[SuperJon]

I'm not negative about. I know how the situation is. I know that no matter what we do, the general public is going to look down at a Christian university started by Jerry Falwell that teaches creationism.

Instead of wanting to change something that we have no control of whatsoever, I would rather see us produce good quality graduates and have our academic programs be great across the board. That means more than what people think about us.

[SuperJon]

Another problem I have with you is the anonymity you hide behind. If you really want to produce change, and want good things for Liberty, you have no reason to hide who you are. 90% of this board doesn't hide who they are. The fact that their opinions can be traced back to an actual person gives them the credibility of a human being. You guys are simply guys who hide behind a name and try to tell everyone how bad they are. I'm willing to bet you couldn't show me five credible blogs who hide behind anonymous names.

[flamesfilmguy]

I got a job right out of liberty at a secular state school in Ga..... just sayin.

[ATrain]

Personally, the religous profs seem to have the biggest problem with questions being asked. At least thats my experience. It seems as if you bring up the possibility that some things might (keyword there being might...not saying definitely) have been translated wrong, and you get treated as a heretic. I'm not going to name names, but there are some religion profs like that...the rest are pretty cool with questions though.

[SuperJon]

I got a job right out of liberty at a secular state school in Ga..... just sayin.

How much of that was the work you've done while being here, references, and that type of stuff and how much of it was because of Liberty having a good reputation in your field?

[flamesfilmguy]

My work. I see your point. I'm just saying its not as hard as he makes it seem to get a job out of Liberty.

[SuperJon]

So we produced a good student and a good worker who got a job based on his merits and not the reputation of his school.

Seems to me like a good plan.

[RubberMallet]

Another problem I have with you is the anonymity you hide behind. If you really want to produce change, and want good things for Liberty, you have no reason to hide who you are. 90% of this board doesn't hide who they are. The fact that their opinions can be traced back to an actual person gives them the credibility of a human being. You guys are simply guys who hide behind a name and try to tell everyone how bad they are. I'm willing to bet you couldn't show me five credible blogs who hide behind anonymous names.

dude...the economist told them it was the way to go....the freaking economist.

[Liberty Freelance]

You don't have a problem with us being anonymous. You don't have a problem with anyone on here being anonymous. You have a problem with our blog, and you're on a fishing expedition to find something wrong with it. I can't name five blogs off the top of my head, but Southern Appeal was a famous anonymous blog several years ago (it's no longer anonymous because the blogger is no longer a federal law clerk). It had plenty of credibility. There have been anonymous bloggers on the Volokh Conspiracy because the professors did not yet have tenure.

So there are good reasons for being anonymous that I'm not necessarily going to tell you about. But if you really thought that was a problem, you'd point out the reasons the Economist's statement about anonymity is wrong. Judging from your record, you just want a person to attack. You wouldn't give it more credibility if it weren't anonymous. It's too easy to associate a real name with all the labels you toss around. And that's a bad habit in the evangelical community. We knew that. And we thought about it. So that's the main reason we're anonymous. A famous evangelical crutch, "Oh, you're just negative." That saves you a lot of work, but it's hardly an argument.

[Ed Dantes]

Super Jon:

It's difficult for me to take your arguments seriously. All you're doing is attacking me. You're making statements with no support. You're ignoring the answers in the interview that show Liberty doesn't have a free market of ideas. You can't seriously believe that they do. If you didn't know before, you know from this thread that the Champion's censored. So where's the free market of ideas?

Please engage on the merits or I'm not going to be able to respond to your posts. They're just personal attacks. You can attack anyone. It doesn't further an argument, though.

Isn't this website a free market of Liberty ideas? We've had disagreements and discussions on this board, with Liberty's blessing. JFJR has posted on here.

Screaming 'The Champion is censored' is old and tired. Besides, it's a Liberty publication. No one reads it to be a penetrating source of unbiased information. It's like going to any college out there, I'll use Duke as an example, picking up their basketball media guide and screaming about how it's bias towards the Blue Devils.

