Liberty’s Democrat Problem — And What It Means
(Cross-posted from the Huffington Post. Regular blog readers, sorry for all the basic background stuff in here. I’ll be posting some other thoughts on the controversy later today, including actionable tips for the College Dems and more of my own views on the kerfuffle.)
Last week, Liberty University made the national news when, while implementing a new funding scheme for student organizations, it revoked approval for the campus Democratic organization.
Liberty’s College Democrats club - the first in school history - was formed during last fall’s election season, and was given an award for “Up-and-Coming Chapter of the Year” by the Virginia Young Democrats in April. But earlier this month, Liberty VP Mark Hine wrote to club president Brian Diaz that the club’s status was being dropped because it had supported candidates whose views were “contrary to the mission of LU and to Christian doctrine,” even though the club itself was officially pro-life and anti-gay-marriage. Following a maelstrom of criticism, Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. offered to reinstate the club, providing it aligns itself with a pro-life, anti-gay Democratic group, and not the Democratic Party in general. (Which is kind of like saying that you’ll allow penguins at your zoo, but not the black-and-white kind that waddle.)
On one level, reading a news story about a fledgling chapter of the Young Democrats having its club status revoked by Liberty University is completely unsurprising. After all, since its founding in 1971, Liberty’s mission has always been to cultivate generations of conservative Christian voters and activists. Before his death, Rev. Falwell often said that he wanted his school to be the “Harvard of the right,” and to this day, Liberty’s official brochure touts the school’s “strong commitment to political conservatism, total rejection of socialism, and firm support for America’s economic system of free enterprise.”
During my semester at Liberty, I learned that much of what skeptical outsiders say about the school is true.
Yes, Liberty is a bastion of arch-conservatism. Yes, I was required to listen to lectures like “Myths Behind the Homosexual Agenda” and answer questions on a science exam about Noah’s Ark. Yes, I heard sermons called “The Myth of Global Warming” and guest speeches by Sean Hannity. Yes, Liberty stifles free speech by censoring its student newspaper, refusing to give tenure to its faculty, and suppressing students who wish to speak out. (This last point is particularly troubling - there’s actually a rule in Liberty’s student handbook that mandates 12 reprimands and a $50 fine for any student found guilty of “participation in an unauthorized petition or demonstration.”) And yes, I’ll add my voice to the chorus of people calling for Chancellor Falwell to reverse his decision and reinstate the Young Democrats’ official club status.
But during my semester there, I learned that Liberty is a much more diverse place than people give it credit for, and that speaking about the Liberty Young Democrats as if they were bizarre outliers (like “Jews for Jesus” or “Skydivers Afraid of Heights”) ignores the fact that Liberty students, like many other young evangelicals across the nation, are rethinking what it means to be a Christian in the 21st century.
When I arrived at Liberty for my semester “abroad,” I expected to find a campus full of ballot-punching Republicans. I found those, but I also met Christian feminists, Christian civil libertarians, Christians opposed to the war in Iraq, Christian gay-rights activists, and other Liberty students who challenged the norms of their parents’ generation. As evidenced by the 32% of evangelicals between the ages of 18-29 who voted for Barack Obama last November, “Christian” and “Republican” are no longer synonymous in America, and Liberty’s pathetic attempt to maintain a unified political stance by silencing dissent shows how out of touch the university is with its own student body.
I’ve never met Brian Diaz, the Liberty freshman who started the Young Democrats chapter, or Maria Childress, the club’s faculty adviser who has drawn heat for openly disagreeing with her employer. But I do know that they’re not alone.
A few days ago, I got an e-mail from a longtime Liberty professor who confessed that he’d voted for President Obama last fall, and told me that due to the “the dictatorial atmosphere” at Liberty, he could lose his job if anyone discovered his secret. Since my book came out, I’ve heard similar stories from former and current Liberty students, alumni, and faculty members, many of whom share that professor’s worry. The evangelical world is changing, and regardless of the fate of the Young Democrats club, Liberty is changing with it, becoming less wedded to the GOP and more open to ideological diversity every day.
What Liberty’s administration needs isn’t just a lesson in tolerance - it’s a long, honest look in the mirror.
