Find us on Facebook
Follow us on TwitterShouldn’t be a mystery why Liberty University nixed club
The headline in our newspaper Friday morning — the very top headline, no less — told the world: “LU pulls plug on Democratic club.”
In terms of shock value, this was the equivalent of “VMI freshmen forced to do pushups” or “Taliban leaders oppose plans for new disco.” The mystery here is not that Liberty University decided to disassociate itself from the college’s Democratic club, but that the club was ever allowed to exist in the first place.
“We are in no way attempting to stifle free speech,” said LU vice president of student affairs Mark Hine in an e-mail to Democratic Party club president Brian Diaz.
Excuse me? Saying that belonging to a club representing one of the two major political parties in the country could trigger reprimands and eventual expulsion is hardly promoting free speech.
On the other hand, it’s not that incoming LU students don’t know what the deal is. Just as new Virginia Military Institute cadets know they’re going to be harassed by upperclassmen and Hampden-Sydney freshmen don’t show up expecting coed dorms, so it’s doubtful that anyone enrolls at Liberty to find like-minded disciples of Ted Kennedy.
This makes the school’s Democratic Club decision hard to resist, from its point of view. Make the school’s major donors (the vast majority of whom, I would imagine, are Republicans) smile, disappoint a small handful of out-of-step students. Not a tough choice, although school chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. called the Democratic club members “good, Christian kids who sit with me at ballgames” and insisted there was “no animosity” toward them.
Liberty is growing because it is a conservative Christian school and the country is full of conservative Christian students. Thanks in large part to the Rev. Jerry Falwell’s high profile, it has identified and conquered its niche — somewhat liberal among dogmatically Christian schools (I can’t see Bob Jones University staging its version of the Winterfest Christian rock concert), yet well to the right of public institutions.
Don’t expect it to jeopardize that base, any more than Rush Limbaugh would benefit from offering liberal Democrats 10 minutes of his air time. A liberalized Liberty would just confuse people.
Do I agree with everything the Falwell brothers feed to their flock, especially when the message turns political? No. Does it bother me that they have those opinions? Not really.
The thing is, this is also a private institution. Liberty can carve its initials into Liberty Mountain because it happens to own the mountain. It can tell students they have to attend church services, or else. It can dictate how they dress. To paraphrase that catchy phrase from the current President of the United States: “Yes, they can!”
Of course, as its official Web site declares, Liberty is also happy to accept federal student aid. Maybe that would be a courageous follow-up step — refuse to allow any student to take a dime from a federal government run by Democrats.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Which if it weren’t wrapped up in the Holy of Holy’s would be seen as nonsense parading as wisdom hiding in paradox.
In the words of Holy men of God inspired by the Holy Spirit, “All things are lawful but all things are not profitable.“
Yes, that is a sign of wisdom: “As flawed human beings, we lack the moral authority to judge others.“ And yet, for some hypocritical reason, that’s Liberty’s profession.
Thanks for your interest, Matt. I say this with more depth than I intend to go into here, but whispering is rude.
Au revoir, fellow American.
MrCrisp, many thanks for your kind words. Be assured that authentic academic inquiry and truth-telling are indeed priorities for me. Of course, there have been many instances in my life when I thought I was telling the truth and learned otherwise upon further investigation. Admitting such oversights is difficult for all of us; nonetheless it is necessary.
I agree that our poor social choices are exacerbated by cynical leadership. To your salient point I would add that very often our poor moral and ethical choices are exacerbated even more by a lack of any kind of leadership.
You might be surprised to learn that in my 20s, I was an impassioned agnostic. To this day, I remain wary of those who profess their “faith” too loudly or too obtrusively, as if they are trying to convince themselves as much as others.
In my view, faith is not loud. It is not pushy. Nor is it judgmental. Among my favorite passages of the Bible asserts essentially that judgment remains the exclusive purview of the Divine. As flawed human beings, we lack the moral authority to judge others.
At this point in your life, you may feel you have many or all of the answers about the relevance of your life that you need. I suspect, however, there will many times in your life when you wonder if this is all there is. At those time, I hope you’ll remember a thought I return to many times: The world is often noisy, pushy, and demanding so stop now and then to truly listen. God whispers.
Thanks again for a productive, spirited debate. I have truly enjoyed it.
Best, Matt
You have been civil and kind, Matt. I am pleased that you are not oppressively religious. I concur that divisiveness is a roadblock (and a tool of exploitation.) But you skipped over most of my points.
You misread my lunkhead comment. Liberty students aren’t “the world’s leading lunkheads”; one of those would be Tony Charles Lynton Blair, former accomplice to the Iraq Warcrime and now pusher of the ridiculous Faith Foundation. Like you, he may believe faith is the final frontier but, like you, he doesn’t list truth as a desired goal.
I would like to suggest suggest to you that leaders like to portray themselves in a morality play of the miscreant masses. You say, “I do believe that many of our social problems are the result of extremely poor moral and ethical choices by many of us.“ Oh, definitely. But funny you should not observe that those problems have been exacerbated, if not provoked, by cynical leadership.
