« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Christian University Decertifies Democrat Club, Why it is the Right Decision

Tell me President Obama, how many babies would Jesus kill?

By: Warner Todd Huston (Diary)  |  May 23rd, 2009 at 04:58 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Liberty University, a Christian college situated near Lynchburg, Virginia and founded in 1971 by Jerry Falwell, has this week decertified its college Democratic Party club over the singular fact that the National Democratic Party is a supporter of abortion. After the debacle of allowing a president that is a supporter of infanticide being invited to speak at the leading Catholic University in the nation, I can only say that Liberty University should be congratulated for standing up for its principles. At least these Baptists actually believe in something unlike the putative Catholics at Notre Dame.

But is this a violation of political free speech in a nation where the Democratic Party is a long-standing, historically important political force that is followed by half the electorate and currently holds a majority of the seats in our national government? Are these students having their speech illicitly quashed by Liberty University?

The simple answer is a resounding “no.”

Before I get into my explanation of why I support this decision whole heartedly, though, let’s review what happened in Virginia.

On May 21 a story appeared about an email that was sent by Mark Hine, vice president of student affairs of Liberty University, informing the campus Democratic Party club that it could no longer use the university’s name in its operations. The email sent on May 15 to club president and Liberty student Brian Diaz.

Hines assured the students that the problem wasn’t with them, but was with the Democratic Party itself.

Part of Hine’s e-mail said, “The Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of Liberty University and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the “LGBT” agenda, hate crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc.)” LGBT refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

The decision had been made that from this point on the students could not use campus meeting rooms and could not use the university’s name in advertising or functions. Hines also warned the students that violations of these new strictures could lead to reprimands that would ultimately end in expulsion.

Later on May 21, the university backtracked a bit saying that the students could still meet on campus, but all other decisions remained in effect.

Naturally, Democrats throughout Virginia decried the decision saying the school was trying to quash free speech. The rallying cry seems to have become “It IS possible to be a Christian AND a Democrat,” a statement that runs counter to the perceived notion that the university is saying that one cannot be a true Christian and support a Democratic Party platform that includes a pro-abortion plank.

And there, to date, the story stands. The university has not rescinded its decision to decertify the Democrat club and I, for one, hope they stay the course. The university is doing right by its principles and should be congratulated for it.

Unlike the purported Catholics at Notre Dame, the folks at Liberty university stand four-square against abortion and are willing to fight for their principles, ideals that are deeply held on both the political and religious fronts. Therefore, since their position is stark, the college has every right not to lend its support to a campus club that is built on a political party that is zealously against the principles that the university holds dear. Revoking the certification of the Democrat club was the only logical and morally consistent thing the college could do.

But it isn’t any violation of free speech, it isn’t censorship, nor is it an un-American decision.

Unfortunately, too many Americans confuse the concept of “free speech” with that of license. Free speech simply does not mean that you can say just anything. Additionally, people misunderstand what “censorship” is under the American system.

In America people have a right to speak their minds on politics with few restrictions imposed by government. Political free speech is one of the true American rights, an original first principle. The founders wanted to assure that political opposition to whomever or whatever party is in power was not oppressed. They saw the results of such oppression throughout history and wanted to make sure it didn’t happen here. And when the Alien and Sedition Act was passed by the Adams administration, there was a great hew and cry raised about it. That act was allowed to die an ignominious death not to be revived and since the early republic the US has had very few eras where political speech has been curtailed.

The simple fact is, though, only government can engage in “censorship.” Only government has the power to oppress speech and enforce that oppression. Liberty University can ban the Democratic Party from its campus all day long and not truly affect the free speech of its students. Off campus those students may regurgitate all the Democratic Party talking points that they wish to indulge. Their right to free speech is not harmed. Further there is no pretension by the university of telling students to which party they are “allowed” to be a member. So, the student’s right to association is also not harmed.

It should be beyond question that, as a private organization, Liberty University has the right to create its own standards within the law and stand by them. What is a more American ideal than having the right to live by your own principles? The university claims to stand against abortion. The university could not, then, logically allow its name to be linked in any way with advocates of infanticide. The Democratic Party is strongly FOR infanticide. Following logic and principle the decision could not be clearer for the college and decertifying the cub was the only choice.

During his flowery speech at Notre Dame, President Obama, the man carrying the infanticide banner for the Democratic Party, pointedly told Catholics that they needed to abandon their religious rigidity and meet him on the irreligious side of the aisle, there in the supposed middle. Obama clearly told Catholics that he believed the American way was to compromise despite convictions. Catholics, Obama held, needed to throw away their religious beliefs in order to win political favor. Liberty University has rejected Obama’s serpent-in-the-garden view of the American way. Liberty University has decided that principles mean something and that compromise for the sake of compromise is not their way.

The truth is, if you are a Christian that thinks abortion is against your most deeply held religious principles, then you can’t be both a Christian and a member of the Democratic Party. If you stand against baby killing, how can you belong to a party that supports it?

So, kudos to Liberty University for standing by its principles. Notre Dame should have been as honorable. Let’s hope Liberty’s strong stance for principle gains adherents across the land. Let us also hope they don’t cave to pressure and reverse this decision in the coming days.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Doc Holliday

    we rightly complain of leftist indoctrination on college campuses. We rightly say people have a right to say what is not popular. These are Liberty University students, not Berkely radicals. This decision was wrong on its merits, politically tone deaf, and will do nothing but hurt our cause.

    • http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

      You are asking the university to condone abortion? If they did, wouldn’t you then turn around and accuse them of hypocrisy?

      • Doc Holliday

        say they oppose abortion. There are only 30 of them, not a great danger to the world. The University sanctioned the group before and now it taking it back. It serves no real purpose and will simply look bad. Most Universities have Democrat and Republican clubs, I don’t see a problem with having such clubs. The college can do what it wants, but this is a dumb move politically, particularly from a school named “liberty”.

        • Right Reason

          That they are not doing it “politically”. They are doing it based on principle.

      • Doc Holliday

        I would say the school can have whatever stance it wants. The school can even have mandatory classes on religion and against abortion. But when they say a small group of kids can’t be a part of a club based on one of the two major parties, that is big brother censorship and will backfire.

        • http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

          We will have to agree to disagree. ANY club condoned by the school brings the tacit approval OF that school. Therefore, you ARE asking the university to condone abortion if you wish to force the school to approve of a Democrat club.

          Let me put it this way… if the kids wanted a Satan club, but these kids said they didn’t really agree with the Devil, would you force a religious college to allow a Satan club to be sanctioned by the school? By your stance above, the answer would have to be yes.

          There is no difference between my example and the current situation.

          Principles are NOT the easy road (and the easy road is what you are saying should be taken) but are always the harder road. Sure its not comfortable that the school stand by its religious principles. That is without question. But they will be saying they have NO principles if they backtrack on this decision.

          You are arguing that religious principle does not matter. I am arguing that it does because if it doesn’t then there is no such thing as a religion in the first place. Religion is merely a social club without principles.

          • Doc Holliday

            I don’t agree with your comments here, but I think I made my point. To me it is about freedom of assembly and colleges should be places that allow discussion/debate/ and differences. I don’t think comparing pro-life Democrats to Satan Worshipers is fare. I have said my piece here, and will only respond to direct questions. BTW, I have no problem with your diary or point of view, I just don’t agree with it.

          • rbdwiggins

            The University’s decision to decertify a club, whose parent organization supports infanticide, gay-marriage and affirmative-action, is both principled, and justified.