Full statement: http://www.lucd.org/statement.pdf
— LUCD
May 26, 2009, 12:35 pm
Hey kevin.
As one of those listed (Libertarian + right activist)I wholeheartedly agree with you… supressing free-thoughts its clining to an old style of partisan and divisive Christianity that is NOT in line with the teachings of Jesus. It has no place in any century, let alone the 21st one.
However, as a libertarian, I must also point out Liberty’s rights. Liberty has not outright banned the Democrats… they have revoked their funding, funding that comes from tuition.
HOWEVER, A very wise friend of mine compared it to taxes, if Libery were like a country, just for the sake of argument. If your tax money was being used to fund something that you were against, how would you feel? Pissed I bet… welcome to my life during the last 8 years of Wars, supression of freedoms and torture.
But that is the law. And until that tax law is reorganized, (Go Ron Paul) Americans must pay taxes, even if it means they are indirectly funding things we want no part of. Just the same, a student cant skip tuition, just because he doesnt like what the school is teaching. That student will either be kicked out, or he will leave and go elsewhere. Just the same, people can leave a country and go somewhere else, or not pay taxes and go to jail.
Even more so then, with a Private institution, which you experienced first-hand, where they have the right to decide where that funding goes, because it is THEIR funding. Is it a shame that Liberty is forcing beliefs in order to recieve funding? Absolutely, 100%. As a commentator and editorialist in the newspaper, I have had more critical articles (of the school and its policies) NOT RUN because of the content. There was no cursing, ad-hominem or logical fallacies… But they refused to run it, because it was not support of the University and its goals. Sig Heil der Falwell…
But like it or not, they have a right to do so, because it is THEIR funding. Beause if Liberty isnt careful, what makes it different than any other college? As much as we may want it to be like any other University, I like the thought of it being different…(as bizarre as that is) I like that my school has certain moral beliefs, even if it can be confused and extremely hypocritical on certain days (specifically Sunday). But keeping itself to its standards, as you so put it in your book, is something to be admired. Right or wrong, Dr. Falwell believed what he said, and didnt back away from it, or waffle on it. And his University is trying to match it. I can admire that… I just wish it was handled in a more tactful way.
Good writing… thanks!
Mattison
— Mattison Brooks
May 26, 2009, 12:53 pm
I am also a liberty student and i agree with Mattison. I couldn’t care less that we had a Democrats group on campus, I myself am a Incredibly conservative Republican but everyone has their own opinions. However I can completely understand why the university pulled funding for the group. Jerry Falwell was always consistent in what he did and what he believed in and I applaud the university for attempting to do the same.
— David
May 26, 2009, 1:03 pm
Your “science exam on Noah’s ark” comments made me think of a recent 30 Rock episode in which Kenneth talked about how much he liked science class when he was in school - “especially the Old Testament” - and then responded to information that Tracy’s friends turned on him with, “Just like Peter did to Jesus in science.”…season 3 episode 22 if you’re not a regular watcher
— Julie
May 26, 2009, 3:50 pm
Good post. Looking forward to your continued thoughts on the matter.
— Lara
May 26, 2009, 4:04 pm
While I am saddened to hear that this “kerfuffle” is going on, I have to agree with Mattison in that it is the school and it is their right to decide what to do with their funding. I do, however, take issue with the idea that it does not allow students to protest. At least in a governmental system, the people who pay taxes can protest if they disagree with how the money is being used. At Liberty, however, this vital right to protest and possibly affect change has apparently been taken away.
In my senior year of undergrad, I went through similar things in that the administration was doing things with the students’ tuition that the students disagreed with. Were it not for the right for the students to protest and call for the administration to explain itself, we would be living in a “dictatorial” atmosphere. When the right to protest is combined with strict rules about funding (taxes), it definitely leads to a dictatorial atmosphere, and not one that I feel reflects Christianity.
This news is indeed troubling. Thank you for keeping us updated about it.
— Dianna
May 26, 2009, 6:18 pm
[...] about diversity and inclusiveness that the ensuing PR frenzy inspired. (For background, check out my earlier post.) A few random thoughts that have crossed my mind since [...]
