[Fumblerooskies]

Let's look at it this way...compare the relative ages of those in the law school to the LU undergrad. There seems to be a pretty good gap. Those folks are "of age" and can make decisions based on their experiences. Left to their own devices, on the other hand, many U-21 undergrads will make the wrong decision about the Liberty Way. This is where the campus leaders come into play, to promote accountability. This is where a dedicated coach of integrity comes into play...to foster an atmosphere of accountability. The older grad and law students have to make their decisions based on their personal walk with God...and act accordingly. Forcing those students to abide by the UG Liberty Way is treating them like "they don't know no better." (and yes, would most likely hurt enrollment)

[TallyW]

Let's not turn this into a debate over whether or not drinking is something we consider to be matter of personal holiness. That discussion goes nowhere and it won't end well. Instead, let's please keep this focused on whether or not the same code of conduct should apply to all students who attend any part of Liberty University system. If you must, you can discuss whether or not you think the university should allow students of legal age to drink alcohol or not.

Again, let's not turn this into a "Is drinking alcohol a sin?" thread. That's not the topic at hand.

How hard is it to understand that if you're in an undergrad program on the mountain you are more than likely not even old enough to LEGALLY drink anyway. That has NOTHING to do with an LU policy. Most of the people who'd throw a fit can't touch the stuff anyway.

I don't recall making it a 'personal holiness' argument. That in itself is funny b/c again Jesus drank in moderation... There are actually people who believe they will try to be more "personal holy" than Jesus? Laughable.

I feel extremely comfortable with a Law School having separate standards than an undergraduate program. At every level of your education you gain new rights and responsibilities. Law Students will face some of the toughest grad work we have on campus... I don't hear anyone complaining "how come they get to do the hard work?" Each department/school has to get approval from the same leadership... I'm cool with that leadership not applying rules just because the undergrad students have to deal with them. There are naturally already various rules for various blocks of students.

When I was on campus there was a security guard who stopped my car at midnight curfew. There was an RA who came by and did room checks. When I moved off campus I didn't have those same rules. At the time there was no sincere effort to make off campus students go to convo.... everyone knew it... the rules were different. So what. I knew that once I moved off campus I'd be dealing with that new set of realities.

[El Scorcho]

How hard is it to understand that if you're in an undergrad program on the mountain you are more than likely not even old enough to LEGALLY drink anyway. That has NOTHING to do with an LU policy. Most of the people who'd throw a fit can't touch the stuff anyway.

Most, but not all. Because some students are of age, the argument just as easily could be made that they should receive the same treatment as other students of age are receiving. Age isn't the issue here, though, because the Liberty code of conduct for faculty and staff also says that they shouldn't drink. Obviously some people do, but that's what the code of conduct says. How those people choose to treat the code of conduct assigned to them is up to them.

I don't recall making it a 'personal holiness' argument. That in itself is funny b/c again Jesus drank in moderation... There are actually people who believe they will try to be more "personal holy" than Jesus? Laughable.

What I meant by that was simply to say let's not turn this into an issue of "Is drinking a sin or not?" That's all that I meant by referencing personal holiness. I happen to agree with you that drinking is not a sin, but that's not the point of this thread. Many people obviously don't feel the same, and I don't want to get into it here, because that's not the issue we're trying to discuss. Laughable? No need to be a jerk about it.

I feel extremely comfortable with a Law School having separate standards than an undergraduate program.

Well then I suppose we'll just have to disagree to disagree, because I feel extremely uncomfortable with the Law School having different standards for their students than Liberty University has for it's undergraduate students, non-law graduate students, faculty and staff. I don't see this presenting Liberty in a positive light, considering that the one exception to this rule happens to be in the place they're trying the hardest to build. It's basically saying "Our standards are this high, until we need to do something where we think those standards are getting in the way." It's almost sleazy.

[Hold My Own]

Lib....These rules are new to the Law Students...just as of a few weeks maybe even days they were not allowed to drink or smoke...according to one law student that's a friend of mine it's b/c TRBC covers most of the Scollies the law students receive.


So the reasoning of "well it's been in place and been approved by the powers" doesnt really work simply b/c it's been both ways there. Just lose the seal and call it Lynchburg Law School and they rent out part of the building from LU. There are several employees that are baffled by this rule change.

[El Scorcho]

Actually I don't think the rule changed recently. It would seem that students just became aware of it being there.

[Libertine]

Lib....These rules are new to the Law Students...just as of a few weeks maybe even days they were not allowed to drink or smoke...according to one law student that's a friend of mine it's b/c TRBC covers most of the Scollies the law students receive.