            The students can still assemble, exercise free speech and engage in the public discourse. However, they no longer enjoy the implied legitimacy that accompanies certification. Subsequently, their legitimacy must be earned, and it will be decided on the merits.

          • JadedByPolitics
          • Mike gamecock DeVine
          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            rescinded their free speech rights. All they have done is decertify them. All that means is that they won’t have the imprimatur of the University on their group communications and ads and won’t get university funds for their activities.

          • papalee

            That most colleges and universities in this country have no place for Republicans and Conservatives. i was a freshman at my university when the dean of the History Department told me that there was no place for a conservative in academia. Now a few have managed to sneak in here and there but what he said then still stands now with the result that these institutions are indoctrination centers before almost anything else.

            As Conservatives we should demand that they be open to all political views if they receive public money. If they are truly private they should be free to do what they wish.

          • olsmithie

            but only from meeting on private property, an important distinction.

            Regards

      • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

        I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts I can find posts by you in the recent past condemning “leftist silencing of conservative free speech and association” on college campuses.

        Faux outrage has the ability to make a man contradictory at best, and hypocritical at–well, worse, not worst. This is, at very least, a case of the former.

    • http://www.fredsnews.com Fred Maidment

      I disagree with the original author that Liberty University was “right” to do this. Rather, they were fully within their rights as a private entity. I disagree with the premise that you teach people better by silencing (or de-certifying) an opposing viewpoint.

      However, there is a difference between liberal indoctrination at publicly funded universities and conservative indoctrination (if that is your claim) at a private university. A professor or administrator at a public university should have a higher standard of fairness and deference, simply because they teach at a taxpayer funded university. At a religious institution such as Liberty University, the professor has a duty to uphold (or at least be accepting of) the values of the University’s backers.

      In this case, Liberty University’s founders and backers oppose abortion. They can approve or disapprove of any campus group they wish. I applaud them for allowing the Democrats to continue to meet on campus, dislike the idea that they de-certified them, and accept that as a private school they can choose which groups they associate with.

      • smagar

        It’s one thing to have a club where like-minded people can gather together, of their free will and on their own time.

        It’s another to have a professor allow his beliefs to warp the content of the courses he teaches. Going to class is the essence of going to college.

        You can opt not to attend indoctrination sessions that a local club runs. You can’t opt not to attend indoctrination sessions that are on your syllabus.

        • Doc Holliday

          nt

        • http://www.fredsnews.com Fred Maidment

          …And at a private university, a student knows what they are signing up for. I don’t expect Harvard to force its professors to be fair, though I may decry much of what they teach and wouldn’t pay to send my future kids there.

          That said, private universities do not and should not have the same standard of fairness.

          It disgusted me when I heard about a professor at my undergraduate university shouting down one of his students for espousing non-communist, pro-capitalist ideals (and the professor was teaching corporate finance!). I understand the situation nearly came to blows. That is taxpayer indoctrination at its worst. It is wrong, and the professor should have been reprimanded (I have no idea if there were any disciplinary actions).

          Take the same situation, put it at a private school, and the school would be well within its rights to give the prof. a medal and expel the student.

        • Rod_Patrick
      • Rod_Patrick

        Liberty University, as a private institution, has the right to do whatever it thinks necessary to promote its visions and mission as an Institution.

        I remember the Boy Scout vs. Gay Rights SC case. SC truly favored the right of the institution.

        On the other hand, liberal students have the right to choose other schools that support their ideals.

        Liberty University will lose “liberal” students, alright. But in so doing, the University will attract more students from conservative and Christian families in the process.

        As for the case of “liberal” universities, then let them do the same if they want to: ban all conservative organizations. And it’s not bad at all. For the first time, the true colors of these liberal universities will be revealed.

        • Tony_Cruz

          Both schools I have attended were private religious schools. My old school, University of St. Thomas, took a very strong Catholic Pro-Life stance and had a Pro-life club. However, when some in the student body decided they wanted to start a school club for the other side, the Council of Clubs denied their request.

          Its why I love the private schools. We can run under different rules.

      • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

        They’re not Hillsdale, which accepts zero federal dollars — not MGIB, not, Pell Grants, nothing. They’re “private,” but they accept public funding (at very least in terms of financial aid: http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=10226), which means they aren’t a completely private entity.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          Is the grocery store less completely private if they take food stamps?

          • SteveLA

            If the grocery store refuses to sell non Kosher foods, they might find their ability to accept food stamps restricted or challenged.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
          • SteveLA

            Neil,

            While not exactly the same as the food stamp question, a bus company in NY had public bus service which served a predominately Orthodox Jewish community with separate seating for men and women. A court challenge was raised as the seating was based on an Orthodox Jewish law being imposed on a public conveyance.

            While not quite the same as your original food stamp analogy, the question did end up in court. I don’t remember the outcome but the case was one of those sorting out the tensions between religious belief and public accommodations. I’m sorry that I don’t recall the outcome, maybe one of the lawyer types on RS will remember the case.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine
          • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

            That’s the only way Hillsdale has been able to remain truly private (not answerable to the feds on affirmative action, etc.) — by refusing to take ANY federal dollars, including financial aid.

            That’s one of the main reasons I didn’t go there: they didn’t accept Montgomery GI Bill, and I couldn’t otherwise afford it.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            by an obama lib on the court, I suspect interstate commerce regulation will intrude on even Hillsdale given the public roads used to get there and the govt water purification plants!

            with Obama is anyone safe?

      • youngsouthernconservative

        They, having a set of beliefs as a college, do not allow the Democratic Club, because EVEN IF the students in it are pro-life, the party they are affiliated with is not, thus the school has a right to decertify it based on its association with a group contrary to the school’s stance.

      • ColdWarrior

        He who has the gold makes the rules.

        Liberty University is a private institution. The First Amendment does not apply. The First Amendment restricts the federal goverment. (I am aware of all the hair-splitting jurisprudence regarding whether and how the First Amendment somehow applies to a private university like Liberty U. depending upon whether and how it receives any federal monies applies and I also am informed that Hillsdale College professes to be the only institution of higher learning in our country that takes NO federal monies of any type.)

        It’s all about Art. I, Section 8 of the Constitution and the Ninth and 10th Amendments.

        Want more info? Re-read the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance and the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I know many Harvard Law School grads who never have.

        Then, go here and read “Your American Yardstick.”

        http://www.grandfathersfamilybible.com/tap00.html

        I have a very worn hard copy. I think you might be able to get a hard copy on Ebay or at Amazon.

        Thank you.

    • Mike gamecock DeVine

      I think it is reasonable for the University to not wish to seem to tacitly approve of an organization that holds a tenet that is anathema to what the university stands for. And give Liberty’s backtrack on meetings, what remains is quite minor now, don’t you think?

    • BD57

      Liberty is exercising its right of association, in this case by choosing to sever official ties with the Democrat Club. Liberty’s made this choice because it doesn’t want its name associated with the Club’s given the beliefs of the national party on various issues.

      “indoctrination” is the result of being compelled to listen to (and agree with to get grades) the singular point of view of whichever professor is before you. Liberty is not compelling the Democrat Club to listen to anything; neither is it compelling the Club to change its views. What it has said is the equivalent of “you go your way, we’ll go ours.”

      To illustrate absurdity by being absurd, your reasoning would require that Liberty – or any other university, for that matter – confer official status on the Nazi Party Club, KKK Club, Cannibal Club, Animal Sacrifice Club, Prostitution and Porn Movie Production Club, etc.

