[Liberty Freelance]

Here's Childress's quote:

“His bottom line was, ‘You can’t be a Democrat and be a Christian and be a university representative,’” Childress said.

She never said that it was a direct quote. She was essentially saying that that was the impression she took from the meeting. This isn't like working at McDonald's. An academic institution is where ideas are batted around and authority occasionally gets challenged. She stated her impression of the meeting. Hine stated his. Liberty's reputation causes most people to assume her impression is right. And they're probably right to assume that. Fired? Surely you jest.

[SuperJon]

Man you're dumb. Either that or you really have no clue how things actually went.


She said, "So, do you mean that Christians can't be Democrats?"

Hine said, "No, that's not at all what I said."

[Liberty Freelance]

SuperJon:

So what? Just because Hine said that doesn't mean that Childress's quote does not represent her impression of how the meeting went. He can say that all he wants. But if he said other things that suggested to her that her bottom line was accurate, then she could take away from the meeting that he was essentially saying what she said was his "bottom line."

I think you're old enough to quit calling people names. Will you please try to keep the debate civil? Thanks.

[SuperJon]

So since he completely denied that he meant that, to her face, he could still have implied it?


Someone's got an agenda.

[Liberty Freelance]

Of course he could have. It doesn't take too much of an imagination to realize that. He might not be so blunt to say that you can't be a Christian and be a Democrat, but if he suggests that everything about being a Democrat is contrary to Christian principles, or something to that effect, then she could still conclude from the meeting that he wasn't willing to be so blunt to actually say it, but his "bottom line" was still that "you can't be a Democrat and be a Christian and be a university representative."

[Liberty Freelance]

Liberty's request for an apology from the campus Democrats is laughable. This is another example of Liberty treating its adult students like children. Liberty should be apologizing for not only humiliating itself and its alumni, but also for hurting its students and its alumni who hope to get jobs.

It doesn't take too much of an imagination for the whole situation to look preposterous. If some secular private school revoked recognition of its campus Republicans unless they aligned with pro-choice and pro-gay-marriage organizations, Liberty would seize on the marketing opportunity. Jerry Falwell made a lot of money off of far smaller potatoes. As long as Liberty takes this approach that its right and opposing points of view are wrong, and there's no debate about it, Liberty will continue to get evangelical students, but it won't win over or get respect from much of anyone else.

I'm an alumnus. And I have to explain why I went to Liberty all the time. I'm waiting for an apology . . .

[JK37]

Of course he could have. It doesn't take too much of an imagination to realize that. He might not be so blunt to say that you can't be a Christian and be a Democrat, but if he suggests that everything about being a Democrat is contrary to Christian principles, or something to that effect, then she could still conclude from the meeting that he wasn't willing to be so blunt to actually say it, but his "bottom line" was still that "you can't be a Democrat and be a Christian and be a university representative."

That's what you're missing. She asked him if he meant that, and he said "absolutely not." Furthermore, he presented the options still available to the group in meeting on-campus, etc.

Ms. Childress may not have had an agenda, but she took from that meeting what she wanted, not the whole of what Mr. Hine tried to communicate to hear. This brand of selective hearing does not excuse her or any other member of their group for the falsehoods they purported.

Finally, your claim that LU bears a responsibility to allow all sides to be heard is a good one, and I agree. But the Democratic voice is not being squelched here. It's simply not being endorsed or funded by the University, nor should it be. In LU's shoes, you would have done the exact same thing.

[Liberty Freelance]

And speaking of seizing on the opportunity, is anyone here expert on the ethics of Liberty Law's dean, Matt Staver, being the founder and president of Liberty Counsel? As dean, he's unlikely to make any decisions that will offend his Liberty Counsel donors. So there's not much room for the law school to research, say, legal philosophy or gay marriage and be free to go where the evidence leads. For if it leads to somewhere Liberty Counsel's donors don't like, Staver would have a conflict of interests.

Perhaps I'm way off on this. So someone correct me if I'm wrong. But it seems odd that a law-school dean would also be the president of an ideologically charged organization like Liberty Counsel.

[Liberty Freelance]

JK37,

I'm not missing that. I caught it right away. I stand by my original posts. Hine still could have insinuated that Christians can't be Democrats, yet at the same time outright refused to make the actual statement. Hence, Childress's use of the phrase, "bottom line." And the options still available to the group are a joke. Allowing them to have a club as long as they gut the Democrats' social platform is not exactly a fair compromise.

