Leave the Ivory Tower Alone: Religious Freedom on Campus

In this week's Chronicle of Higher Education, which I "borrowed" from my boss (hehe), I found a rather disturbing advertisement.  Check it out:

So, basically, they are suggesting that speech codes protecting against hate speech, speech zones, student fees, and non-discrimination policies are unconstitutional.  Ok, these people must be stupid.  Let's find out!

I decided to visit the website, and guess what I discovered!  It's a religious freedom website.  Not just that it is a christian website.  And who is sponsoring it?  None other than the Alliance Defense Fund.  Normally I would say, "whatever this is just another rediculous ploy by religious groups to get more special privileges that no one else gets, but what really bothered me is the scare tactics they used on the main page.  Including an image of the Supreme Court house claiming that "Administrators are facing a sharp increase in costly constitutional litigation as students challenge unlawful policies." 

The attorney in charge of this organization is David French (pictured right).  David has been a practicing lawyer since graduating Harvard Law in 1994 and is the author of A Season for Justice: Defending the Rights of the Christian Home, Church, and School (2002).  Clearly, a Harvard education does not guarantee intellectual ability.  Or perhaps religion is to blame for corrupting what might otherwise have been a very sound mind.  As if his book were not bad enough, Mr. French has also authored a number of reports for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a religious extremist group that advocates religious indoctrination in higher education.  Take a moment to notice how both Mr. French's organization and FIRE attempt to cloud their true efforts under the disguise of protecting individual rights, when what they mean is individual rights for christians.

Now, since I'm thoroughly annoyed by this garabage, I'm going to take a moment to tell you why they are wrong.

1) Non-Discrimination Policies - Non-discrimination policies are the same as those found in legislation such as ENDA, Hate Crimes, etc.  They protect individuals from discrimination, not speech.  A religious nut can stand in the middle of the quad and say whatever he/she wants and no one is going to cite a non-discrimination policy.  However, if a religious group rejects a person from membership, leadership, or some other activity, they have violated the terms of the university's non-discrimination policy and the law.  So, it's not about speech at all, you are welcome to have your opinion, you are welcome to voice that opinion, and you are welcome to complain all you like, but you still have disciminate in your actions.

2) Speech Codes - these are a little more difficult to defend, and for the most part, the courts haven't really liked them.  However, the problem is in the wording, not the concepts.  Speech codes are meant to stop violence from breaking out on campus.  Religious groups love using fighting words, probably even more so than any other group, and it's probably because religions are violent organizations.  So, it is perfectly acceptable that campuses should want to prevent these groups from inciting massive riots or fights in the middle of campus.  When a religious nut calls someone a "fag" that is NOT protected speech, and no sane person can argue that "fag" adds anything to the "market place of ideas" view of the educational setting.  it is meant to incite conflict and that is NOT protected speech.

3) Student Fees - I'm curious what campuses are denying any group access to student activity fees.  Again, religious groups should not have privileged access to funds, but nor should they be denied.  It's not surprising though that these groups would want to get more than others and then claim they were getting less.

4) Speech Zones - This is where the religiously inclined kill their own arguement.  50 people screaming outside a classroom window adds nothing to the "marketplace of ideas" and would in fact distract from that mission.  It seems like the obvious response by students who don't like religious groups would be to use this stuff against them, stand in their meetings yelling and screaming, or join their clubs and vote out their leaders.  And according to them you'd have this right because of free speech.  I think they might start singing a different tune.

Religious students on campus are given privileges far beyond those enshrined in the constitution.  And considering religious belief is, by its very nature, anti-thetical to the intellectual and academic mission of the university to open the mind to critical thinking, I think they have enough privileges and don't deserve anymore.

Common Sense