      Now, the likely answer would be “no it wouldn’t” …. but then you’d have to acknowledge that Liberty does have a right to refuse association to some groups, which is the why the decision isn’t “wrong on the merits.”

      As far as “politically tone deaf”, etc. – first, Liberty University has no obligation to support our cause; and, second, I have to wonder whether ‘our cause’ is worthy of support if the only thing we ever do to advance it is talk.

      The “right” response to this is “Liberty has every right to choose who it will and will not associate with. In this case, it believes the policies of the Democrat Party are inconsistent with advancing the Gospel of Christ – they have every right to make that decision.”

      • Rod_Patrick
      • eburke
  • bags64

    charge against indoctrination is a little harsh, IMO.

    Unlike going to State U, students enter Liberty knowing full well what environment they are choosing.

    It’s a private institution with overtly stated beliefs. It’s refreshing to see a group take a stance knowing it’ll be unpopular w/ the masses.

    Oops, I said masses. No pun intended.

    • Doc Holliday

      i never said that couldn’t. I said it was tone deaf, against free speech/assembly, and is not something I would be proud of doing. And as rabid as I am, I realize there are many pro-life Democrats.

      • http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

        You keep saying this:

        “against free speech/assembly”

        It is no such thing as I said above. So, please do elaborate and tell us why your assertion is correct?

        • Doc Holliday

          Universities normally have Democrat and Republican clubs. The Democrat club here does not seem to have been some type of menace. Many college kids are doing menacing things, why hurt these 30 kids? I agree it is not about free speech rights, but it is about allowing differences on campus. We conservatives have been fighting liberal bias on campuses for decades, why join in stifling opinions?

          • http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

            Well, then you have no solid reasoning, just your feelings. OK, I respect that. Just don’t agree.

          • Doc Holliday

            and don’t tell me I don’t AND you respect it, don’t patronize me pal.

          • http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

            Now you are crying?

          • Doc Holliday

            I am not crying I am calling you an ass. You said we can agree to disagree but you took shots in every post. I am crying? You are a book burner, I am supporting free speech. I can’t believe you are a front pager, you are a child.

          • Josh Painter

            “Things a leftist might say for $5,000, Dick.”

            - JP

          • http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

            I am simply saying that you are not using solid reasoning but are basing your point of emotion. No “patronizing” intended. I am saying it out right.

          • Doc Holliday

            you could have said this without the other bashing, but you did not. I regret even posting in this diary, but if you think I am going to let you bash me for no reason, you don’t know me very well.

          • http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

            Not trying to “bash” here. Trying to get to the nub of the matter.

            Speaking of bashing… “Book burner”?

            You’ve lost me. When did I advocate burning books here?

            As I showed in my original post above the University is not quashing free speech and you agreed. I DO understand your point about not wanting to be like “them” and sometimes that is a valid position to take. But, this is not one of those times because to do so cuts against deeply held principle.

            Further, you conveniently ignored the point I made that to agree to the club would put the university in a position of tacitly agreeing with abortion. I think that is the most central issue.

            Please, let me know how it is possible for the university to allow sponsor a Democrat Club, yet still hold to its principle against abortion?

            Or, conversely, do you think principle is not as important in this case? Do you think the university should set aside principle for ease of political comfort?

          • Doc Holliday

            and then proceeded to bash me. I believe this was a mistake. Remember, they already sanctioned the club. The key point is this is a fight that will not help us and a fight that does not need to be fought. I tried to extricate myself from the thread awhile ago, but I kept receiving unfair shots. I see no upside here, but they can do as they wish. Your preemptive support of the decision shows that it needs defending, it is not clear cut.

          • http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

            You are right by your scoffing at the university for allowing the club in the first place. I agree that it is an earlier slight to principle that they once allowed it and it does make them look less than stellar by this backtracking and taking back the permission. By rights the university shouldn’t have allowed the club in the first place. So, yes, this whole thing is messy.

            But, I do understand why this happened now. It is a reflection as a result of the Obama speech at Notre Dame and how that university was excoriated for obviating its principles. So, Liberty decided to reevaluate. Not necessarily the wrong choice, but a messy one to be sure.

            But, here is the thing… if this fight “need not be fought,” as you say, this then shows me that abortion and religious principle is not a hill you want to die on. And that is the key disagreement here. So, as I am trying to get you to see, the nub of the issue is a simple matter of just when IS it time to stand up for principle? If not now, when? Is the line forever to be erased only to be redrawn?

            I am not trying to take a personal bashing to you. I am trying to elicit a reflection on the issue of principle. I can’t escape a feeling that there is no principle that you will fight for… or is it just THIS one? And, if not this principle then why any principle? That is the question I am trying to understand.

            So, please don’t think I am calling you names or attacking you personally. That simply is not my intention.

          • Doc Holliday

            I apologize for that one and wish we could have not gone into personal attacks. The record shows who started it but I will finish it, my apologies for name calling. And if you are not sure, I consider calling someone here unreasoning and based on feelings a major slur, at least it is to me. peace.

          • http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

            Well, there is a big difference between saying you were not using reason on THIS debate and saying you are unreasoning in general! I had no expectations that I was saying you lack reason in general just that you weren’t employing it in this issue.

            I am always amazed when people assume that talking about an issue must also mean we are talking about the whole person. It IS possible, after all, to be a very reasoned person and to find an issue where that reason goes untapped once in a while.

            So, let me reiterate, I am saying nothing about you as a person, nothing about your intelligence, nothing about your ability to reason. I think you are wrong on this issue and that is that. Otherwise, I have no reason to think you aren’t a fine person.

          • Doc Holliday

            I was using reasoning, just different reasoning. I am sure you are a great guy too, we just disagree on this issue. And though my posts might belie this, I don’t think this is a major issue in this context. I am however worried about PC on campus.

          • smagar

            in debate, definitions matter. More to the point—if a key definition or term in a debate has been carelessly defined, the debate that follows can become unfocused.

            Example: calling EIT “torture.” Early, many commentators began conflating waterboarding with torture. Those in the EIT debate who disagreed with that premise, who do NOT view waterboarding as torture, didn’t correct that premise. So, a bit down the road, anyone who was speaking up for waterboarding found themselves increasingly painted as a “torturer.”

            It appears you’ve abandoned this position now—but upthread you were accusing Liberty University of stifling free speech. Liberty University has no obligation to sanction anyone’s speech.

            I am confident that David Axelrod, Terry McAuliffe and other skilled Democratic Party PR pros will feed a willing MSM with soundbites about Liberty University’s stifling “free speech”—and leave it at that. We shouldn’t assist them in that endeavor. One way to NOT do that, is to insist on precision in the language we use.

          • Doc Holliday

            for Warner’s argument. I think I explained upthread why I thought the action was not helpful. Anyone who thinks this action is going to save a single child is delusional. You are right we will be bashed, we will also be called hypocrites because we always go against liberal bias on private and public campuses.

            I do not have a strong opinion on the subject, the words speak for themselves. I think it a mistake, not the end of the world. But for my lone opposition I have been called unable to reason, crying, and more. I am not going to take that from anyone, my record stands for itself. I would defend you or anyone else I knew/respected from such attacks, that is my way.

            I am out of this.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            He says “Later on May 21, the university backtracked a bit saying that the students could still meet on campus, but all other decisions remained in effect.”

            Backtracked “a bit”?