— Kevin Roose: The Blog » Blog Archive » Reflections on a fake graduation (Plus: More thoughts on the LU Dems situation)
May 26, 2009, 10:21 pm
The entire controversy reminds me of the one time sportscaster of British football
Ron Atkinson.
— Burr Deming
May 26, 2009, 10:23 pm
I just wanted to reply to the comments about university funding. LUCD has never received any funding from the school. Every penny we have, came from either our own contributions, or outside donations. LU never has, and as far as I know, never planned to support the club financially.
- Marilyn Johnson, LUCD Events Chair
— Marilyn
May 26, 2009, 11:12 pm
Even as a conservative, I am deeply concerned about the path Liberty has taken. I came to Liberty and hoped for freedom–growing up in Vermont it was easy to be censored if you opposed abortion and especially if you were a Christian…any sort of conservative or republican decision, especially during the Dean years was deeply criticized by other Vermonters, especially your peers. As a student heavily involved in theater arts and photography, I often had to win the respects of through fairness and honesty because it was believed you could not be artistic and creative and think freely if you were nothing less than a democrat. Growing up, it made me greatly dislike most democrats, because most were radicals, associated with the Bread and Puppet, or some other organization which preached that Christian Republicans were suppressing the artists everywhere (during a small group meeting at an artists camp I attended). There is this notion that you cannot be an artist and a conservative, or an artist and a Christian, or a Christian and a scientist.
Will Liberty take this same road and claim that you cannot be a Christian and a Democrat? What if you vote democrat because you feel you are picking the lesser of two evils? And since when, in this country could we not hear those who are different from us?
If LUCD participated in pro-abortion rallies and in Gay-Lesbian marches, they would have to be disbanded by Liberty. They would be representing Liberty in a way contradictory to Liberty’s values, and would misrepresent Liberty to the world. However, the major difference between LUCD and LUCR seems to be regarding the economy.
And, as one of my friends pointed out, McCain was Liberty’s darling boy, but he also agreed with abortion–in the case of rape or incest–but abortion is still abortion. Shouldn’t LUCR also be revoked?
Moreover, our founding fathers, whose praise resounds almost as often as God’s praises (you ought to know–you were here), primarily those who advocated the constitution wrote about the necessity of a government that allows for factions and protects the weaker party as much as the stronger, sot that all may have protection (invariably the weaker becomes the stronger when political parties evolve, such as the once-liberal republican party and the once-conservative democratic party, or when another party takes power). This is located in The Federalist #51.
I am a government student–and am therefore appalled by Liberty’s decision because it threatens our core values as Americans, in order to squash dissidents. Tolerance, a virtue, does not mean that anything goes (to much of the world’s chagrin), but in its purest form is necessary. Sometimes the greater evil is to suppress the perceived smaller evil. If the smaller evil grows to a greater evil, an evil beyond tolerance, then it must be suppressed. There is no crime in thinking about a crime, but there is a crime if it is acting. The existence of the democratic party is the existence of a line of thought, not necessarily an action committed.
I am not a republican nor am I a democrat. I am conservative. I am Christian. But I didn’t know that Jesus had any political parties that he favored. Maybe Liberty should remember its forefathers, even at a time that is not convenient, and reaffirm salvation in Christ, not in politics.
— Katherine
May 27, 2009, 6:12 am
BTW…the issue is not about funding. It is about being banned from campus.
— Katherine
May 27, 2009, 6:17 am
Excellent post, Kevin. Liberty needs to teach a true liberal arts education, encouraging students in rational thought and intellectual capabilities.
Sadly, they are focusing on single-issue politics and failing to encourage rational thought and healthy debate among the student body.
— Phil
May 27, 2009, 8:56 am
Here is something that I feel I must post, it is an Op-Ed by the Chancellor…we must after all, allow some defense.
Op-Ed: Media’s misrepresentation of club controversy
May 25, 2009 : Jerry Falwell, Jr.
A number of media sources recently reported that Liberty University banned Democrats from meeting on campus. One headline erroneously read: “Democrats at Liberty University forced to meet off campus.” Apparently many journalists do not let the facts get in the way of a juicy, agenda-driven story.
