[SuperJon]

Why does freedom of speech/ideas only apply to politics?

[Liberty Freelance]

It doesn't. I just try to stick to the topic in question. I don't care if a group argues for a premarital sex. If it's so bad, then marshal a stronger argument against it. Persuade people; don't command them. The school can maintain a rule against it if it wants. But a group should be able to argue against that rule if it wants.

So where does that leave us? Back to the issue, or on to another irrelevant hypothetical?

[SuperJon]

Should the school give money to a club with that purpose?

You call it an irrelevant hypothetical. I call it seeing if you'll stick by your logic across the board.

[Liberty Freelance]

Possibly. I'm not sure there are groups that are single-issue groups, though. So I'm not sure it's a good idea to have single-issue groups popping up all over the place. But if, say, the Democratic or Libertarian party actively supported premarital sex. And a student group supported a candidate who was outspoken in supporting premarital sex, then yes, I would fund the Democratic or Libertarian group.

This actually raises an interesting question--does Liberty have a Libertarian organization? Because most Libertarian candidates support gay marriage and likely support abortion.

Anyway, I'll say it again. There should be a free market of ideas. How hard is that to grasp? I don't care what a group supports. No idea should be off limits. That's what education is all about. If it's a bad idea, it will fall away through the free market of ideas.

I'm getting the distinct impression that you're less interested in the overall issue than in catching me in some contradiction.

[phoenix]

I'm tired of hearing people whine about how graduating from Liberty hurts them when they try to get a job. I've never had a single problem with employment because of my alma mater. Nobody has ever questioned me about anything Liberty has done -- and when I was there, some seriously boneheaded things were done. PTL makes this whole College Democrats thing look like nothing, I promise you.

Employers don't look at the politics of the school you graduated from -- and I say that as someone who has been a hiring manager before. Employers - at least the ones worth working for - are interested in your ability to do the job. Anyone who says otherwise has no experience in the real world.

[Hold My Own]

Isnt that the world we are living in today....now a days you can ask a Pastor how do you get to heaven and he wont give you a straight answer b/c of all the "free market of ideas." Nobody wants to hurt anyones feelings any more. You are free to have any idea you want at Liberty University as long as it coincides with the Liberty way....have at it.

[Liberty Freelance]

If you want to compare a university to a church, then maybe. But a university's not a church. It's an environment that should equitably allow all points of view. That's not to say that people shouldn't take strong positions on those points of view. You can argue absolutes all you want. You can even hurt feelings all you want. But you can also get your own feelings hurt. Why suppress an opposing point of view?

It's pretty frightening that every time I get on here and argue for basic fundamental rights like free speech, I'm essentially doing so alone. Why are so many of you willing to give up your right to free speech and free expression to a few university administrators?

[Liberty Freelance]

Of course, at a private university, those are not rights. But why are so many of you so apathetic about a few university administrators effectively choosing which points of view you're mature enough to be exposed to?

[SuperJon]

They're not deciding what we're exposed to. They're deciding what they support and what they don't support.

[Hold My Own]

If you want to compare a university to a church, then maybe. But a university's not a church. It's an environment that should equitably allow all points of view. That's not to say that people shouldn't take strong positions on those points of view. You can argue absolutes all you want. You can even hurt feelings all you want. But you can also get your own feelings hurt. Why suppress an opposing point of view?

It's pretty frightening that every time I get on here and argue for basic fundamental rights like free speech, I'm essentially doing so alone. Why are so many of you willing to give up your right to free speech and free expression to a few university administrators?

And this is the slippery slope all other "Christian" schools have fallen into before us. This is not a place where you can have a thousand different points of view. The only gay rights protests are going to be from outsiders protesting us b/c we will not allow homosexuals into our school....it wont be from our Christian gay students wanting more attention. The difference I believe with you and most others on here is that you see us as a University that happens to be Christian. However we are a Christian University. Call it church or whatever else you like but the Bible was the foundation and the Bible will continue to be. The Bible was the backbone of the Liberty Way...it's involved in everything we do. If that doesnt suit some that's fine, like I said on page 3 there are plenty of other "Christian" Universities that will allow you to protest and have all the ideas you want. Being the Salt of the Earth means we are to be different...it doesnt call for us to be sugar where everyone enjoys the taste.

[SuperJon]

The Bible was the backbone of the Liberty Way

We could have a whole 20 page argument over that. Haha.