            Heck man that’s the main deal! They can meet on campus. All they can’t do is use the University name in advertising.

            more later

          • http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

            Better than ignoring it don’t you think?

            But, how is it “the main deal”?

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            that given that only de-certification remains, that Doc’s objections seem to have been satisfied. They do retain the right to assemble.

            I think the initial ban on meetings was the truly onerous action, and they repealed that.

          • http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

            Now I see. Thanks

          • cwilson

            that the club is not eligible for funding from university coffers. I’m not sure about Liberty, but at my alma mater all officially sanctioned clubs were eligible for a certain amount of funding disbursed by the student government association. However, the source of those funds were student activity fees collected from all matriculated students — not just members of the specific club(s). The clubs could also petition for direct funding for special events from the University itself.

            Now, put this in context: you have a club that supports a Party that is actively, radically, pro-abortion. How can Liberty justify (a) collecting “taxes” from all of its other students, and/or (b) funds from its endowment or other operating accounts, and giving ANY portion of those funds to that Democrat club, when that club (members’ disavowals notwithstanding) is objectively pro-abortion.

            They can only justify it if their religious “principles” about the right to life aren’t really all that important to them; less important than “inclusiveness”. Offend the other 1000 students, violate those students’ principles, steal their money, and give it to these 30 students who support a radical pro-abortion political party…so at least those 30 students won’t feel bad.

            If Liberty U is to be true to their principles, and show respect for the VAST majority of students and families who chose to attend that school, this was their only choice, especially given the “stuff your silly anti-abortion ‘principles’ and join me in the pro-abortion ‘middle’” speech from His Teleprompterness, Leader of the Democrat Party, last weekend.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            actions taken by Liberty, it would seem that even they considered your main points and restrained themselves.

          • smagar

            (BTW, I appreciate your 5-to-the-3rd-power comment upthread.)

            Practically, this might have been a very dumb move for Liberty University. They’d better be ready to mount a Liz-Cheney-quality, proactive public defense of their action. Otherwise, they’ll find it mischaracterized in ways that hurt them long term.

            Liberty needs to expect that many of their critics won’t engage them directly. Instead, they’ll go to friendly venues (e.g., the Op-Ed pages of MSM newspapers), criticize Jerry Falwell University and drop the matter.

            Liberty needs to proactively seek out and challenge those who criticize them. They’re fools if they expect MSM reporters to come seek them out and air both sides of the story fully. They can’t let biased and unfair depictions of them stand unopposed.

            I suspect most MSM reporters and editors prefer to think of Liberty as a bumpkin backwater. Hence, expect any MSM criticism of Liberty that fits that stereotype to be aired largely unchallenged.

            Liberty will have to fight those assertions. Otherwise, their silence will be viewed by many as consent, and that impression will quickly become a Known Fact.

            They’ve picked a fight. They’d better be ready for it.

          • Doc Holliday

            My issue is not about Constitutionality, tacit acceptance, or even free speech. My reason for believing the Liberty U actions are stupid is that they give the left rhetorical cover.

            I have constantly said I find liberal/Anti-American/Anti-Christian indoctrination in education to be a real and present danger. This malignant danger is endemic and entrenched. A common liberal tactic is to equate a multitude of trespasses with a single one. One example is how they get away with saying “all religions have terrorists” and they point to Tim McVeigh even though Muslim Terrorists have committed thousands of terror attacks. Of course this makes no sense, but they DO get away with it.

            So now Liberty will draw a lot of MSM attention but they really have done nothing to help us fight the left wing menace in academia. They basically have made a lot of noise, but with no bite. The juice was not worth the squeeze. The real threat of liberal indoctrination goes on quietly.

    • Mike gamecock DeVine

      of the masses self identify as pro-life.

  • Jack

    Liberals banned ROTC from campuses based on the premise that the “no ask, no tell” policy of the Armed Forces made ROTC just as guilty. Good for the goose good for the gander.

    • smagar

      …they why can’t Liberty University.

    • WarEagle01

      And these hypocrites continue to accept hundreds of millions in DOD research grants. I don’t think Liberty gets any funding from the Democrats.

    • jeffreywturner

      I would say that Liberty is in a better position here than those universities kicking out the ROTC, since the ROTC is part of military training prescribed by the DOD. This is much different than a “club” people join to express their views.

    • Doc Holliday

      we are trying to get the majority of proud Americans on our side.

  • JadedByPolitics

    who guiding principles are LIFE should make every aspect of the college experience be about LIFE…..OBTW if you don’t like it pick a state college they will accept and support your right to kill the unborn and a Democrat club that supports the Democrat plank SUPPORTS DEATH! no ifs, no and, no buts about that! go whine to the ultimate in death sport the ACLU!

  • Scope

    I see this as the silent majority finally speaking up and standing on their principles. It’s about time some have gotten the guts together to follow through on what they believe, rather than sitting quietly and allowing the Democrats to own every debate. The D’s will twist it, as they always do, it is expected. Too bad the folks at Notre Dame felt compelled to allow Obama to tell the graduates to compromise on one of the Catholic religions core values and beliefs, protecting life from conception to natural death. There are no gray areas there, only black and white. One cannot be just a little “pregnant.”

    • danielhill2008

      Liberty’s actions are certainly not politically expedient, and the Left will demonize them, all the more so for being a Christian college. But where has political expediency ever gotten us? “Go along to get along” as a game plan has dragged this Nation as we know it to the brink of destruction, and I believe, as apparently does Scope, that there still is a silent majority out there just waiting for some entity to make a stand for principles. If only it were our elected “leaders” rather than a small Bible college.

  • cookcountyconservative

    with my brother-in-law a couple of months ago, when he had no problem providing a platform to Bill Ayers at his children’s school in Naperville to spout off his views on social justice. ?You’ve got to go with free speech?, he told me.! Bah! Let him have all the street corners and bullhorns he needs – there is no need to provide him with a podium in front of your children!

    Like terrorism – there is no middle ground, or “common ground” on abortion.

    I’m reminded of something I read at the Anchoress a while back,

    ?We have the tools and guidelines, and we must be prepared to live them – no matter what the times bring – live them, righteously and fearlessly, understanding that many, many will seek the world and its answers, because the way of the world appears easier. The world can be touched, seen, smelt, it seems like the reality, and they cling to it. For the rest of us, all we can do is be faithful. Will it be scary? Yes. Will we be abandoned? Not on your life. Do not be afraid, and just keep moving on to the next right thing, and then the next.”

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com David Hinz

    the operative word is CONGRESS…

    Free speech is guaranteed from government censorship. Universities, businesses and organizations are free to make whatever rules they choose.

    (Except, of course, banks, financial institutions, Wall Street, GM or Chrysler)

  • Joe_Cor

    as well as individuals. Liberty University has a perfect right to disavow its association with any organization it wishes.

    I only take exception to its allowing the Democrats to still meet on campus. It has a perfect right, as a private organization, to decide which organizations may use its private facilities. It has no obligation to make them available to any and all comers. Imagine, for instance, these were the Campus Skinheads, rather than Campus Democrats, who wanted to meet on the Liberty Campus.

    If this is political tone deafness, I’ll take it any day of the week over Notre Dame’s political hip-and-with-itness.

  • davenp35

    Would a private Israeli university allow neo-Nazis to form a group on campus? Would BYU allow an athiest club? If a student group espouses a message that runs entirely counter to the mission of the private university, then they have every right to shut the group down. It is simply not possible for someone who supports the Democratic Party, and therefore mass infanticide, to be a real Christian.