So the reasoning of "well it's been in place and been approved by the powers" doesnt really work simply b/c it's been both ways there. Just lose the seal and call it Lynchburg Law School and they rent out part of the building from LU. There are several employees that are baffled by this rule change.

Whether the policy's been in place since the doors opened or for just the last 5 minutes is irrelevant to what I'm saying here. First of all, somebody had to approve that policy for it to go on the books at all. There's no getting around that. Secondly, the LS being forced to change a policy -- regardless of how long it's been in place -- due to outcry from the UG community can only hurt the LS in terms of autonomy.

[El Scorcho]

Lib....These rules are new to the Law Students...just as of a few weeks maybe even days they were not allowed to drink or smoke...according to one law student that's a friend of mine it's b/c TRBC covers most of the Scollies the law students receive.


So the reasoning of "well it's been in place and been approved by the powers" doesnt really work simply b/c it's been both ways there. Just lose the seal and call it Lynchburg Law School and they rent out part of the building from LU. There are several employees that are baffled by this rule change.

Whether the policy's been in place since the doors opened or for just the last 5 minutes is irrelevant to what I'm saying here. First of all, somebody had to approve that policy for it to go on the books at all. There's no getting around that. Secondly, the LS being forced to change a policy -- regardless of how long it's been in place -- due to outcry from the UG community can only hurt the LS in terms of autonomy.

If it was just because of an outcry from undergrad students, I would see your point. If it's from the university community at large (which includes other grad students, faculty, staff, the board, donors, etc.), then I don't think that the LS's autonomy is being threatened. I agree with HMO's point about it just being the Lynchburg Law School if the leadership of the university doesn't have anything to do with it at all. The Chancellor is not just the Chancellor of undergraduate studies.

Also, I do think that when the policy was put in place matters, because there's been a change in law school leadership since the inception of the school. Which dean established which policy is would be relevant.

[Libertine]

If it was just because of an outcry from undergrad students, I would see your point. If it's from the university community at large (which includes other grad students, faculty, staff, the board, donors, etc.), then I don't think that the LS's autonomy is being threatened. The Chancellor is not just the Chancellor of undergraduate studies.

Other grad students, faculty and staff, no; that's a threat. The board, the Chancellor and, particularly, the donors, yes; not a problem.

Also, I do think that when the policy was put in place matters, because there's been a change in law school leadership since the inception of the school. Which dean established which policy is would be relevant.

Why? The LS has its own board and the dean can't re-write school policy by himself.

[PAmedic]

FWIW (And I am well aware no one asked my opinion):

First: I agree that a a consistent policy would probably be better- inasmuch as there IS an undeniable affiliation between the 2 entities. Consistency is always better, IMHO.

Second: I really like the way the Law School's policy is worded In all seriousness- it is well written, specific about conduct when on school grounds, allows for autonomy and individual freedom of choice, yet is quite clear on the ramifications of "Crossing the line" (ie; dishonoring the school's Christian code of ethics, breaking the law, etc) and allows for enforcement of the policy. Sounds to me like a guideline that word work well across the board.

[PAmedic]

my question is- how do the institutional policies affect visitors to campus: those that are not currently enrolled (donors, businessmen, general public, friends, family, alum, etc)

[El Scorcho]

my question is- how do the institutional policies affect visitors to campus: those that are not currently enrolled (donors, businessmen, general public, friends, family, alum, etc)

I know the use of alcohol and tobacco products are supposedly prohibited for campus, period. However, that tobacco rule seems to fall by the wayside whenever we have construction going on. Of course, if you look at some of the construction in some places, you might think the alcohol policy was overlooked as well.

[Libertine]

my question is- how do the institutional policies affect visitors to campus: those that are not currently enrolled (donors, businessmen, general public, friends, family, alum, etc)

I know the use of alcohol and tobacco products are supposedly prohibited for campus, period. However, that tobacco rule seems to fall by the wayside whenever we have construction going on. Of course, if you look at some of the construction in some places, you might think the alcohol policy was overlooked as well.

Ha!

[TallyW]

How hard is it to understand that if you're in an undergrad program on the mountain you are more than likely not even old enough to LEGALLY drink anyway. That has NOTHING to do with an LU policy. Most of the people who'd throw a fit can't touch the stuff anyway.