[Hold My Own]

Of course, at a private university, those are not rights. But why are so many of you so apathetic about a few university administrators effectively choosing which points of view you're mature enough to be exposed to?

That's exactly my point. They dont decide these things, the Bible does that for us. It should for you too as a Christian. I'm not going to lie, at times when I hear you talk Freelance its almost as if you were forced to come to LU and it was like trying to fit a square into a round hole. LU isnt for everyone and the day it is, we have failed.

[Ed Dantes]

Does he consider that LIberty has more of a right to do the things that it does than he does to complain about it?

[4everfsu]

Anyone who says a person graduating from Liberty will be unlikely to be hired, for what ever reasons, example the lie over the Democratic club being disbanded is a maroon.
I graduated in 1975 and have never been turned down or denied a job because of my alma mater. As a matter of fact I have never been denied a job interview because of where I graduated. I have told every HR person about my school with the following line.
"Have you heard of Jerry Falwell, I attended the school he founded."
I have held govt jobs, church jobs, etc. I was intervied and offered a job with the Federal Reserve in Richmond Va in Dec 2007. Being a LU graduate had no ill effect on my job interview and job offer.
When LBC started, many people in Lynchburg could not stand JF. Not much has changed since then. But even back then I never had a hard time getting a job in the city. I worked for the Pepsi cola bottling company the last two years of college.

[Liberty Freelance]

If you think it's relevant, I wasn't forced to go to Liberty. My background was more conservative than Liberty. So it was something of a big deal that I decided to go there because it was considered more liberal than many of the churches and schools people I grew up with went to. But why does my background or my reasons for going to Liberty matter? These arguments are independent of my experience.

You say that Liberty is "founded on the Bible." But it's founded on some people's interpretation of the Bible. And people can challenge that interpretation if they want. Suppressing the challenge suggests that Liberty's insecure in its interpretation. Why is it afraid of opposing points of view? Surely Liberty's interpretation can withstand challenges, no?

Liberty is deciding what you're exposed to. An organization that doesn't receive money or recognition from the school is at a disadvantage. From what Ms. Childress said, they can't send group emails to the student body; they can't put up posters; and they don't have any stamp of legitimacy. Thus, few are likely to take them very seriously. Liberty knows that. Students will simply not be exposed to that point of view as they would be if Liberty allowed all organizations to have an equal voice.

Finally, Liberty doesn't have "more of a right" to do what it wants than I or anyone else has to criticize it. We have the same right. They can essentially do what they want. Alumni can criticize it, and contribute or not contribute accordingly.

[Kolzilla41]

If you think it's relevant, I wasn't forced to go to Liberty. My background was more conservative than Liberty. So it was something of a big deal that I decided to go there because it was considered more liberal than many of the churches and schools people I grew up with went to. But why does my background or my reasons for going to Liberty matter? These arguments are independent of my experience.

You say that Liberty is "founded on the Bible." But it's founded on some people's interpretation of the Bible. And people can challenge that interpretation if they want. Suppressing the challenge suggests that Liberty's insecure in its interpretation. Why is it afraid of opposing points of view? Surely Liberty's interpretation can withstand challenges, no?

Liberty is deciding what you're exposed to. An organization that doesn't receive money or recognition from the school is at a disadvantage. From what Ms. Childress said, they can't send group emails to the student body; they can't put up posters; and they don't have any stamp of legitimacy. Thus, few are likely to take them very seriously. Liberty knows that. Students will simply not be exposed to that point of view as they would be if Liberty allowed all organizations to have an equal voice.

Finally, Liberty doesn't have "more of a right" to do what it wants than I or anyone else has to criticize it. We have the same right. They can essentially do what they want. Alumni can criticize it, and contribute or not contribute accordingly.

Hate to reiterate but the club and the staff sponsor were not entirely truthful with the Chancellor and the media. If the Republican club or the Fat Chicks for Jesus club did the same thing, I would support Liberty im dropping any funding. I do not understand why 7 pages later, some people refuse to get that through their thick skulls.

[Redman_424]

If you want to compare a university to a church, then maybe. But a university's not a church. It's an environment that should equitably allow all points of view.

Does LU not invite speakers with conflicting POVs? Is the group not allowed to still meet on campus? Are debates not still planned for anyone to join in? LU is "an environment that equitably allows all points of view."

Why suppress an opposing point of view?