    • Diogenes314

      You are now officially as foolish and hypocritical as the leftist college administrations denounced around here. And you could possibly add blasphemous, claiming that your particular political creed is a litmus test for whether or not someone is a Christian or not. Fortunately, whether you idiots think I’m a Christian doesn’t matter. Only what Christ says.

      And yes, you are entirely withing your rights to be hypocritical fools.

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        Hypocritical? Don’t be absurd.

        • Diogenes314

          I’m sorry if the irony escapes you.

          As far as my being a ‘leftist’ you are the one parroting the PC crowd, as long as you agree with what is PC.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            The fact that you don’t understand that freedom includes the freedom to deny your support for speech you don’t like, is one of the marks of the left.

            You sound like many-a-troll I’ve banned. None of them got it either. They just screamed about liberty, called us stupid, and eventually got banned.

          • Diogenes314

            I never said they couldn’t mimic the left. Just questioning whether they should.

      • Ward_Off_Monkey

        The litmus test was a moral issue about supporting and defending human life from a Christian perspective. While many Christians put political affiliation first and let their Christianity take a back seat to what their party supports, Liberty has chosen to put Christ and Christianity first and foremost above all else. While this may put them at odds with some political “creeds” that are either amoral or have adopted moral belief systems disparate from Christianity, the issue is absolutely moral in nature and only political because the Democratic party has adopted abortion rights as a central plank in its platform. I would venture that if you could find an apolitical pro-abortion organization that Liberty University would likely not certify them on campus either.

  • http://web.mac.com/mayo99/iWeb/Site/VladBlog/VladBlog.html Vladimir

    …as conflicting with the missions of the secular liberal arts colleges across the country, which outnumber the Libertys, Oral Robertses, Hillsdales, Pepperdines and BYUs by about 500 to 1.

    Liberty should recognize that it is possible, especially in the South, for a student to support a party generally without endorsing every single one of its policies.

    Such a stance attracts a lot more negative press than it’s worth.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Let them *admit* they have a left-wing mission.

      Better open than secret.

      • Diogenes314

        N/T

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          Just like Liberty has come out as having a pro-life mission.

          • Diogenes314

            Just don’t call it a “Christian” mission.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Are you saying all those Catholics and others who believe themselves commanded a certain way aren’t Christians? Aren’t motivated by faith?

          • Diogenes314

            First of all, Catholics accept the doctrine of Papal infallibility. They are required to believe whatever the Pope tells them to. And I have no problem with some thinking that the Bible opposes abortion, opposes (or supports) slavery, or teaches that the world is flat.

            It’s when they claim that anyone who doesn’t follow their particular dogma ‘isn’t a Christian’ that they cross the line.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            So Christian groups shouldn’t be able to define Christianity, drawing lines between what is and what isn’t Christianity?

            Or are they only allowed to use your definition of Christianity, such that you’re drawing a line between what is and what isn’t Christian?

          • Diogenes314

            Whether or not they should engage in hypocrisy and blasphemy is up to them.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            are they a Christian which seeks to examine their soul vs is the position that take anathema to Christian beliefs as defined in the Bible.

            One can have different definitions of who “is” a Christian, the most important of which we really can’t know, i.e. their soul

            And when we broaden the definition you actually make it more difficult to exclude because when a person says that they are a Christian, then they by definition are one under one definition.

          • bs

            It’s the moral position. Pro-abortion is the immoral position. Happy now?

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
          • Diogenes314

            Every political group thinks they are ‘moral’ and those who oppose them aren’t. Communists, Nazis, Southern Reconstructionists, Jim Crow practitioners, Modern Democrats all were/are ‘moral’ in their own eyes.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine
          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Good to know you think pro-life activists are just like Nazis.

            That explains your attitude in this thread perfectly well.

          • Diogenes314

            Or maybe have someone explain it to you.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
          • Diogenes314

            I get that a lot. Not from anyone worth talking with, mind you…

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            isn’t he implicitly conceding that abortions are immoral, for if there is amoral issue, then obviously some choices are immoral, otherwise the term has no meaning.

          • Diogenes314

            Like I care what he says about anything. The only thing his statement shows is his low regard for morality in general.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            and that is that most everyone knows that abortion is immoral. That NAZIs etc got morality wrong doesn’t make the issue of morality meaningless. In fact, you just conceded that we can discern morality by excoriating Obama on the matter.

          • Diogenes314

            Is that you (and Liberty) have a right to imitate the Left. The question is whether you should.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            that Liberty backed off their ban on meetings of the club on campus.

      • Mike gamecock DeVine

        on boards of trustees, etc

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
          • Mike gamecock DeVine
    • Mike gamecock DeVine

      consider how fundamental that issue is to Liberty’s mission, I don’t think that general rule quite applies, but I do think my mind might be changed if they had stuck with their original ban on meetings. But they didn’t.

      I think the mission is greater than negative press, and quite frankly, given all the negative press since 1972 and yet given the drop in abortions of late and the dramatic change in public opinion, at least in how people prefer to be identified as pro-life, maybe we are seeing growth during persecution? small “p”

      • http://web.mac.com/mayo99/iWeb/Site/VladBlog/VladBlog.html Vladimir

        Jesus engaged the scribes & Pharisees in debate – He didn’t throw them out of the temple as He did the moneychangers.

        • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

          they take federal funding in the form of financial aid at very least.

        • Mike gamecock DeVine

          still meet as a club. All they have lost is the imprimatur of the University. Its really quite a limited move by Liberty in my opinion.

    • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

      The decision by Liberty was as dumb as this diary.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    One fundamental issue is the Democratic Party Club violated Liberty University’s mission. At a very primary level, participating students knew that taking specific controversial positions or actions opposed to Christian teachings would be the nexus of conflict.

    While parties represent many different ideas, to knowingly allow promotion of positions which have been factually, philosophically and idealistically explicated as counter to the very reason for one’s existence is existentially antithetical and contra intellectual.

    People seeking guidance have many places to go in order to be indoctrinated by contemporary liberal philosophy which often forgoes existential value, morals and basic religious beliefs for destructive political exigency.

    Liberty, rightfully and legally, is an island of exception in a sea of indoctrinated cultural morass forced upon us by those not willing to participate in debate, hiding behind feigned constitutional rights and using any other manner of deflection to avoid complete, factual discussion.

    So you will forgive me if I chortle when this is framed as a First Amendment conversation. I obviously reject that premise as it appears to be a misguided self-projection of the oppositions status. Once again, is is being adopted to use victim-hood and oppression as part of their argumental basis: very humorous.

    I am certain Liberty is willing to have the doctrinal debate about abortion, gay marriage, et al and how it stands in opposition to fundamental Christian beliefs. I suspect that when discussed from a religious perspective which teaches God is the source and proliferator of all life, it may be a bit more difficult for make a case that interfering or promoting policies contrary to that belief is somehow “principled”. No wonder liberal progressives are trying to “kill” God.

    I will reiterate my point that parties represent a number of ideas to state that terminating their club was wrong. But Liberty realized this, ensured the universities imprimatur was not weakened or left to question.

    • Diogenes314

      Apparently not, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

      • Marcus_Traianus

        Point of fact; Liberty and her students constantly engage in a whole host of activities related to these issues and surrounding debates- representing and defending Christian teaching of course.

        Student organizations such as the debate club did a outstanding job (about a year ago?) debating various court cases related to abortion issues.