If I were in LU's shoes, I would have done nothing of the sort. I would have simply stated that the student organizations do not necessarily comport with the school's mission. That solves that. Everyone's on equal footing. But the intellectually immature approach Liberty took is a disgrace. It's indefensible.

Robert Shibley, of FIRE, summed it up well:

The other, more fundamental concern with derecognizing the College Democrats is that it makes it clear that Liberty University is not a "free marketplace of ideas" where all ideas can be discussed, argued, and advocated on an equitable basis. A great deal of the reputation and the perception of legitimacy of most universities depends on that university being seen as a place where the best and truest ideas and scholarship can win out in each person's mind and conscience, no matter whether or not such ideas prove to be popular or acceptable to those in power. Liberty University has determined that some viewpoints are simply unacceptable on its campus. Therefore, any truth that might be found by means of vigorous debate of these ideas will most likely not be brought to light at Liberty University, thereby damaging intellectual discourse on that campus.

Presumably, Liberty is willing to make this tradeoff because of its religious beliefs—but the university should recognize that it is a tradeoff. The degrees Liberty issues its graduates will lack credibility with certain audiences because Liberty has made impossible a truly free and open debate about issues like abortion, socialism, creationism, and so on. Liberty's students deserve to know that, too, before they make a choice to attend.

[Liberty Freelance]

Here's the link to Shibley's quote: http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/10644.html

[4everfsu]

Poor Freelance

[JK37]

As long as Liberty takes this approach that its right and opposing points of view are wrong, and there's no debate about it, Liberty will continue to get evangelical students, but it won't win over or get respect from much of anyone else.

I'm an alumnus. And I have to explain why I went to Liberty all the time. I'm waiting for an apology . . .

As I stated within this thread previously, the issues at the core of the University's decision are moral issues. This means that the University has found biblical grounds for the positions is takes against abortion, as well as for traditional marriage. And, it should be noted that the University is not saying there can be no debate. It has simply decided that it will not help to fund or promote the other side's debate.

For example, in your debates with SuperJon in this very forum, you have offered him the opportunity to write on your blog. That's great! (We'll see if he ever accepts; probably not.) But would you be willing to allow SuperJon to write on behalf of the Freelance in the Champion and say whatever he feels, without explaining that his views may conflict with your own? Would you write him a check in support of the views upon which he stands? No! And that's all that the University is unwilling to do in this case.

Further, if you find yourself often apologizing to associates for the education you received while at the University, then you probably should not have ever attended. LU is not an egalitarian institution. The version of educational universality of which you speak has never existed at Liberty. So, if you enrolled expecting such an atmosphere, and now find yourself displeasured for the apologies you now utter, than you have only yourself to blame for the research you failed to do prior to enrollment.

I have never apologized for my alma mater: I'M PROUD TO BE AN ALUM OF LIBERTY UNIVERSITY! And I thank God that in this decision, the University has pronounced that in its core values and positions, it does not plan on deviating anytime soon.

[Liberty Freelance]

I don't apologize for Liberty. I don't apologize for my education. I explain that, despite all appearances, Liberty is actually a great university. The problem is that I have to explain that at all. Notre Dame grads don't. Baylor grads don't. Wake Forest grads don't. UVA grads don't. And you can go down the list.

To answer your hypothetical, I don't think I would have a problem with SuperJon doing that. If he were a member of the Freelance, I would have no problem whatsoever if he wrote a column in the Champion or anywhere else and noted at the bottom that he wrote for the Freelance. He could even defend the school's decision in this case. It would provoke debate. And everyone who wanted to would probably learn something. My only problem would be that the Champion would censor my article rebutting SJ's hypothetical defense for Liberty's decision. But that's for another, though related, debate.

Your problem seems to be with the students acting under the color of the school. But this ignores the point I made. All Liberty has to do is have a statement--it could be prominently displayed on Liberty's website and on its organizations' pages--that the student organizations do not necessarily comport with the school's mission. This would put everyone on equal ground. The school could stake out its own positions, as it does. (No one's going to think that Liberty's becoming pro choice or pro gay marriage because they have a campus Democrat group. It will take decades to unwind Liberty's social-conservative reputation.) And the students could stake out their own positions through various groups. It's simple. It's democratic. And it's the educational thing to do.