So I hope you will commit to truth-telling in your post-graduate work in equal parts to your compassion. That’s a little tough-love The Falwell’s have yet to learn.
MrCrisp, thank you. I follow many online news stories closely, much to the chagrin of my sister, a traditional newspaper editor whose livelihood depends on our willingness to buy more newspapers. I occasionally feel guilty that online news has completely replaced my regular diet of newspapers and news magazines.
Except for your ungracious and unwarranted characteristic of Liberty students as lunkheads (largely because you disagree with them), I enjoyed your most recent response best of all. So let’s agree that you’re too talented a writer to have resorted to the lunkhead comment. We can agree that every university, indeed every organization, has a mix of brilliant and not-so-brilliant minds. Let’s agree that neither of us needs to make such broad characterizations, which we both know add little material value to a thoughtful and productive debate.
Although we disagree on material points, I have largely appreciated that you haven’t been mean-spirited and nasty, as many respondents on news forums often are. I am often shocked by the venomous comments I read online about many topics. I simply do not see the value.
Please know that I am not a blind or naive supporter of Liberty University or its policies. I support many of their views, but far from all of them. Despite any conclusions that you’ve ostensibly drawn about me, I am generally uncomfortable with views at the farthest points of any spectrum. I am far more moderate than you might suspect, and although I have nearly completed a doctorate at Liberty University, I can assure you that I am not the lunkhead that you think I am. Indeed, I would challenge any critic of Liberty University’s policies to step up to the rigor of the program I’ve undertaken.
A few final thoughts before I step aside and leave the final word to you. The monikers to which I referred in my previous most are generally those like “left, right, liberal and conservative.“ Such terms, although used widely, offer little meaning in my view. Christian and Muslim, the terms you mentioned, refer to followers of widely recognized religious faiths. I don’t see them in the same category at all. It’s very possible that I’ve simply misunderstood your intent.
Like you, I do not favor a theocracy. Like many mainstream Americans, I do believe that many of our social problems are the result of extremely poor moral and ethical choices by many of us. Honesty, civility, and courtesy seem to have fallen into serious disfavor, and far too many of us put our own narrow interests ahead of our families and our communities. Although we probably vote in different primaries and generally favor different candidates for public office, I believe this is a point upon which we both can agree: The world needs less divisiveness, less rancor, more courtesy, more mutual respect, and more humility and wisdom.
Do I possess such wisdom? Probably not. Do you? It’s not my place to decide. I will tell you that I generally express my faith differently than many people do. I don’t feel I have a right to impose my views on others. Even if you choose not to believe in the divinity of Christ, his experience among us offers enormous insight into how to live regardless of your political or religious views. Christ’s teachings encourage us to be humble, kind, loving, thoughtful, and to serve others. Thus, I have no desire to create public policy, run for office, pound my chest vigorously as I proclaim my beliefs, or dictate how you choose to live. Make your own choices, and I’ll make mine.
As I move closer to the point when the last thing I hear in this world is “Clear!“ in the back of an ambulance, I’m simply trying to be a faithful husband, an extraordinary dad, and a hard-working, honest business professional and student. Many of these ideals come from my faith. Although many people espouse what they believe is faith and attempt to impose their views on others, there are many of us who are simply trying to be decent, caring neighbors, friends, and family members. This, in my view, is the essence of Christianity. Indeed, it’s the essence of many of the world’s most widely recognized theistic faiths.
So, we agree to disagree on many points. As I step out of this forum, I’m also grateful to everyone who has shared his or her view courteously. When more of us can do the same on many levels, we’ll make substantive progress in reducing the shrillness that’s so pervasive today, as though we deeply resent having to share the same planet. Life is simply too short for such folly.
All my best, Matt
Matt, I wouldn’t be surprised if you did, I’d be amazed if Liberty did but that’s irrelevant because Republican’s won’t. I suspect your assessment of Liberty’s “recent decision” is shallow. You say, “At the end of the day, these are merely monikers that further divide us.“ Ok, what about Christian and Muslim, hmmm?
Liberty has a long list of egregious race baiting and Liberal and gay bashing. They have intentions of exploiting the political process theocratically. The very problem with public morality (like public prayer) is that it often comes at someone’s expense.
I’d say you’re a little too dismissive about those other “differences of opinion” because you think you got a handle on the truth. You don’t have enough.
You say Liberty’s for a culture of Life. That’s strange, I thought Liberty was a proponent of armageddon. Isn’t that doublethink?
I wonder why, if you “have moderate views tempered by the vicissitudes typical of a life that spans half a century” you can tolerate the ideology and political activism of Liberty? You see, you may think Liberty has a “perception management” problem but in actuality it has an “authoritarian complex” problem. Did you read the Roose piece?
You say, “The Liberty University policies and decisions you’ve decried are standard fare at nearly all faith-based universities committed to the sanctity of life.“ Really. Name the “faith-based” uni which has policy like Liberty’s “recent decision”.