        Both staff and alumni are often called on to discuss and debate these issues from a Christian perspective in the media and other forums.

        Liberty is not blindly banning discussion of issues to which they are simply philosophically opposed. To the contrary, they have a well established record of participation in related debates. What they have disallowed is an official blessing or promotion, if you will, of actions which are inconsistent with the universities positions. Those ideals have been established, debated and defended since Liberty’s inception. Therefore, their actions are not intended to limit debate, they are directed at providing philosophical clarity. That keeps debate in appropriate forum; away from a discussion of one’s personal convictions.

        • Diogenes314

          Is encouraging left-leaning students to get an education elsewhere, where their prior indoctrination can be intensified rather than challenged. That and imitating the close-minded leftists while referring to themselves as ‘Liberty”.

          • Ward_Off_Monkey

            in light of their commitment to Christ, their choice to affiliate with the Democratic party which wholeheartedly supports the killing of unborn humans.

    • benjjneb

      “a sea of indoctrinated cultural morass…”

      What is a sea of morass? Is it like a ‘forest of woods’, or perhaps a ‘stew of soups’?

      “So you will forgive me if I chortle when…”

      Consider yourself forgiven while you ‘chortle’, when a simple laugh would have sufficed so well. Somehow the words ‘mellifluous taradiddle’ spring to mind…

      • aesthete

        I, personally, enjoy it, and it is certainly better than the other extreme of not being able to use the English language coherently. Of course, it does have the adverse effect of drawing mockers who prefer to castigate proficiency with the English language than to acquire a similar level of mastery. :)

        • benjjneb

          Since Pejman left, Marcus has moved up to number one in my Redstate reader’s list. Probably not for the intention behind the posts…

          I’ll grant that overwrought prose might look different to those for whom it is a novelty. As an academic, I find myself presented with this sort of onanistic composition on a disturbingly regular basis.

          It gets old, in the ‘serious sense’, very fast. The humor inherent is a gift that keeps on giving, however.

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            the lady doth protest too much

      • Ward_Off_Monkey

        sufficed that would have implied simply a bit of amusement at the free speech argument. Chortle infers a bit of satisfaction, disdainful at that, at the opposition’s misapplication of the First Amendment argument here. The opposition also conveniently forgets the language in the Fifth Amendment that states specifically that “No person shall be…deprived of life…without due process of law” when arguing in support of abortion. They obviously take to heart though, Jefferson’s language in the Declaration of Independence regarding the pursuit of happiness, otherwise why justify the murder of another human?

      • http://theminorityreportblog.com David Hinz

        We sure do unerstand why you might find yerself more comfertable with little three and four letter words [especially them four letter words, I bet]

        chortle….cain’t here the word chortle without thinkin about, “Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gire and gimble in the wabe. All mimsy were the borogroves and the mothraths outgrabe.”

        that there is poetry, in case ye didn’t know.

      • Marcus_Traianus

        O? anointed one, professor, it is really not hard to imagine why students lack imagination or stylistic creativity in their writing today. The restrictive structures, sterile adaptations and closed minded teaching of the contemporary English language illuminati, which I posit you place yourself among due to your criticisms?, is actually the most destructive force in our history of composition.

        I witness the product of such linguistic snobbery almost every day; discouraged kids who have been psychologically beaten by the professorial writing despots. They can not put together a single string of coherent writing without reflecting on past occurrences of abuse: endlessly conflicted about the grammatical correctness of their product.

        Nonetheless, their fears are usually allayed when discovering past critical abuse was a product of small minded, ill informed, opinionated writing bigots, not the breaking of historical grammatical covenants. They are surprised to know their tormentors are probably the same people who criticize Emerson?s writing style and claim the 18th century form of our founders was ?overwrought?. These kids have no idea who Paul Hopper is and are unfamiliar with concepts such as generative and universal grammar- amazing.

        The coupe de grace is usually when these kids realize they can change, expand their knowledge and be imaginative, great writers; unlike the stale, immutable academics; confined to finding pleasure vis-?-vis anonymous, useless commentary and dreaming a brighter, yet unattainable day is on the horizon.

        • http://theminorityreportblog.com David Hinz

          And let me add, that a writing “expert” told me you should not ever use more than five exclamation points in your entire lifetime! Can you imagine that?! How narrow minded of him!

          Beside, other than being an editor of a newspaper, he has no qualifications whatsoever!

        • JadedByPolitics

          a beautiful SMACK DOWN…..that will no doubt leave a bruising mark on the face :-)

          • Marcus_Traianus

            Now THAT, would need to be taken seriously.

        • benjjneb

          Why miss the point in a sentence or two when one can do so in an essay.

          Marcus, your writing epitomizes the term taradiddle. Grammar is not the issue.

          That said, best of luck in your one-man crusade against the despotic grammar illuminati. It must be interesting living in your home. Taking out the trash is likely a heroic thrust in your life-long struggle to cleanse the Aegean stable of oppressive modernity. Making the bed a noble, essential, benevolent, beneficent contribution to the cause of cleanliness.

          • Marcus_Traianus

            No text necessary.

          • benjjneb

            No text necessary.

            This is your clearest post yet. I think you could build from this…

          • Achance

            to all the stables in the area bounded by the Aegean Sea.

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            professor teach thyself!!

          • benjjneb

            I had to look that one up, I definitely thought the spelling of the sea and the stables were one and the same. Sadly it appears the Augean stables weren’t on the Aegean, but nearer the Ionian. A tragic loss for bad wordplay.

        • benjjneb

          After seeing this I think I understand how bad the ‘professorial writing despots’ you are up against are. Best of luck in your struggle.

  • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

    When you mercilessly butcher the English language, as you did in the title and subhead of this post, it makes me a Sad Panda.

    Here’s your tip for the day from the Correct Grammar and Usage Panda: Always proofread your work — and, if you aren’t sure about the correctness of your usage, LOOK IT UP!

    I’m sure this diary was spirited in its provocation of outrage; unfortunately, I never got past the subheading, thanks to its mutilation of proper English.

    Thanks!

    -Correct Grammar and Usage Panda

    • http://briansimpson.wordpress.com Brian Simpson

      A panda walks into a cafe.

      The panda orders a sandwich, eats it and then fires a gun into the air. On his way out, he tosses a badly punctuated wildlife manual at the confused bartender and directs him to the entry marked “Panda.”

      Whereupon the bartender reads: “Panda. Large black-and-white bearlike mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves.”

      Oh, so that’s you?

      • smagar

        :)

      • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

        :-)

  • avgamerican

    Why? Because they are willing to violate the constitution. They are willing to sacrifice innocent unborn children. They have sided with marxism, secularism, and everything opposed to Judeo Christian values.

  • redstatebluestate123

    Whether or not they are fully within their rights to do this is not the issue Warner. The issue is that it’s a stupid idea. Free speech doesn’t always refer to the RIGHT of free speech, it can also refer to the PRINCIPLE of free speech. The school is in violation of that age old principle.

    Second, they list “Socialism” as a reason for banning the college Democrats? Seriously!? I’m hardly a solid conservative on everything, but if my school banned the College Republicans because they opposed higher taxes for the rich I’d be out there protesting and you’d be cheering me on every step of the way.

    This whole decision by LU is simply a childish attempt to stick a finger in the eye of the other side.

    • cwilson

      Does your school include in its mission statement “Crusade for Social Justice and Redistribution of Wealth from the Capitalist Class to the Workers”? Is it private? Then sure, they’d be well advised to remove official sanction from a club that violates their core tenets.

