Over the holiday weekend, we received numerous questions about whether Liberty University could de-recognize (therefore effectively eliminate from campus) the College Democrats. The question, however, is not that simple. While Liberty, as a private evangelical institution that is quite upfront about the extent to which Christian values control its content, probably can legally eliminate the College Democrats, there remains the important question of whether it should. In eliminating the organization solely because of the views it supports, Liberty is making a huge tradeoff—sacrificing the free exchange of ideas at the heart of higher education for adherence to its Christian principles.
The matter at hand: For those that missed the controversy, Liberty University—an Evangelical Christian institution started by Rev. Jerry Falwell—decided to stop recognizing the College Democrats because its “parent organization stands against the moral principles held by Liberty University.” More specifically, the University administration stated in an email that “The Democratic Party Platform is contrary to the mission of LU and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the ‘LGBT’ agenda, Hate Crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc). The candidates this club supports uphold the Platform and implement it. The candidates supported are directly contrary to the mission of LU.”
Can they; should they: If this sort of thing happened at a public institution, there would be no doubt that the answer to both questions would be a resounding no. From the strictly legal perspective, if the institution is going to recognize (or otherwise allow) student organizations, it cannot eliminate an organization because of the views it holds. To do otherwise would be the most classic form of viewpoint discrimination. Further, even *if* a public institution could de-recognize a group because the administration of the school disliked its views, such a decision would strike against the basic foundation of higher education—a marketplace of ideas. Students’ education thrives on being able to explore new ideas and conclusions, debate those concepts and advocate for the views students decide they agree with. Controversial, political and unconventional views should be vetted and discussed by the campus community, not swept under the rug.
But Liberty University is not a public institution—it is a private one that makes it abundantly clear its mission is to further evangelical Christian values. At this sort of institution, the answer to our first question—“can they?”—is most likely yes. While private institutions aren’t required to respect students’ First Amendment rights—after all they are private institutions rather than the state—they do need to live up to their promises to students. Liberty’s promises, however, are that it will be an institution that enforces Christian values. Unlike many secular private institutions, it does not promise free expression, a marketplace of ideas or make similar promises.
Should they, however, is an entirely different matter. It’s now a fairly common assumption that a free exchange of ideas is critical to a higher education. It’s that foundation that allows for critical thinking, examining of conclusions, debate and discourse. Liberty University, both in this action and in their mission statements, has chosen to emphasize the importance of Christian values over the importance of critical and free thinking. It’s now abundantly clear that even the most uncontroversial views are subject to scrutiny and censorship at Liberty. Not only will students have less opportunity to debate and discuss current events and political trends on campus, but there is no telling how many students start holding back from speaking out of fear that they’ll be next. Perhaps that tradeoff is worth it to Liberty, but it’s impossible to see it as anything other than a tremendous tradeoff for students’ education.
Is Liberty University Unique? While Liberty University is the only campus we’re aware of that has expressly forbidden one student political party from being a student organization, there are too many campuses where student political expression IS curtailed out of some misunderstanding of what the law or good educational policy require.
For example, just this past week, one of the campuses of Brigham Young University removed all student political parties under the assumption that letting students form these groups would give the appearance that BYU was not neutral. Earlier in the year, students in Washington sued the Community College of Spokane for blocking a pro-live educational event which the College had stopped because they thought the graphic content of their event would be seen as harassment. Further, this fall students at institutions from Texas to Illinois had to deal with restrictions on everything from campaign buttons to political rallies to hanging candidates’ posters in their dorm windows because of administrators and state officials mistaken assumptions that student expression would jeopardize the institutions’ tax status.
In short, these mistakes and misunderstandings can have as terrible impacts for the free exchange of ideas and students’ education as Liberty University’s decision to trade free and open debate for strict adherence to faith. For campuses that find themselves with questions over everything from what should be allowed to how to respond to critics of the free exchange of ideas on campus, we’re here to help. The Center has a number of resources—from staff consultation to our Guide to Student Activity Fees—to clear up the confusion and help higher education leaders defend the marketplace of ideas on campuses.