The story was spun out of control from the beginning, when Terry McAuliffe, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate for Virginia, called a telephone press conference to talk about the College Democrat club formed by students of Liberty University. The presses began to buzz. Much of what went to print was wrong. Most journalists were interested in scooping their competitors rather than seeking the truth. Even when some reporters learned the facts, they could not bring themselves to correct their stories because the fanciful reports were just too tempting.
The University has not banned Democrats from campus. Nor has the Democrat club been banned from meeting. And, never has the University or its officials said that a person cannot be a Christian and a Democrat. Sorry for those who want to run with these titillating sound bites, but these are the facts.
The students who formed the Democrat club last October are good students. They are pro-life and believe in traditional marriage. They can continue to meet on campus. The only thing that has changed came about as part of a University-wide review of all student organizations for official recognition status. Official recognition carries with it the benefit of using the University name and funds. While this group will not be an officially recognized club, it may still meet on campus.
Liberty University is the world’s largest and fastest growing evangelical university. While many schools have faced budget short falls and declining enrollment, Liberty is debt free and continues to grow at a rapid rate. We now have 11,500 students on campus and nearly 38,000 students online. This fall Liberty University will exceed 50,000 total students.
Parents and students support the University because they believe in its distinctly Christian identity and mission. Liberty University is pro-life and believes that marriage between one man and one woman provides the best environment for children. Liberty University will not lend its name or financial support to any student group that advances causes contrary to its mission.
While the students in the college Democrat club are pro-life and support traditional marriage, the constitution of the club pledged support to advance the Democratic platform and candidates. The 2008 Democratic platform has taken an extreme turn to the left on social issues. For the first time it supports federal funding of abortion and repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a law passed overwhelmingly by a bi-partisan Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. Liberty University will not lend its name or financial support to undermine marriage or to promote abortion.
While students are free to meet on campus, debate and discuss politics of every stripe, the University will remain true to its core principles and not lend its name or fund groups that work to undermine the principles that make Liberty attractive to so many people. Liberty brings many diverse speakers to campus. Last year Senator John McCain’s brother spoke to the students along with Virginia Democratic Governor, Tim Kaine. Dr. Bernice King, daughter of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke to our students this spring about how her opposition to same sex marriage put her at odds with her family and her political allies. Ted Kennedy also spoke at Liberty in 1983.
We encourage our students to bring positive change to all political parties, Democrats, Republicans and Independents. We hope our students challenge all political parties to remain true to the core moral values consistent with the Christian mission of the University. To blindly support any candidate solely because of party affiliation irrespective of their moral views is wrong. Liberty would never endorse a Republican student group that supported abortion rights. Liberty stands for certain core values; not for a political party.
I believe it is entirely possible for the media to have skewed this out of proportion. I wrote out of shock, and I will admit that I did not receive the whole story.
— Katherine
May 27, 2009, 9:10 am
Amen! Love your blog Kevin, great job!!! I am glad someone is standing up for the dems at liberty!
— Lindsay
May 27, 2009, 3:19 pm
As a private institution, Liberty reserves the right to provide funding where and how they see fit.
However, the issue was not completely misreported as the administration is so claiming (and proclaiming with front page coverage in the News and Advance, 5/28). If you carefully read the N&A coverage and all of the rebuttals from the chancellor, there are not that many “inaccuracies.”
Liberty tends to cry foul at the slightest offense (Example A - the disclaimer inserted in copies of Kevin’s book).
— Jennifer
May 28, 2009, 5:01 pm
When I was at Liberty (mid to late 80s) there were Democrats there. There will always be Democrats at Liberty, and anyone who thinks otherwise is willfully ignorant.
This entire situation needed to have been handled better by everyone involved. Liberty needed to be more precise in it’s original announcement, rather than issuing a release that was vague enough to make people think that they were banning the College Democrats entirely. Of course, the Dems themselves could have been more honest in not telling the press that Liberty administration told them that Christians could not be Democrats. They also should have remembered their own charter, which asserted support for pro-life, pro-family candidates, when they endorsed their party’s presidential candidate. They told the administration that they were pro-life, pro-family, they said it in their charter, and they promptly ignored it when it came to the presidential election. The administration likely felt lied to, and reacted to that.