[Ed Dantes]

Furthermore, the questions Freelance asked were all loaded, as if you set the guy up to trash LU:

- Should the administration change any aspects
- Should the students change its practices
- Should they invite more diverse convo speakers
- Should Liberty change its marketing message
- Should Liberty change its academic program
- What should Liberty do to distance itself from Falwell
- What should evangelicals do to shed its bad reputation (which is like a 'have you stopped beating your wife' question)

Then finally...
- What should LU keep.


However, you completely missed out on some obvious questions that should have been asked, and you probably would have if you had any modicum of journalistic instinct:
- The entire point of his book was that he came to Liberty with an attitude about evangelicals. He found out, his opinion was wrong. Why didn't you focus on that?
- What makes him qualified to render an opinion on Liberty's academic and religious classes, when he took only entry-level religion and General Education classes?
- Given the fact that his own parents pooh-pooh'ed his idea of writing a book, what does that say about so-called 'secular tolerance'? Isn't it rather 'intolerant'?
- Just recently, his alma mater decided to abolish 'Columbus Day' observations because they hate Columbus. Is this the sort of political correctness you wish to see imposed on Liberty and its students?

I could go on.

(coming up next: Liberty Freelancer chats with the 'crazy LU-bashing pastor' in another pulitzer-worthy interview! http://www.flamefans.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12668)

Maybe I shouldn't give him ideas.

[Liberty Freelance]

No, actually, it's more like going to Duke, picking up their student newspaper and expecting it to be uncensored.

Why is everyone's knee-jerk reaction on here to overlook censorship?

And, Ed, you pared down the questions for your purpose. Nice journalistic instinct. Your concerns are in the context of our questions.

[Liberty Freelance]

And we didn't ask him your penetrating questions about Brown because they're pointless. Our blog is about Liberty. And he has never suggested he wants Liberty to cancel Columbus day. So why would we ask him something so irrelevant? Irrelevance might be standard fare on this message board, but in the real world, relevance carries a little more weight.

[Liberty Freelance]

And the several comments people have made about Roose's supposedly not being qualified to make suggestions about Liberty are laughable. How many of you think Jerry Falwell, with a Bible degree from Baptist Bible College, was qualified to start an academic institution? Maybe you should reexamine your assumptions a little bit. I'm not saying he wasn't qualified. But you're not doing a very good job of hiding your biases.

[Ed Dantes]

No, actually, it's more like going to Duke, picking up their student newspaper and expecting it to be uncensored.

Why is everyone's knee-jerk reaction on here to overlook censorship?

And, Ed, you pared down the questions for your purpose. Nice journalistic instinct. Your concerns are in the context of our questions.

I like how paraphrasing your exact quotes is now poor journalism. I'm sorry I left out your long-winded diatribes, ones that only serve to prove my point. Does this make you feel better?

In your book, you treat Liberty University evenhandedly. But you don’t wilt from criticizing some of its practices. Should Liberty's administration change any aspects about Liberty? If so, which ones and in what ways?

If anything, I was doing you a favor -- because in the direct quote you deliberately are setting him up for a negative quote. Geez.

Further, if you think that mainstream college newspapers aren't censored, you've got another thing coming. Go talk to David Horowitz.
Actually, no, don't talk to David Horowitz (or read Bill Buckley's 'God and Man at Yale'). Just continue to trash Liberty, because then you'll think you're counter-culture, and thus, cool. Way to go.

[Ed Dantes]

And we didn't ask him your penetrating questions about Brown because they're pointless. Our blog is about Liberty. And he has never suggested he wants Liberty to cancel Columbus day. So why would we ask him something so irrelevant? Irrelevance might be standard fare on this message board, but in the real world, relevance carries a little more weight.

Like I said before, you missed the entire point of his book. One more time:

The entire point of his book was that he came to Liberty with an attitude about evangelicals. He found out, his opinion was wrong. Why didn't you focus on that?