I agree. Why suppress it? Is it even possible to suppress, very much, an opposing POV at a university? Liberty encourages debate, controversial questions, challenging their theology and beliefs, etc. The group CAN STILL MEET ON CAMPUS. CAN STILL DEBATE. Can even understand what the university, they attend, was founded on, and choose to reorganize and KEEP THE CLUB as a part of SGA. A POV is hardly being suppressed by not allowing them to reserve a room, and receive a few hundred $$$s a year.

It's pretty frightening that every time I get on here and argue for basic fundamental rights like free speech, I'm essentially doing so alone. Why are so many of you willing to give up your right to free speech and free expression to a few university administrators?

Free speech? Do we need to say AGAIN, that the group is free to do everything but reserve a room? You've got to be a liberal; this has been broken down easy enough for a middle school student to understand, and you're still standing on support that's been overthrown for seven daggum pages. My goodness. Facts and truth are like a different language for some people:

[ALUmnus]

Equality of clubs is not an argument that can be made. Not all ideas/cultures/philosophies/ideologies are equal. Equality does not make us free, but often times hinders us and stifles progress. And you're being very subjective with what you think the university must allow. The university is under no obligation, legally, morally, or academically, to sanction any student club that wants legitimacy. The school must first consider its mission and doctrinal statements, that is what guides every decision that must be made. The school should always use this standard above what the students want, or else LU would not be anything what it is today, as students like you would tear it to shreds. Should LU start up a Aspiring Sex Workers Club, or a local chapter of NAMBLA? Maybe they need to sponsor a NOW or NARAL supporters group. Students at Liberty are not denied the education of any subject, but while enrolled are under the guidance of the school's mission and judgement and are supposed to follow a Biblical world-view. This means not everything is acceptable. You can use the "academic freedom" straw-man all you want, but per its core principle, Liberty is not what secular schools are, and has always sought to be set apart from those schools. Outsiders can laugh all they want, just like they laugh at the church, but is that who we want to please? Liberty is doing far more for its students than most schools.

[Redman_424]

Equality of clubs is not an argument that can be made. Not all ideas/cultures/philosophies/ideologies are equal. Equality does not make us free, but often times hinders us and stifles progress. And you're being very subjective with what you think the university must allow. The university is under no obligation, legally, morally, or academically, to sanction any student club that wants legitimacy. The school must first consider its mission and doctrinal statements, that is what guides every decision that must be made. The school should always use this standard above what the students want, or else LU would not be anything what it is today, as students like you would tear it to shreds. Should LU start up a Aspiring Sex Workers Club, or a local chapter of NAMBLA? Maybe they need to sponsor a NOW or NARAL supporters group. Students at Liberty are not denied the education of any subject, but while enrolled are under the guidance of the school's mission and judgement and are supposed to follow a Biblical world-view. This means not everything is acceptable. You can use the "academic freedom" straw-man all you want, but per its core principle, Liberty is not what secular schools are, and has always sought to be set apart from those schools. Outsiders can laugh all they want, just like they laugh at the church, but is that who we want to please? Liberty is doing far more for its students than most schools.

That should end this conversation. Excellent post. I completely agree.

[Ed Dantes]

These are the facts as we know it... right?
The LU Democrats said they were pro-life and anti-gay marriage.
The LU Democrats endorsed Barack Obama as President.
Liberty said the LU Dems can no longer be a LU-sanctioned group and withdrew the LU Democrats' funding.
The LU Dems are still allowed to meet on campus without fear of reprimands.
Mark Hine did not say that 'You can't be a Christian and be a Democrat'. He said that notion was preposterous.
Some members of the LU Dems went to the media and complained.
Some members of the LU Dems made exaggerations to the media.
Liberty said they don't have a problem with Democrats, just the pro-choice ones.
Liberty demanded an apology from the LU Dems for the exaggerations to the media.
Some LU Dems have mulled over that decision.

Bottom line...

Liberty was wrong to withdraw funding from the Liberty Democrats. The P.R. hit gave the school a black eye.
The Liberty Democrats were wrong, perhaps more wrong, because they inflamed the P.R. with exaggerations.


Can we all agree on that?

[Hold My Own]

Liberty was wrong to withdraw funding from the Liberty Democrats.

now all of the facts have been released I have a problem with that one. They deserved to have their funding dropped for not living up to their end of the deal.

[RagingTireFire]

Bottom line...