You say, “I must conclude that some people reserve their harshest and most vitriol condemnation for Liberty University because its founder, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, was frequently perceived as controversial and divisive.“ So he wasn’t controversial? Or has Liberty changed tack and now all controversy is just blowback? Hmmm. That’s a convenient CYA whenever Liberty makes a stupid and repressive decision.
That Liberty should grow in a terrible economic period is hardly a surprise. That’s why the world’s leading lunkheads are pushing religion, their antidote to the consequences of massively fraudulent leadership. “Frustration” is a mischaracterization. Any reason you don’t address the complaint of hypocrisy?
I suspect you’re off base about causes of Liberty’s growth, as affordability has a lot more to do with it. As well your diagnosis of “the sense of entitlement” and your prescription of faith. You seem to see collapse as a growth opportunity (whereas I see it as the loss of opportunities.)
You’re misquoting me about the end of the Republican Party. No, it’s no surprise after the devastation wreaked be conservatism that it should decline and it’s adherents flee to “safe haven”. What you portray as morality and conviction is image control, the primacy of which supposedly dominates (but doesn’t) even the student’s off-campus lives. Them’s politics, me boy.
It seems Liberty is developing a Cuba problem. It can’t let the democratic spirit spread but it can’t squash it either. So now it’s 50 years of suppression?
MrCrisp, thanks again for sharing your views. I especially enjoyed the entertaining parts, like “m’ boy.“ At age 51, I am nearly never confused with boyhood or anything youthful. It was a nice change, thank you. Although energized by the comment, I suspect nonetheless that my future does not include advanced gymnastics or work as a personal fitness trainer.
You might be surprised to learn that I would indeed be equally supportive of Liberty University if they decided to withdraw their name from a Young Republicans Club directly affiliated with pro-abortion policies. In my view, Liberty University’s recent decision isn’t about Democrat and Republican, Right or Left, Liberal or Conservative. At the end of the day, these are merely monikers that further divide us. Such monikers seldom reflect complex issues or the people who have views about those issues.
You might be surprised to know that I have moderate views tempered by the vicissitudes typical of a life that spans half a century and I am not an ideologue or political activist. I am also a grad school alumnus of Indiana Wesleyan University, where the standards and rules of conduct are even more rigorous than those at Liberty University. Ditto for my baccalaureate, earned at Walsh University, a Roman Catholic institution. The Liberty University policies and decisions you’ve decried are standard fare at nearly all faith-based universities committed to the sanctity of life. Because you and the media have not targeted all such policies with equal vigor, I must conclude that some people reserve their harshest and most vitriol condemnation for Liberty University because its founder, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, was frequently perceived as controversial and divisive. Thus, for some, no good will ever emerge from Liberty University, which is an unfortunate reflection on them, not the university.
Nonetheless, faith-based universities in the United States are among the fastest growing in the nation, even as many struggle during one of the worst economic periods in recent history. For some, it must be extraordinarily frustrating that Liberty University emerged as a small, comparatively insignificant Baptist college in 1971 to become at least one of the fastest growing Christian evangelical universities in the nation, with an enrollment fast approaching 50,000. Such growth is nearly unparalleled for such a young university.
I suspect that Liberty University’s growth is due in large measure to many people’s appreciation for its willingness to draw a line in the sand to defend what many mainstream Americans believe are fundamental values. It’s my judgment that many Americans are exceptionally weary of the sense of entitlement that has tried to choke our societal landscape like overgrown weeds. The growing popularity of faith-based universities must be frustrating for those who have allowed themselves to feel morally and ethically ambivalent as unborn children are killed, families collapse, corporate malfeasance drains private and public resources, many schools become centers of violence instead of learning, and public officials from every political party pursue their own narrow interests instead of the public good.
As for your assertion that the end of the Republican Party would mean the end of Liberty University, it must seem curious that as Republican influence wanes, Liberty’s enrollment swells. As Liberty University’s harshest media critics raise their voices to near shrillness, more parents choose to send their children there. I remain convinced that Liberty University’s recent actions are not politically motivated. University officials have been very clear that they are focused entirely on their desire to remain faithful to their views about life and traditional marriage. Arguably, those views are more aligned with one political party than the other. Even if that alignment changed, it’s my view that Liberty University’s position would not — it would refuse to give its name or its financial resources to a club, party, association or any other organization that doesn’t choose a culture of Life.
Best, Matt
MrCrisp, your statement “It is disingenuous for Liberty to both organize for these students to vote in elections and frustrate their organizing per their political conscience” (May 27, 2009 at 5:09 am) is as cogent an encapsulation as has appeared yet of the problem many of us have with the events.
It is disingenuous for Liberty to both organize for these students to vote in elections and frustrate their organizing per their political conscience. That is an acute concern for the cityzenship as well.
This approach is more akin to a mafia or militia, not a university. Our government is captured by corporate and banking interests and the manipulation of the citizens political conscience by primarily financial dictates or select “moral” ones is corrupt.
I have a sense that I don’t trust your judgement of what the moral crises we face are, so I won’t take any comfort in the imposition of your morals on others. Moreover, you prefer an authoritarian approach to morality when the problem in this country is too much authoritarianism, not too little.
Advertisement