There’s nothing that says the College Democrats cannot exist; just that they will not be officially recognized, cannot use the Liberty University name in their literature, and don’t get the $500 that official clubs are eligible for.
(And, Jennifer, I think the disclaimer is stupid, too. LU administration hasn’t figured out yet that the best way to make a college student — or any human being, for that matter — curious about something is to tell them that they shouldn’t read it.)
— Warren
May 28, 2009, 6:36 pm
The world is a better place without Falwell!
— t
May 30, 2009, 5:19 pm
Does Liberty University accept funds from Pell Grants? I would argue that if they do, or if they use public roads to access University properties, they are SOCIALISTS (by the strictest definition of the word), and therefore hypocritical in their approach to everything. Why would they allow a voice of dissention? The have no reason to so. My ultimate question is what is their tax-exempt status? Can they legally maintain that with their “conservitave” political stances? Did they support the Iraq war? If so can they really claim to be “pro life”? I think they show themselves to be what they truly are upon close inspection: lying facsists. They have one worldview to the ridicule of all others.
— Jack
May 30, 2009, 6:44 pm
Do you know what Jews for Jesus are? Perhaps outliers right now - but as Adonai removes the scales, not for long.
— Sarah
June 3, 2009, 6:36 pm
Jack,
Students receive Federal Pell Grant money, not the school. This doesn’t make them socialist. The church would perhaps be a non-profit tax status, but LU is a for-profit institution.
“Pro Life” is a man-made title for the abortion topic, not a stance on war itself, which the bible says is biblical (as well as other instances.. such as protecting your family).
Being conservative is a life value not simply a way to vote. Having conservative values goes far beyond politics. Would it affect your political view? yes.
So I would say, your call that LU and Christians are “lying fascist” and “socialists” is a title you’ve allowed yourself to come up with out of a misunderstanding of the bible and true Christian values, not LU’s inability to act like true Christians.
I’m all for everyone holding their own opinions. I have my own list of issues with the way Christians tend to approach things (I am a conservative Christian… as made evident by my comments), but your extreme opinion of LU is simply not an informed one.
Great articles and great book!
— Keith
June 4, 2009, 3:29 pm
Keith,
I may not be that informed about LU, but I am well informed on what the words “socialist”, “fascist”, “pro”, and “life” mean. I am simply saying that we are all socialist. We have public roads, police, fire, and rescue services, public libraries, parks, and I’m sure a few other public entities that we all use daily. This by definition is socialism. Some people want more social institutions, some favor less. As far as the Pell Grant money goes, I’m just pointing out another social institution which LU uses to meet its bottom line.
I would also say that simply being against abortion rights does not make anyone “pro-life”. I favor personal freedom and personal responsibility above all else. My rights stop where yours start, and vice-versa. I don’t claim to be “pro-life” or “pro” anything else. My point about the Iraq war is simply that it is a war we waged on our own account, not to protect our family, and a lot of people have died.
The fascist charge towards LU has more to do with the fact that they suppress free speech for the advancement of their agenda. I’ll admit that fascism is hard to define, but most definitions involve placing the “state” above all else, and a leadership attitude of “we’re right, you’re wrong, and your either with us or your against us.” From the outside looking in that’s what LU’s editing of the student newspaper looks like.
Also, as a former president of a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, I am aware of the consequences of organizational involvement in politics. A number of organizations have lost their tax-exempt status because of this, the first to come to my mind is the Sierra Club. I am simply questioning if LU has gone over the line. I don’t even know if they are tax-exempt (I’m assuming that they are). I’m not going to question your values, views, or thoughts on any of these matters. I am just calling it like I see it.
— Jack
June 4, 2009, 5:44 pm
I am now fairly certain LU is a 501(c)(3). Here’s a link to show as much.
http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/au-letter-to-irs-re-liberty.pdf
If they weren’t tax exempt this issue with the LU Democrats would not exist. The way I see it, they either need to forfeit their 501(c)(3) status or stop their support of the LU Republicans. This means “LU is a for-profit institution” is at best just mis-informationm Keith. There are very strict laws about non=profits.