      OTOH, if your school is ostensibly a public, taxpayer-supported university rather than a private institution, then no: they’d be rather limited in which clubs they can exclude from official sanction.

      That’s the crux here: everybody is trying to say “Liberty U shouldn’t do this; what if Ole Miss or Colorado U banned the College Republicans”. But that’s comparing apples and oranges. Public schools are different that private institutions. We object when public schools suppress conservative student groups (we’ve never actually seen them try to suppress liberal ones, but I’d object to that too, if I ever saw it) — because, as public institutions, they are not supposed to take sides: free and open debate, melting pot of ideas, etc. Their core mission is (supposed to be) education. Not promoting one viewpoint (secular vs religious; right vs left; etc) over another. For this impartiality they get preferential treatment, support from tax dollars, etc.

      But private institutions are founded for all sorts of reasons; their very founding documents sometimes reflect a mission — taking a side, if you will — on some issue or topic. An explicitly liberal-founded private institution would be advised not to officially support the Students For Federalism. An explicitly-Christian one would of necessity refuse to sanction the Young Satanists. But neither you nor I get to determine where those fault lines fall for any given PRIVATE institution. Liberty U has decided that the pro-abortion democrats are a bridge too far, given the university’s founding mission.

      • eburke

        I work at a small Christian college which believes, as part of its core beliefs, that homosexuality is a sin. Without turning this into a theological debate one way or the other, if this college was to allow a GLBT club to exist on campus funded by student fees there would be, well, hell to pay from the parents who send their kids there and the donors who fund the college because they are in agreement with the fundamental principles of the college.

        Liberty is *not* a public institution so, as you so rightfully pointed out, this whole meme is comparing apples to oranges.

  • http://www.clinefamily.us pcnnc

    I applaud Liberty and say a resounding AMEN! To people who believe, no matter how honestly, that a Christian can be a Democrat today this should slap some sense into you. If you claim Christ, even to the smallest portion of your soul, you cannot condone the flippancy with which the Dems deal with the murder of human beings. Giving even one ounce of validation to the present incarnation of the Democrat Party reduces the impact of your faith on others.

  • Paul_In_Houston

    the word “KILL”.

    If you dare to use it in relation to the word “abortion”, then you are guilty of hate speech in their eyes, trying to make people uncomfortable about choosing something that should NEVER be a comfortable choice.

    Obama asked for a dialog on abortion.

    Would he dare to ask for a dialog on killing the unborn?

    Sometimes, circumstances may make necessary some very nasty things, but covering them up in euphemisms does not change what they are.

    -

  • red_dawn

    with Liberty University’s principled, brave and true decision. scumsuckers don’t deserve to spread their vile filth among good people.

    Frankly, I think we should “de-certify” the national Democrat Socialist Party. They are traitors. They should be in jail, or at least tried and given a chance to denounce their affiliation.

  • FortitudineVincimus

    I’ve been following court cases regarding such issues in higher education for over 6 years now. During college I felt that my university was infringing on my free speech rights and I contacted The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE – www.thefire.org) for help. I’ve been following the cases that they handle ever since. FIRE is a non-partisan group that defends students against infringement of constitutional rights of due process, free speech, freedom of conscience, religious liberty, as well as other breaches of law. They’ve defended Christian clubs at public universities who have been disbanded because they would not allow gays to be club leaders. They’ve defended Muslim groups who were also disbanded because they too refused to bend on their religious views. They have exposed residential life (i.e dorm) programs that indoctrinate students to adhere to certain social views. And hundreds of other cases and issues. Their website is good place to read up to get an INFORMED opinion on the current subject at hand. Actually, they produce a number of handbooks on these issues so students can inform themselves about their rights. If you would like to read up on some of these items, click on over to their page that lists their handbooks by subject (free speech, due process, etc.) and has quick links to all the cases pertaining to that subject (http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/4978.html).

    The current issue at hand is of the right of a private university to limit freedom of association or speech. Many have mentioned that a private university is not bound by the constitutional requirements of freedom of speech and association, and rightly so. But there are other issues at play in deciding whether Liberty would actually win a lawsuit by this group. I will excerpt a few paragraphs from one of FIRE’s manuals, which will enlighten us all on the subject (and at the end I will link to some current and former cases that FIRE is involved with that deal with the exact issue at hand):

    ?Private universities and colleges stand in a different relation to the Constitution than governmental institutions such as public universities and colleges. The Constitution limits only government action. Because a private college or university is not a governmental entity, it does not have to obey the First Amendment. Voluntary associations in the private society are a vital part of American freedom. The fact that a private institution is not bound by the Constitution, however, does not mean that it is not bound by the rule of law. Many private schools choose by their own formal and advertised policies to hold themselves to certain standards regarding freedom of speech, due process, diversity of opinion, academic freedom, and the protection of individual conscience. A private school that claims to adhere to such policies may be required under state laws that apply to contract or fraud to live up to its own internal standards?in this case, the protection of freedom of speech. Such policies might compel a private college or university to distribute student fees in a viewpoint neutral manner or prevent it from ordering a controversial student group to disband because the school objects to the views expressed by the group. The law does not permit breach of contract or fraud. This model might apply to private universities and colleges that promote no distinct ideological or religious belief system, or, above all, that promise certain standards of nondiscrimination, legal equality, and academic freedom. An institution that induces students to attend by promising legal equality, variety of viewpoints, and nondiscrimination may not break those promises with impunity.?

    ?By contrast, if a private college or university is organized around a specific set of ideological or political beliefs, then the First Amendment protects its right to require students to fund speech that promotes the beliefs of the college. Students attending a private school established around a clear system of belief have no legal right to demand that the school allow dissenters to express conflicting views on campus. The First Amendment?s right of association protects the right of those private schools to promote their specific ideological or religious beliefs. A private college or university may not in good faith present itself as a secular liberal arts institution that guarantees a student?s right to free expression but then, in practice, further a particular ideological or religious agenda by funding only organizations that promote that agenda. Such a practice would arguably violate the contractual obligation that the institution has undertaken to the student to whom it has promised a liberal arts education in a setting in which the free marketplace of ideas prevails. (When a vendor advertises one product but then offers a different one in its place, that is known as ?bait and switch.? When a vendor claims to sell you one product but secretly substitutes another, that act is known as ?fraud.?) ?

    As you can see, whether Liberty can legally justify decertification of this club really depends on what their own policies are. I?ve quickly browsed through some of the school?s policies but nothing jumped out at me as being explicit as a policy on policies on freedom of speech, due process, diversity of opinion, academic freedom, or protection of individual conscience. Although it is very clear that certain activities are not tolerated at Liberty. If anyone else wants to browse through the documentation you can find it here:

    Student Code of Conduct: https://www.liberty.edu/media/1210/Code%20of%20Conduct%20Revised%203_09%20LATEST.pdf

    However, I was able to find a published policy on forming a club at Liberty. This can be found at http://www.liberty.edu/studentaffairs/sga/index.cfm?PID=18419 and is excerpted here:

    ?Student clubs or organizations must request and receive permission from the Liberty University administration before they may meet on campus, advertise, distribute or post materials, or use any University facilities for their activities or events. All such clubs or organizations and their activities or events must be consistent with the University?s mission, and must be and remain in compliance with the Liberty Way, the Honor Code, and any policies or procedures promulgated by the University. The University reserves the right to refuse the use of its facilities for any reason to any student club, organization, activity or event.?