[rueful]

Freelance, your 100% right. This situation has greatly hurt the reputation of Liberty Students. I had nothing to do with this decision, but when I tell people in Illinois I go to Liberty, this gives more proof that IM a bigot, close-minded, etc. etc. However, it was not Liberty who made this the situation it was. It was the club sponsor and president who were used by the democratic party for their agenda.

Which leads me to wonder, should we, the Students of Liberty, approach the Liberty Council in order to sue the Democratic Party of Virginia? Why should we have to be labeled what we are labeled for simply going to school, while they trash our name nationwide in order to receive a few more votes?

[Liberty Freelance]

Yes, you're right. The Democrats are using this. And they should use it. Liberty brings this on itself. And it trashes liberals all the time to get donations. So Liberty's chickens have come home to roost. And Liberty should have been politically savvy enough to avoid this whole fiasco.

I really don't know on what basis the VA Democratic Party could be sued. They're legitimately criticizing Liberty's policies. Liberty has the policies. The Democrats (and Republicans, for that matter) are criticizing it. It's legal to do that.

We have to be labeled what we're labeled because it's a free country. But I will constantly be trying to overcome that label by explaining to everyone that Liberty is actually a great university. The problem is, that argument was always a difficult one. And decisions such as revoking funds from the campus Democrats make the argument understandably less and less believable.

[Ed Dantes]

Ohhh, it's a story that makes Liberty look bad. Predictably, Liberty Freelance makes his return to slam Liberty, all while saying that his modus operandi isn't to slam Liberty.

[rueful]

I dont know why people like that come to Liberty. Have they never heard of it? Did Kevin Roose steal their Idea? Are they too immature to say "Hey mom and dad, (or grandma and grandpa) I appreciate you want to pay for my education, but that school is not for me. I would rather tough it out and pay for my own schooling than go through four years of hell somewhere I dont want to be"

Some students at Liberty are here because we honestly Love the school, and the Vision Doc cast. It gives us a bad rep when students dont want to be here and dont appreciate Liberty and tick and moan their four years on campus and then the rest of their lives.

[El Scorcho]

Just in case it isn't crystal clear based on my edit above: You, sir, have made me more angry than I've ever been at something on FlameFans. I don't really care one way or the other what happens to this club or what has previously been said in this post. That's why I haven't replied to it. However, what you said crossed a line that I don't think I've ever seen crossed here.

If you hadn't been here for so long with a previously clean track record you would be gone.

I really can't believe you said that. I'm only posting this in the thread and not a PM so that everyone who had already read it understands it's not acceptable here.

Ugh.

Thanks for "coming to my rescue", but please don't let this get your blood pressure up. I assure you it is not worth it!

Please don't misunderstand. I wasn't coming to anyone's rescue. We're all adults here. What I did was more about correcting something that was out of line and it would have been done for anyone. I was angry only because I couldn't care less about the politics here, but I do care that things here stay civil.

Again, it was more about what was said than you in particular. I wish everyone here the best and I just want everyone to be treated with respect.

Except shuk. He's got it coming.




Kidding. Mostly.

[Liberty Freelance]

Ed,

Attack my motives and avoid the substance if you want. You surely understand that by doing so, though, the substance of what I say is still objectively out there, waiting for a proper response.

To respond to your comment, Liberty makes it difficult to not criticize it. This debacle has humiliated the school and, more concretely, will harm alumni trying to get jobs. Why should I not be here discussing it? I haven't posted enough on other topics? What, do you have to post, say, 17 times under a "positive" Liberty topic before you have the credibility to criticize it?

Stick to the substance. You'll save us both some time.

[JK37]

I don't apologize for Liberty. I don't apologize for my education. I explain that, despite all appearances, Liberty is actually a great university. The problem is that I have to explain that at all. Notre Dame grads don't. Baylor grads don't. Wake Forest grads don't. UVA grads don't. And you can go down the list.

To answer your hypothetical, I don't think I would have a problem with SuperJon doing that. If he were a member of the Freelance, I would have no problem whatsoever if he wrote a column in the Champion or anywhere else and noted at the bottom that he wrote for the Freelance. He could even defend the school's decision in this case. It would provoke debate. And everyone who wanted to would probably learn something. My only problem would be that the Champion would censor my article rebutting SJ's hypothetical defense for Liberty's decision. But that's for another, though related, debate.

