?

ADF’s Center for Academic Freedom believes the answer is yes, and stands ready to protect the religious freedom of such colleges.

______________________
Join the conversation Facebook.com/SpeakUpU
Sound off below – Leave a comment!

by ADF Senior Counsel Joseph Infranco

The stereotype of the arrogant, leftist professor in the ivory tower occasionally shows up in real life in a manner that shows that the truth is stranger than fiction.

Recent case in point:  a biology professor at a Colorado college (let’s call him Dr. Jones) hotly ridiculed a student (let’s call her Ms. Smith) in front of her entire class for her lack of belief in the theory of evolution.  In order to avoid legal trouble for his immense misstep, he agreed to settle the case in advance of litigation.  Part of the settlement required a written apology to the student.  Here is the letter of “apology” from the professor, followed by a response from Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney Barry Arrington that can only be said to…um…set the record completely straight:

June 1, 2011

Ms. Smith:

With regard to our conversation about your belief that evolution is not true, I apologize to you for appearing to denigrate your obviously strongly held beliefs.  I had not intended to offend you in any way regarding your faith or your world view.  That this was so perceived by you, I again offer my sincerest apology.

In making this apology to you, I am reminded of what happened to Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) – considered by many to be the father of modern science.  In 1610 Galileo determined through his telescope and various mathematical calculations, that the Earth moved around the sun, rather than the other way around which was, according to the Catholic Church “false and contrary to Scripture.”

In 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found “vehemently suspect of heresy”, forced to recant heliocentrism, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.  As he was led away to begin his confinement, he said (to no one in particular) “and yet it still moves”.

Sincerely,

Dr. Jones

Response from ADF-allied attorney Barry Arrington:

July 27, 2011

Dear Dr. Jones:

I am writing in response to your June 1, 2011 letter to my client Ms. Smith, in which you apologized to her for “appearing” to denigrate her strongly held beliefs.  Sir, we both know you did not merely “appear” to denigrate Ms. Jones’s beliefs.  You specifically intended to use your position of authority as a platform from which to denigrate Ms. Smith’s beliefs and humiliate her in front of her peers, and you accomplished your purpose.  It saddens me that in your letter you decided to add mendacity to your boorish and abusive attack on your student.

You say you did not intend to offend Ms. Smith.  Rubbish.  I assume you are not an idiot, and only an idiot would not know that your words would demean and humiliate her, intimidate her into silence, and curb her natural desire for self expression in the face of the orthodoxy you represent.  Do you really expect anyone to believe that it was an unfortunate and unintended side effect of your actions that she would feel hurt by the experience or perceive it as an assault on her personal dignity?  Please do not insult our intelligence.

Finally, I cannot let your smug reference to Galileo go unchallenged.  Firstly, as a matter of simple fact, your history is all wrong.  Galileo never uttered the words you mistakenly placed in his mouth.  I provide for your edification a primer on the matter under my signature.

More importantly, however, your letter illustrates an utter failure to grasp the significance of this figure from history.  I will not spell it out for you.  Instead, I urge you to go back and think about this one a little more.  To assist you in that endeavor, please ask yourself and answer the following questions:  As between Ms. Smith and you:  (1) who is the pope (i.e., the authority figure with all of the power in the relationship)?  (2) Who speaks for an unyielding established orthodoxy?  (3) Who holds the minority dissenting view?  (4) Who was willing to challenge the entrenched orthodoxy at significant personal risk to herself?

“But Galileo was right and his opponents were wrong!” you might respond.  And that response would completely miss the point.  The adherents of every entrenched orthodoxy believe not only that they are right, but also that everyone who challenges the orthodoxy is at least wrong if not wicked.  Yet history is full of failed orthodoxies, collapsed paradigms, and discredited dogmas.

You are a high priest of the Church of Darwin.  How easily you slipped into the role of inquisitor.  You sniffed a hint of heresy from Ms. Smith, and you did not hesitate to put her on the verbal rack.  In your letter you point to Galileo as a hero of free thought and expression against an entrenched orthodoxy.  I hope you appreciate by now how richly ironic your appeal to Galileo is.

Sincerely,

Barry K. Arrington

Primer on Galileo

______________________
Join the conversation Facebook.com/SpeakUpU
Sound off below – Leave a comment!

      The Ninth Circuit issued a disappointing decision yesterday against a Christian fraternity and sorority at San Diego State. The University allows campus organizations that it officially recognizes to exclude students who disagree with the message advocated by the group, unless the groups are religious.  San Diego State views it as “religious discrimination,” in violation of the campus nondiscrimination policy, when a Christian group requires its officers or members to believe in Christianity.  So that means the vegan club can exclude student deer hunters and those who advocate eating steaks at Morton’s, but the Christian groups must permit Buddhists and atheists to join.