Liberty was wrong to withdraw funding from the Liberty Democrats. The P.R. hit gave the school a black eye.
The Liberty Democrats were wrong, perhaps more wrong, because they inflamed the P.R. with exaggerations.


Can we all agree on that?

No, we don't agree at all. The university was not wrong to withdraw funding, PR hit or no PR hit.

Bear in mind that the P.R. hit only came about because the "good" kids in the College Democrats, instead of going higher up the chain, went whining to McAuliffe and Kaine who were more than happy to publicize misrepresented facts.

[Schfourteenteen]

These are the facts as we know it... right?
The LU Democrats said they were pro-life and anti-gay marriage.
The LU Democrats endorsed Barack Obama as President.
Liberty said the LU Dems can no longer be a LU-sanctioned group and withdrew the LU Democrats' funding.
The LU Dems are still allowed to meet on campus without fear of reprimands.
Mark Hine did not say that 'You can't be a Christian and be a Democrat'. He said that notion was preposterous.
Some members of the LU Dems went to the media and complained.
Some members of the LU Dems made exaggerations to the media.
Liberty said they don't have a problem with Democrats, just the pro-choice ones.
Liberty demanded an apology from the LU Dems for the exaggerations to the media.
Some LU Dems have mulled over that decision.

Bottom line...

Liberty was wrong to withdraw funding from the Liberty Democrats. The P.R. hit gave the school a black eye.
The Liberty Democrats were wrong, perhaps more wrong, because they inflamed the P.R. with exaggerations.


Can we all agree on that?

Clubs weren't previously funded until this upcoming year. I think

[Redman_424]

These are the facts as we know it... right?
The LU Democrats said they were pro-life and anti-gay marriage.
THE LU DEMOCRATS AGREED THEY WOULD NOT SUPPORT A CANDIDATE THAT HELD OPPOSING VIEWS (PRO-CHOICE AND PRO-GAY MARRIAGE).
THE LU DEMOCRATS SUPPORTED MORE THAN ONE CANDIDATE THAT HELD OPPOSING VIEWS (PRO-CHOICE AND PRO-GAY MARRIAGE)
The LU Democrats endorsed Barack Obama as President.
Liberty said the LU Dems can no longer be a LU-sanctioned group and withdrew the LU Democrats' funding.
The LU Dems are still allowed to meet on campus without fear of reprimands.
Mark Hine did not say that 'You can't be a Christian and be a Democrat'. He said that notion was preposterous.
Some members of the LU Dems went to the media and complained.
Some members of the LU Dems made exaggerations to the media.
Liberty said they don't have a problem with Democrats, just the pro-choice ones.
Liberty demanded an apology from the LU Dems for the exaggerations to the media.
Some LU Dems have mulled over that decision.

Bottom line...

Liberty was wrong to withdraw funding from the Liberty Democrats. The P.R. hit gave the school a black eye.
The Liberty Democrats were wrong, perhaps more wrong, because they inflamed the P.R. with exaggerations.


Can we all agree on that?

No, we cannot agree. I disagree that Liberty was wrong to withdraw funding from the Liberty Democrats for the reasons I highlighted and inserted. All of your points were correct, but the two I inserted were two facts left out of the list.

[Redman_424]

These are the facts as we know it... right?
The LU Democrats said they were pro-life and anti-gay marriage.
The LU Democrats endorsed Barack Obama as President.
Liberty said the LU Dems can no longer be a LU-sanctioned group and withdrew the LU Democrats' funding.
The LU Dems are still allowed to meet on campus without fear of reprimands.
Mark Hine did not say that 'You can't be a Christian and be a Democrat'. He said that notion was preposterous.
Some members of the LU Dems went to the media and complained.
Some members of the LU Dems made exaggerations to the media.
Liberty said they don't have a problem with Democrats, just the pro-choice ones.
Liberty demanded an apology from the LU Dems for the exaggerations to the media.
Some LU Dems have mulled over that decision.

Bottom line...

Liberty was wrong to withdraw funding from the Liberty Democrats. The P.R. hit gave the school a black eye.
The Liberty Democrats were wrong, perhaps more wrong, because they inflamed the P.R. with exaggerations.


Can we all agree on that?

Clubs weren't previously funded until this upcoming year. I think

Good point. Correction to my above post, LU was correct in choosing not to fund the group this upcoming year. The budget is new to SGA this year.