Your problem seems to be with the students acting under the color of the school. But this ignores the point I made. All Liberty has to do is have a statement--it could be prominently displayed on Liberty's website and on its organizations' pages--that the student organizations do not necessarily comport with the school's mission. This would put everyone on equal ground. The school could stake out its own positions, as it does. (No one's going to think that Liberty's becoming pro choice or pro gay marriage because they have a campus Democrat group. It will take decades to unwind Liberty's social-conservative reputation.) And the students could stake out their own positions through various groups. It's simple. It's democratic. And it's the educational thing to do.

Calling Liberty's reputation a socially conservative one is the same mistake that the media makes when addressing issues of the family, such as abortion and traditional marriage, in the context of where evangelicals stand on them. These issues are moral, not social - a great difference! As such, Liberty's administration has found biblical grounds upon which it stands - biblical moral foundations, if you will. And the universities you listed parted ways with the moral foundations of their heritage long ago. Those schools are still good places, don't get me wrong. There's a lot of education to be had in such places. But Liberty's mission is quite divergent from theirs, and unapologetically so.

You neglected to respond to the monetary element of the Superjon scenario which I delineated. Would you give money to a group whose core value stood in direct opposition to one of your own? Take censorship, for example, a value very near and dear to your heart. Would you give money to a group called "Liberty Alumni for Censorship"? I respect you a good deal as it is now. But if you did that, I would respect you a lot less.

The position you make is indeed simple. It would also certainly be educational. But it is not democratic; it is egalitarian. And, it promotes subjectivism. The health of a debate upon moral grounds is lost when subjectivism removes the possibility for resolution.

[The Dude]

I don't apologize for Liberty. I don't apologize for my education. I explain that, despite all appearances, Liberty is actually a great university. The problem is that I have to explain that at all. Notre Dame grads don't. Baylor grads don't. Wake Forest grads don't. UVA grads don't. And you can go down the list.

Maybe those schools long ago stopped taking a stand, if they ever did.

[Liberty Freelance]

JK 37,

Call it what you like: social conservatism or morality. I'm not saying that Liberty can't take a stand on those issues. But it should allow its students to have representative organizations as well. There are Democrats at Liberty. Some of them support abortion and gay marriage. They should be able to have an organization, as long as other students, i.e., the other party of the two major political parties, have an organization.

I would have no problem as a university administrator giving money to fund an organization that I disagreed with. It's the students' money. They should, democratically, decide what to do with it.

And allowing competing points of view, including ones you might disagree with, is how you find the truth. Sheltering yourself from other ideas is no way to find the truth. If an organization is wrong about something, then you'll confirm your own ideas, which will ultimately grow stronger. But if the organization is right about something, then it's important to be exposed to those ideas, however unpopular with a few administrators. Here's part of the quote from FIRE I posted above, explaining why the free market of ideas can't suppress unpopular positions: "A great deal of the reputation and the perception of legitimacy of most universities depends on that university being seen as a place where the best and truest ideas and scholarship can win out in each person's mind and conscience, no matter whether or not such ideas prove to be popular or acceptable to those in power."

It's uncomfortable to allow other points of view. But it's the right thing to do. If there is a constituency for Democrats at Liberty, then they should have the opportunity to have an equal voice. There should be the rule of law, not the rule of a few administrators, that allows for all points of view to have a voice. I'm not arguing for egalitarianism. If there are no Democratic students or if the Democratic ideas are proven wrong in debates, then they should naturally wither away through the free market of ideas. But they shouldn't be prematurely and artificially suppressed.

This is the basic idea of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. These ideas have pretty strong roots in this country. Why would you so easily give them up? You just trust Liberty's administration that much on issues this complex? I trust the power of a free market ideas far more than a few people running a university.

Again, I couldn't agree more with FIRE about the consequences of revoking the funding of a student organization that espouses ideas unpopular with a few wise administrators: "Therefore, any truth that might be found by means of vigorous debate of these ideas will most likely not be brought to light at Liberty University, thereby damaging intellectual discourse on that campus."

[Schfourteenteen]

I am chartering a new club called "Pre-Marital Sex Is Awesome" Club. I know it goes against what the school stands for, but it doesnt matter. Besides, plenty of people will be uh "enlightened" at every meeting.

[rueful]

just show the clip from The meaning of life every time.

But I heard someone important say that you cant be a christian and have premarital sex at the same time. So what that no one said it, Im sticking to my guns.

[Liberty Freelance]

Oh, right, there are three major political parties in America: the Democrats, the Republicans, and the Premarital Sex is Awesome Club. Astute analogy.