— Jack
June 4, 2009, 8:22 pm
As an LU alumni, I can understand why they got denied for club approval. We agree to the rules of the school before attending. Thus, we have given them our word that we will abide by them. If you disobey the rules you are going against your word. No matter whether it’s a non profit organization or not. We have agreed to abide by their rules, thus we have a contract with them. Whether that contract restricts us from attending certain activities, it doesn’t matter. We have already agreed to it. If we don’t like it, then we do have a right to attend school elsewhere, or attend those activities off campus. They can also attend those groups, without having the “official” club status. When I went there some friends and I went to a martial arts group called “The LORD’s Warrior’s,” but we hadn’t obtained actual club status, because there weren’t enough people. We understood that. Now it is an official club. If we were to teach or partake in something that was not in agreement with the Liberty Way, understandably we would loose club status. We have agreed by coming to Liberty that we would abide by their rules. It is Liberty’s decision whether or not to have their name associated with certain groups.
As far as Mattison referring to Jerry as a Hitler figure, he’s not even close. If you’ve ever met him in real life you would understand that he loves all and worships one. That doesn’t stop him from standing up for what he believes, and I applaud him for that. I think too many people try to hide what they believe in fear that they may offend someone. We should be able to share what we believe, even if others don’t agree with it. That doesn’t mean that we should shove it down their throats or that they should get offended. We live in a diverse country, and I think that everyone needs to understand that not everyone is going to agree with them. Just because someone is sharing their beliefs, doesn’t mean that they are trying to offend you. We all have the rights to different beliefs.
— Erica
June 7, 2009, 10:42 pm
The real issue here is not LU’s rules. It is their tax-exempt status. They seem to be favoring one political party over the other, which is against the law for a 501(c)(3). They can’t even invite a republican official to speak at an official function without also inviting a democrat. They could do whatever they want in regards to politics if they weren’t tax-exempt. They can’t recognize one perty, and not the other, and be tax-exempt. They can have all the rules they want, but if they ask the government to not pay taxes, then they have to play by the rules set up for all tax-exempt organizations, not just the ones they agree with. This has nothing to do with their rules, it has to do with the rule of law.
— Jack
June 8, 2009, 7:14 am
From the perspective that Jack is coming from he is absolutely correct.
I am coming from a Biblical Christian mindset and not a political one. I am was at LU both as an employee and a student for 8 years, I know what I am talking about. LU has chosen to define itself in political and worldly terms, this is their first mistake. If their goal is to make “Champions for Christ” they need to repent because Christ did not advance a political party or cause once during his time here. Read the Bible for yourself its all there.
LU has basically just flipped all Democrats the bird and shown favor to once again a man created, non-Jesus endorsed, world bound system. Don’t you see LU? The rest of the world might listen to you if you would at least be consistent with the scriptures you say you believe. Instead of furthering the mission of Jesus you would rather further a political party. You have just alienated a large group of people. This is self defeating.
For all real Christians that read this, pray for LU to stop this mentality and also ask yourself if you are following Christ or a political party.
To all who don’t trust in Christ, I apologize for this terrible representation that LU has shown. Please know that God loves you and wants you to know him regardless of your political bent.
— James
June 9, 2009, 12:20 pm
So, like Bristol Zoo then?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2572205.stm
— Hawkins
July 13, 2009, 2:43 pm
Kevin:
just finished your book. As a Christian myself, kudos to you for sparking such good & mature conversation. This is evidenced by the sensible comments on your blog. I applaud you, this must have been an extremely difficult task to write and keep up with it when Falwell died.
My other book club members enjoyed the book as well.
— Jessie
July 19, 2009, 10:41 pm
As an evangelical Christian with an open-mind, I often feel very alone. I don’t fit in with 90% of the Christians I know, and I am misunderstood by non-Christians.
Reading this post broke my heart. I hope those students make a push for the changes that they want.
Please keep writing about Christian culture. I will be reading.
— Jonathan
August 9, 2009, 9:55 pm