Most, but not all. Because some students are of age, the argument just as easily could be made that they should receive the same treatment as other students of age are receiving. Age isn't the issue here, though, because the Liberty code of conduct for faculty and staff also says that they shouldn't drink. Obviously some people do, but that's what the code of conduct says. How those people choose to treat the code of conduct assigned to them is up to them.

Are you meaning to tell me that you wouldn't be okay with a policy that distinguishes the difference between non-students, undergrad, grad, professors, etc.? You'd only be happy if a policy made no distinction? I believe we once had a facial hair policy that did NOT apply to professors but DID apply to students. I suppose we would ignore the fact that we've been down this road before and the University has made such distinctions. It is about age. It is about level of education. It should be about both when age is how we define a person who is legally allowed to use alcohol.

I don't recall making it a 'personal holiness' argument. That in itself is funny b/c again Jesus drank in moderation... There are actually people who believe they will try to be more "personal holy" than Jesus? Laughable.

What I meant by that was simply to say let's not turn this into an issue of "Is drinking a sin or not?" That's all that I meant by referencing personal holiness. I happen to agree with you that drinking is not a sin, but that's not the point of this thread. Many people obviously don't feel the same, and I don't want to get into it here, because that's not the issue we're trying to discuss. Laughable? No need to be a jerk about it.

I'm not being a jerk to you. I like you. We disagree here. If I'm saying it's laughable... it's because it makes me laugh. I'm not bothered if someone doesn't like it. I'm sure I make them laugh at times with my views. Because I didn't call you names I'm disappointed you choose to express your frustration by calling me one. It's up to you though... I didn't know that my laughing would make you call names. Everyone on this board is educated enough to make points without calling one another "jerks". It's up to you though.

I feel extremely comfortable with a Law School having separate standards than an undergraduate program.

Well then I suppose we'll just have to disagree to disagree, because I feel extremely uncomfortable with the Law School having different standards for their students than Liberty University has for it's undergraduate students, non-law graduate students, faculty and staff. I don't see this presenting Liberty in a positive light, considering that the one exception to this rule happens to be in the place they're trying the hardest to build. It's basically saying "Our standards are this high, until we need to do something where we think those standards are getting in the way." It's almost sleazy.

We do disagree. I think I've laid out my argument plainly. At an institution of over 10k people on campus at a time every day I am completely fine with each person having different guidelines to live up to so long as they understand those guidelines. Some employees of LU are required to work 8-5, others longer. Some employees work in the evening and night while others work days. Some employees are hourly while others are salaried. Some employees have to wear a hair net while others have to wear a tie. I'm fine with the idea that a major university will have different expectations based on the role that person is to play in the University. I'm okay with the concept that while one is in our undergraduate program they are not to partake of alcohol but if they move into our graduate program they are allowed to do so in a biblical way. I'm also fine with our professors partaking of wine in a manner consistent with scripture.

I also do not agree with you that a discussion such as this should be chopped up into your arbitrary segments. Everything I've brought up has been germane to the issue. If we're to discuss alcohol we should discuss they Whys as well as the Whats. We should ask if the policy honestly presents a "higher standard" because the very phrase assumes that alcohol consumption in a biblical way is somehow a "lower standard". If it's "God's standard" I don't think we can make that argument of "higher standard". We can make an argument of "Legalistic standard" but that isn't the question is it? What is being discussed is this idea that LU is taking a "Higher Standard" in the debate. My point is "Higher than who?" other schools or Jesus? I think he'd end up the place scripture says he did. So lets not argue to make these conversations separate. They are one in the same.

[Hold My Own]

FYI they changed the wording again on the code...I'm staying clear of this though...if yall want to look at it, it's at the Liberty Law website under student services. It seems this is a VERY hot topic at Liberty right now

[El Scorcho]

Are you meaning to tell me that you wouldn't be okay with a policy that distinguishes the difference between non-students, undergrad, grad, professors, etc.? You'd only be happy if a policy made no distinction? I believe we once had a facial hair policy that did NOT apply to professors but DID apply to students. I suppose we would ignore the fact that we've been down this road before and the University has made such distinctions. It is about age. It is about level of education. It should be about both when age is how we define a person who is legally allowed to use alcohol.

No. What I'm telling you is that right now we have a single policy on alcohol that applies to everyone, regardless of age, with the apparent exception of the law students. This particular policy has never been about age or level of education, and to start an exception now, with people who are of lower ages and education than the staff that are teaching them is absurd. I'm arguing that if you're going to enforce this on one set of grad students, it should apply to all grad students. Law school students are no more educated than their peers working for an MBA. My point is that this policy ignores age and education, because there are plenty of people of age and education greater than the law students that are still excluded by the alcohol policies of the university. Why would law school students be so special that they would be the ones to get this exception? Do you see my point now?