 In this case, the university denied a Christian fraternity and sorority recognition because their constitutions stated that members and/or leaders must profess a specific religious belief.  That has meant the groups cannot meet in campus buildings for free, cannot set up tables in the main mall where students walk each day, etc.  The Christian groups are in effect banished from the main avenues of communication with students and relegated to a second class status.

The 2-1 majority upheld the policy.  Although the judges admitted that the policy as applied here treated the religious groups worse than non-religious student groups, it was constitutional because there is “no evidence that San Diego State implemented its nondiscrimination policy for the purpose of suppressing Plaintiffs’ [the Christian groups'] viewpoint…”  Slip opinion at 9996.   Intent is irrelevant.  The government cannot excuse its policy that violates a group’s constitutional rights because “it didn’t mean to do so.”

There is some good news in the decision.  The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the trial court because we had raised sufficient evidence that San Diego State did not enforce its policy consistently across the board, and allowed other groups to exclude non-adherents, but not allowing the Christian fraternity and sorority to do so.

Judge Ripple, a visiting appeals court judge from Wisconsin, reluctantly agreed with the ruling because of precedent for the Ninth Circuit.  But in his concurring opinion, he urged the Supreme Court to take the case, and rule strongly in favor of religious liberty:

The net result of this selective policy is therefore to marginalize in the life of the institution those activities, practices and discourses that are religiously based.  While those who espouse other causes may support their membership and come together for mutual support, others, including those exercising one of our most fundamental liberties – the right to free exercise of one’s religion — cannot, at least on equal terms.

    We are examining our options about returning to the trial court, or appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

______________________
Join the conversation Facebook.com/SpeakUpU
Sound off below – Leave a comment!

Here’s the last fifty years First Amendment rights on campus in a nutshell.  50 years ago the left advocated for the First Amendment rights of students (themselves) on campus.  They then gained positions of power in the universities and now run the show.  So that now when a conservative group stands up for the First Amendment rights of disfavored groups (now generally conservative groups like itself) on its campus, it is the left that dismisses the First Amendment and demands the status quo (the preservation of their own power). 

Young Americans for Freedom has a post up responding to the latest example of this at Stony Brook University.  Earlier this year the Student Government at Stony Brook University denied student activity funding to Young Americans for Freedom.  The funding, generally available to a broad spectrum of other student groups was denied YAF because student government made the subjective determination that it is “too similar” to College Republicans.  Of course, this similarity rule was not applied to prevent funding for an array of left wing groups.  Additionally, student government required groups seeking funding to submit a petition showing the signatures of approximately 800 students supporting funding for the group, including their phone number, address, and student ID numbers – a policy that favors popular groups and disfavors groups whose views are more controversial on campus (i.e. conservatism, evangelical Christianity, etc.).    

These policies clearly violate the First Amendment.  Directly applicable decisions of the United States Supreme Court (Southworth) and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dealing with policies of Stony Brook’s sister-SUNY school (Amidon v. SUNY-Albany) eliminate any doubt about that.  Thus, in response to my letter, counsel for Stony Brook and its USG reviewed their policies, determined they were suspect, and quickly corrected them without any need for litigation.  Everyone should be happy with this result.  The First Amendment is vindicated, YAF gets the same status as other groups, and the parties were even able to work it out without the assistance of the federal judiciary. 

 “Think Progress,” a left wing magazine at Stony Brook, is not happy with this turn of events.  In an article titled: “Club Funding Drops $175,000 Thanks Largely to YAF’s Lawsuit Threat,” the supposedly “progressive” author blames YAF for any reduction in funding to student groups (while burying the lead – that student gov’t increased funding for itself by $250,000 and expects to make up lost club funding in the fall).  The author notes that the policy changes were required by the Supreme Court in Southworth,  quotes USG members explaining that fact, and then cites USG sources identifying that “viewpoint neutrality as the reason for the budget cuts.”  So, to sum up, the USG began complying with the First Amendment due to YAF’s efforts and this has reduced funding for some groups that received more under the previously unconstitutional system.  And the left attacks the group defending the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, this is unsurprising.  After all, student fee systems were created to increase funding for left wing causes and were serving that purpose well at Stony Brook.  And they would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for those meddling YAF kids!

Join the conversation Facebook.com/SpeakUpU
Sound off below – Leave a comment!