Last month, Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, revoked its official recognition of the student Democratic group on campus, saying that the Democratic Party platform conflicted with the university's Christian principles.
Following purported complaints from trustees, parents, and (perhaps most significantly) donors, Student Affairs Vice President Mark Hine sent an e-mail to Brian Diaz, president of the College Democrats, saying that the university was "unable to lend support to a club whose parent organization stands against the moral principles held by Liberty University."
"By using Liberty University and Democrat in the name," Hine wrote, "the two are associated and the goals of both run in opposite directions." The e-mail concluded,
We are removing the club from the Liberty website and you will need to cease using Liberty University's name, including any logo, seal or mark of Liberty University. They are not to be used in any of your publications, electronic or internet, including but not limited to, any website, Facebook, Twitter or any other such publication.
Censorship, some said. But others noted that conservative student groups have been targeted in this way for years. Commenters on news sites and blogs pointed out that Liberty is a private university and as such retains the right to bar certain student groups from official recognition, while others countered that it's a private university, yes, but one that receives federal funding.
Then, a few weeks later, Diaz announced that he was stepping down from his position as club president and transferring to another school. "I think that the school needs both sides of the political sphere to be represented and represented fairly," Diaz said in an interview.
While watching all this transpire, I found myself thinking not so much about Democrats and Republicans and Jerry Falwell Jr., but more about group ideology as a whole. The Liberty University foment seems less about two-party politics and their representation, and more about the connections between the beliefs of groups and of the individuals who belong to them.
How much of any given party line, if you will, does an individual have to agree with in order to be considered part of the group? What does it mean to belong to a group, if we as individuals retain beliefs that do not conform to the group's overall creed? I've been thinking about this question not only in the context of political beliefs but theological and denominational beliefs as well. Falwell Jr. claimed that the ideologies of the Democratic Party and Liberty University were in opposition, but obviously Diaz, and others, feel otherwise.
The end of the Liberty Saga - for now - is that all political student clubs, be they Democrat or Republican (or, presumably, any other party) can exist only as unofficial clubs. Even though the story is wrapping up, I'd like to see the discussions continue: Does an individual have to accept every aspect of an ideology in order to belong to a group? What do you think?
While we pray for peace, we need moral clarity about this war.
As my doubts about his teachings grew, so did a secret fascination with Jesus.
The Grammy-winning artist was found dead at her home in Nashville at age 47.