Does that aspect NOT affect Liberty? Why didn't you focus on that? Oh wait, you're trying to be cool by being counter-culture*. I forgot.



*Yet you completely ignore that contemporary culture is counter-culture, so by attempting to rebel, you're actually just fitting in. You're like the guys who buy Che Guevara shirts -- you want to look cool by opposing the system, yet you support the system by purchasing a t-shirt. In short, you're a doofus.

[LUconn]

this comment is more about Roose than the interview:

The Freelance: You were taken aback that once you arrived at Liberty, the students weren’t “sewing Hillary Clinton voodoo dolls,” as you often put it. You were surprised that Jersey Joey was a Democrat and that more students than you expected were critical thinkers. Why were you surprised at that? Did your reaction spring from your own predispositions, or did the way Liberty markets itself cause you to have a certain predisposition? If the latter, how could Liberty change its marketing methods to come across as more tolerant without sacrificing its Christian distinction?

Mr. Roose: I don't know how much image rehab is possible at Liberty, given the school's history and association in the public mind with Dr. Falwell's political work. But I do think things are getting better, and the campus climate is becoming less monolithic. I was pleased to see, for example, a Liberty Students for Obama Facebook group during the last election. I think it had 6 or 8 members, but still...

I haven't read the book, but from all of the reviews I've read one of the major takes that people get from it that Roose is trying to get across is, "it's not what people think it is". And yet right here he takes his view of what he thought it was like before he attended and assumes it to be true. Even to this day, apparently, he still views the school as previously being Bob Jonesian. It's like he thinks we changed the way things operate once he got there.

[Liberty Freelance]

Ed,

You're arguments aren't serious. I assume that you're just trying to goad me into a petty argument. So for one last time, read my questions in context. He had an opportunity to answer however he wanted. "Should Liberty invite speakers from a broader range of political perspectives?" "Yes" or "no, they were diverse when I was there." You cherry picked sections of my questions and you know it. Or perhaps you don't and your bias is that deep seated. Either way, I'm not making very much progress in starting a serious conversation on here.

I asked him a balanced question about whether his negative predisposition was caused by him or by Liberty's marketing. How much more of a fair question could I have asked? You want me to load questions against him. I'm not going to do that. And none of us own a Che Guevara t-shirt. But nice straw man.

If you want to make a serious argument, I'll be happy to respond. But if you're going to blatantly violate basic rules of logic (e.g., setting up straw men; ad hominems like doofus; etc.), I don't have time to teach you the conventions of argumentation.

[ToTheLeft]

this comment is more about Roose than the interview:

The Freelance: You were taken aback that once you arrived at Liberty, the students weren’t “sewing Hillary Clinton voodoo dolls,” as you often put it. You were surprised that Jersey Joey was a Democrat and that more students than you expected were critical thinkers. Why were you surprised at that? Did your reaction spring from your own predispositions, or did the way Liberty markets itself cause you to have a certain predisposition? If the latter, how could Liberty change its marketing methods to come across as more tolerant without sacrificing its Christian distinction?

Mr. Roose: I don't know how much image rehab is possible at Liberty, given the school's history and association in the public mind with Dr. Falwell's political work. But I do think things are getting better, and the campus climate is becoming less monolithic. I was pleased to see, for example, a Liberty Students for Obama Facebook group during the last election. I think it had 6 or 8 members, but still...

I haven't read the book, but from all of the reviews I've read one of the major takes that people get from it that Roose is trying to get across is, "it's not what people think it is". And yet right here he takes his view of what he thought it was like before he attended and assumes it to be true. Even to this day, apparently, he still views the school as previously being Bob Jonesian. It's like he thinks we changed the way things operate once he got there.

Which makes you think... maybe Kevin had nothing to do with this interview?

[Liberty Freelance]

This thread is rapidly getting more embarrassing. Email Kevin and ask him if we interviewed him. Is that how things work around here? Everyone just throws around conjecture? Ask him yourself. Please.