I'm not being a jerk to you. I like you. We disagree here. If I'm saying it's laughable... it's because it makes me laugh. I'm not bothered if someone doesn't like it. I'm sure I make them laugh at times with my views. Because I didn't call you names I'm disappointed you choose to express your frustration by calling me one. It's up to you though... I didn't know that my laughing would make you call names. Everyone on this board is educated enough to make points without calling one another "jerks". It's up to you though.

Understood. The comment about it being laughable came off as condescending to me, but I'll interpret this to mean it wasn't meant that way. I do realize that this is the Internet and it's up to me to interpret the tone I read something with. I apologize for that.

I'm fine with the idea that a major university will have different expectations based on the role that person is to play in the University. I'm okay with the concept that while one is in our undergraduate program they are not to partake of alcohol but if they move into our graduate program they are allowed to do so in a biblical way. I'm also fine with our professors partaking of wine in a manner consistent with scripture.

Again, my point here is that the only variance in this rule to date has occurred for the students at the school of law. I just don't understand why "student of law" is so important that it trumps the rules applied to every other grade student, faculty member and staff worker at the school.

I also do not agree with you that a discussion such as this should be chopped up into your arbitrary segments. Everything I've brought up has been germane to the issue. If we're to discuss alcohol we should discuss they Whys as well as the Whats. We should ask if the policy honestly presents a "higher standard" because the very phrase assumes that alcohol consumption in a biblical way is somehow a "lower standard". If it's "God's standard" I don't think we can make that argument of "higher standard". We can make an argument of "Legalistic standard" but that isn't the question is it? What is being discussed is this idea that LU is taking a "Higher Standard" in the debate. My point is "Higher than who?" other schools or Jesus? I think he'd end up the place scripture says he did. So lets not argue to make these conversations separate. They are one in the same.

Well, again, we may just disagree here. The university (up until now) has maintained a consistent policy regarding alcohol, saying that it wasn't allowed for students, not because the university took the position that it was a matter of sin, but because it would not be conducive to the environment that the university wishes to maintain. (It's the 1 Corinthians 6:12 way of looking at it.) The standard the school sets is that for the period of time a student is attending Liberty University, it would ask them not to consume alcohol, because doing so may disrupt the learning/growing environment that the university is trying to provide to them and other students.

Along the same lines, the school says that unmarried, non-related students can't live together off campus as roommates. Would it be a sin for a guy and a girl to share an apartment with separate bedrooms if they weren't romantically involved or engaging in pre-marital sex? No, it would not. However, is it the best idea for the university to permit that situation? No, I do not believe it is, and I take the same view regarding alcohol.

If you disagree with that, that's fine with me, but up until now that's the stance the university has taken and I agree with it. For them to change it, to me, would be reckless. For them to change it only for the school that they desire most to grow, in my opinion, would not only be reckless, but shady as well.

[TallyW]

We may agree on something then... I'd be glad to allow graduate students and professors of all ages to succumb to the policy laid out for the Law Students. It appears to me to be a well written and well thought-out policy. I'm even okay if it applies to anyone 21 or older period.

This is the first time I've understood your position to be that other grad students are left out (reference to MBA, etc). I agree with you there.

If the Law School is a unique entity (I don't see it as such) then I can see how Mr. Staver would like to clarify the policy. It is my opinion that the Law School can make more of a direct difference in the life of the country much faster than any other program we currently offer. I also know that with our school being religious in nature it is going to get tough recruiting law students. Because they are not coming here as 18 year olds I'm certain this question has been raised and I'd imagine this policy was put in place because of such questions. Frankly it's a tough argument to try to tell a 25 year old law student that there is some biblical reason for not allowing alcohol in the privacy of your home, at dinner with a friend or even at a game off campus. My undergrad was Pre-Law and my wife works at the 2nd largest firm in Virginia. We are around lawyers regularly. Alcohol is nearly always present. So are boundaries. We've been fortunate to see the positive side of social drinking by adults who use moderation as a a guide. Future lawyers might as well get accustomed to that as well. It's not required that anyone partake of it... but I can see the argument for clarifying the Liberty Law policy.

I think if this policy were to go campus-wide many faculty, staff and grad students would be able to stop lying.

[4everfsu]

Since LU and the law school has a policy againist drinking, smoking, etc, do they have a policy againist illegal drugs?