    ?Consistent with the Honor Code, all students, student clubs and organizations, faculty and staff of Liberty University, have a responsibility to uphold the moral and ethical standards of this institution and personally confront those who do not.?

    ?No student club or organization shall be approved, recognized or permitted to meet on campus, advertise, distribute or post materials, or use University facilities if the statements, positions, doctrines, policies, constitutions, bylaws, platforms, activities or events of such club or organization, its parent, affiliate, chapter or similarly named group (even if the similarly named group is not the actual parent, affiliate or chapter) are inconsistent or in conflict with the distinctly Christian mission of the University, the Liberty Way, the Honor Code, or the policies and procedures promulgated by the University. ?

    Legally, I?m not sure if this would hold up if there are contradictory policies in other official university policies, but at this point I have been unable to find any. I leave you all to draw your own conclusions.

    Here are a few links to current or recent cases that deal with freedom of speech or association at private universities for those who are interested in the subject:
    Speech codes at Columbia University: http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/10583.html
    Speech codes at University of Pennsylvania: http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/10617.html
    The Duke rape case: http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/10584.html

    And more resources:
    Handbook on due process at private universities: http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/due-process-3.pdf
    Handbook on fees and funding at private universities: www.thefire.org/pdfs/student-fees-5.pdf

    • smagar

      I’m sure the ACLU and Democratic Party of Virginia are.

      • Scope

        Hope liberty U has that pair!

    • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

      Thank you for your thorough review of the relevant legal doctrines.

      As you note, it will take careful evaluation of Liberty’s documents to determine whether their actions fall within their contract with their students.

      A second issue will likely revolve around whether Liberty has been consistent in apply their standards to other student clubs. And if, the administration’s awareness on the pro-life issue has been heightened by the Obama-Notre Dame controversy such that they are reexamining their clubs, then it will be important to verify that they have examined the other student clubs on this issue.

      FIRE has been an important voice to oppose the increasingly totalitarian bent of many universities. That U of Maryland freshman residence program was particularly egregious.

  • SteveLA

    Will this move effect employment prospects for graduates of the university in the secular job market? I somehow doubt that a company run by a big time Democrat will be sending recruiting teams to Liberty University looking for potential employees. I think the same will hold true for most companies in the secular world of business.

    Liberty has every right to set what they believe is the moral values of their institution, including banning the Democratic party, but the secular world of business will also eventually have a say too.

    • red_dawn

      but how’d that work out for him?

    • ocleverone

      If the business world is secular by nature, then the affliation to one belief or another should cause no heed.

      I think business is more interested in whether or not you can do your job.

  • gigi36b

    be surprised if a Jewish Orthodox school was found to have a “pork cooking club” and the school then banned it?

    This is religious principles, not political ones.
    As a Catholic, I’m embarassed by Notre Dame’s actions. Notre Dame’s actions are a demonstration of being faithful to your Church, until it’s hard, then just cave or roll over.

    No wonder there are no leaders anymore.

    Good for Liberty.

  • aesthete

    For the record, I’m with GC on the action in and of itself: I initially had a fairly strong reaction against the decision, as it seems to violate the ideas of the free exchange of ideas. Now that they have backed off of their initial statements, I don’t have much objection.

    However, this was a terrible idea both from a PR standpoint, and from a service standpoint. Liberty has the responsibility to its students and alum to give them the best possible opportunity to seek jobs in the marketplace after graduation, and stunts like this one, no matter how “principled”, are going to be seen (rightly) as unprofessional.

  • secondpatriot76

    If the Republican Party is looking for some testosterone they can find it at Liberty University. So far this college has the guts and courage to do the right thing.

    You can be a Christian and a Dem as long as you are Christian first and Dem second. Too bad the national dem party wants it the other way around.

  • Hooah_Mac

    I didn’t see this mentioned in all the yammering above, my apologies if I missed it.

    “Over the last several decades, Democratic clubs have existed at Liberty University as unofficial student clubs not endorsed by the school. Last Fall, the College Democrats asked that the university officially recognize their club. They promised to support only pro-life candidates and their charter provides that the club supports the right to life. Unfortunately, the club supported candidates over the last 8 months that support abortion rights. As a result, Liberty University converted the club?s status back to that of an unrecognized club. It was not banned as so many press outlets irresponsibly reported. The club can continue to exist and meet on campus like other clubs and student groups that are not officially recognized by the university. They cannot use Liberty University?s name, will not receive the small financial subsidy that officially recognized clubs receive (about $500 per year on average) and they cannot hold public events on campus. There will be no other restrictions on their activities. Liberty University encourages free speech and open debate on its campus and free speech will not be restricted.” – Liberty University Office of the Chancellor

    Case closed.

    • ocleverone

      Thanks for posting this Mac.

      • Doc Holliday

        the president of the Democrat club is 18, and seems more level headed about this than many of us. It is funny that this is not how the screeching left usually works. I think in my first post I tried to point out that these 30 people were probably not a major threat. They did choose to attend Liberty U not Berkeley.

        http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/update_liberty_u._democrats_not_enthused_over_latest_proposal_from_falwell/269698/

  • http://www.theotherworsham.blogspot.com toddworsham

    I really cant believe anyone on this forum would really support the choice made by liberty university. Besides the fact that the decision completely flies in the face of the name of the university it is just a bad decision. When I debate liberals I am extremely careful not to fall into the behaviors that define many libs. I dont hurl personal attacks, I avoid using strawmen, and most of all I have the intellectual integrity to recognize when an idea put for by the other side may actually have some merit.

    Now let it be said I am much closer to the libertarian mindset than republican. I dont think abortion should be banned, it should be put to the states to decide, I think the war on drugs is the dumbest war since the war on poverty, quite honestly at this point I am accepting gay marriage because I think any honest appraisal of the situation shows that its gonna happen. This response may get me labeled a troll, but unlike liberals I really do not care what anyone else thinks.

    • http://www.fredsnews.com Fred Maidment

      …as you’d find more who agree with at least some of your positions than you might think.

      That said, as Liberty University is a private institution, they have a right to set their own standards.

      Do I agree with those standards? No, as I detailed in my previous posts above.

      Are they within their Constitutional and Legal rights?

      Absolutely.

      Not controlling the behavior of private individuals or organizations, so long as they are not committing fraud, theft or causing physical harm, is the essence of libertarian government.

  • porterjervis

    just look at what McCain-Feingold did.

    A poster suggested that Liberty Graduates may be discriminated against by their college choice. I beg to differ. I know scores of Liberty graduates that have excellent careers. One nationally know woman is Shannon Bream, formerly of NBC’s Channel 4 in Washington and now Supreme Court Reporter for Fox News.

    I am delighted that my daughter chose Liberty. I researched it myself as well and found to be exactly the kind of school all parents might want for their son or daughter. I was very concerned about ‘throwing my daughter to the wolves’ at some other university.

    Everything about the school revolves around the student best interests. Student behavior and accountability is of highest caliber because that is what is expected of them.

    These students are being taught what most other American public universities have abdicated long ago in favor of liberal dogma. Liberty students are well prepared scholastically, and are taught what it takes to be good citizens.

    Perhaps these Christian College Democrats will see that marching in lockstep with the DNC on matters that are important to Christians will prompt them to stand up to the DNC and make change from within the party.

    Lastly, if you don’t like the rules at Liberty, don’t go there or send your children there.

    Porter Jervis.