It concerns me that no one is taking my side on any of this. I'm sure there are many students out there who don't troll the seamy underbelly of this message board. But seriously. Is there no one reading this who agrees with me? I mean, Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez censor their news outlets. It suggests that they are insecure about opposing ideas. Anyone who is secure in their ideas would welcome challenge. There's a reason Liberty isn't out there publicly explaining itself. There's little defense for censorship.

Does anyone see this? Or is everyone just eschewing any whiff of "negativism," though I doubt you eschew "negativism" when it applies to the government. But for some reason it's off limits when criticism applies to Liberty.

[Sly Fox]

Freelance - This is getting extremely tired. Every student newspaper in the nation (including liberal bastions such as Berkley) are school-owned papers that censor content deemed in direct conflict with the owners. Welcome to the real world. Get over it. If you would freedom from censorship don't work for major dailies because you would get blackballed in a heartbeat for attacking the paper's ownership. Sorry to ruin your pollyanna mindset about journalism. I would be furious at the school if my donations to the university were going to be used by some snotty kid taking potshots at the very place I just invested my hardearned cash.

I actually really like how genuine Kevin Roose seems to be from my brief interaction with him. Even he would recognize that interview had absolutely no balance. If you want to be a journalist, you can't begin with presuppositions and not explore the topic fully. To do so would foolhardy and dare I say intolerant. IF you genuinely have any interest in journalism then these lessons will be revealed to you as you move ahead. If you are just looking for an outlet to bash a school out of a spirit of rebellion that tends to envelope 19-to-22-year-olds then go ahead and get it out of your system.

[ToTheLeft]

This thread is rapidly getting more embarrassing. Email Kevin and ask him if we interviewed him. Is that how things work around here? Everyone just throws around conjecture? Ask him yourself. Please.

It concerns me that no one is taking my side on any of this. I'm sure there are many students out there who don't troll the seamy underbelly of this message board. But seriously. Is there no one reading this who agrees with me? I mean, Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez censor their news outlets. It suggests that they are insecure about opposing ideas. Anyone who is secure in their ideas would welcome challenge. There's a reason Liberty isn't out there publicly explaining itself. There's little defense for censorship.

Does anyone see this? Or is everyone just eschewing any whiff of "negativism," though I doubt you eschew "negativism" when it applies to the government. But for some reason it's off limits when criticism applies to Liberty.

Just because we disagree doesn't mean it's off limits.

Just because we're debating doesn't mean we're silencing you.

How about you stop CRYING and stick with the actual discussion, eh?

I am tired of this attitude that just because someone calls you out and disagrees that your 1st Amendment Rights are being repressed and you're being shut down for being different.

You would've been banned if we didn't want to hear from you anymore.

[LUconn]

I wasn't suggesting that you didn't interview him. It's not like it would have been hard to email him a list of questions. I'm sure it took him less than 10 minutes to answer these questions. I was just saying that Kevin seems to fall into the trap of assuming things were horrible here previously like he has shown to be mythical.

[Liberty Freelance]

LUconn,

I was responding to TalkTheLeft, who conjectured that Roose didn't answer the questions.

Really, these are pretty basic ideas I'm pushing for. No one agrees with freedom of speech in the campus newspaper? You'd prefer that skepticism about the school be suppressed just so that you don't feel as if you're money's going to a platform for a "snotty nosed kid"? Really? And you're lecturing me about careers in journalism?

I'll say it again. Who cares if other schools censor their paper? That's a distraction. Now, back to Liberty's censorship. I haven't heard a defense. Is there one? Do any of you agree with me? Or do I just not live on your dorm hall so everyone's against me?

[Sly Fox]

Skepticism will never be suppressed at any school. But to infer that a school-owned paper should choose to print articles that are in opposition to the school's stances is ridiculous. You have your freedom of speech in your own blog so why do you care about what runs in the paper underwritten by the university?

You are the one pitting yourself against everyone. If you would take a breath and reread the comments from the beginning of the other thread you would see some solid assistance.