I had a bible professor at LBC who was asked one day in class if he drank? He said"No". Next question was would he ever drink and he thought for a minute before answering and said this. He would if mankind could make wine like Jesus did out of water that was recorded in the book of John.
Funny how something sticks with you over 30 years and I never forget that lesson.

[Libertine]

Since LU and the law school has a policy againist drinking, smoking, etc, do they have a policy againist illegal drugs?

Is that a serious question?

I'm arguing that if you're going to enforce this on one set of grad students, it should apply to all grad students. Law school students are no more educated than their peers working for an MBA. My point is that this policy ignores age and education, because there are plenty of people of age and education greater than the law students that are still excluded by the alcohol policies of the university. Why would law school students be so special that they would be the ones to get this exception?

Scorchy, you continue to argue this as if the LS is just another grad program of the University and that is just not the case. Yes, it may a part of the LU "system", it is not a part of LU in the way that the MBA or much of the other grad programs are.

[jcmanson]

Since LU and the law school has a policy againist drinking, smoking, etc, do they have a policy againist illegal drugs?

https://www.liberty.edu/media/1190/docu ... -28-06.pdf

[Hold My Own]

I believe thats the one that was updated today

[TallyW]

That one is old. SJ's link links to a revised one as of April 3rd 2007. This one is from 9-28-06.


jcmanson's Link
https://www.liberty.edu/media/1190/docu ... -28-06.pdf 09-28-06.pdf



SJ's Link
http://www.liberty.edu/media/1190/docum ... -03-07.pdf 04-03-07.pdf[/u]

The link goes to the document titled "Honor Code rev" and then the date. SJ's link goes to a newer date.

[El Scorcho]

That one is old. SJ's link links to a revised one as of April 3rd 2007. This one is from 9-28-06.


jcmanson's Link
https://www.liberty.edu/media/1190/docu ... -28-06.pdf 09-28-06.pdf



SJ's Link
http://www.liberty.edu/media/1190/docum ... -03-07.pdf 04-03-07.pdf[/u]

The link goes to the document titled "Honor Code rev" and then the date. SJ's link goes to a newer date.

Yes, but the one with the older date is the one that's linked from the School of Law website.

[El Scorcho]

Scorchy, you continue to argue this as if the LS is just another grad program of the University and that is just not the case. Yes, it may a part of the LU "system", it is not a part of LU in the way that the MBA or much of the other grad programs are.

And you continue not to understand that I do not care how separate they are in terms of facilities, academics and finances. If a school claims the name Liberty University, their students ought to follow the same personal code of conduct as every other person who is a part of the university (in any way, regardless of status or age) is expected to follow. That's the bottom line. They can be completely autonomous and still make an autonomous decision to follow the same code as the rest of the university. If their board of trustees decides that is not what they want to do, then I would submit that the university's board of trustees needs to take a long hard autonomous look at what they're getting into with the law school.

I just see this as one of the worst possible uses of their autonomy. Of all the ways it could be used, and of all the things they could decided to do, they go that route. It's disrespectful to the decisions made by the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees regarding the code of conduct for students of the University. I see it much in the same light that I see Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria this week. She was probably within her bounds to take the trip (though not to make the promises she did), but was it right for her in light of the President's position on Syria? No. She's completely autonomous of the executive branch, but to do what she did just reeks of a lack of respect, not to mention her party's own agenda and in the end, it just makes the United States look bad internationally.

[El Scorcho]

I think if this policy were to go campus-wide many faculty, staff and grad students would be able to stop lying.

Which brings up another interesting question: If it is a sin (which I assume we all still agree that lying is) for them to agree to abide by a policy while they're a part of Liberty University that they do not keep, then why would they do it? Are they not capable? If they don't like the policy, then why would they agree to it?

The answer there has to be carefully worded, because if it is okay for the faculty/staff to break the rules, then why wouldn't be okay for the students to break policies they think aren't policies based on something other than the sin test?

[TallyW]

Many people choose to break rules... their consequences are called reps.

I can honestly say that at LU I didn't consume alcohol (even after I was 21). Unless one has never had reps however there is no one to throw the stone of doing something contrary to the code of conduct.

I can also honestly say however that I heard some pretty lame arguments about alcohol being a sin. Johnny Hunt even came and gave his unfounded talk about the Greek not having a word for fermented wine even though they have 3 words for our 1 word 'love'. I think they could have said "Kool-Aid".

You're passionate about this huh?