… when did it print it? That’s the question.
Here’s a quick note to the reporters covering the case of Jason Johnson, the student who has been expelled at the University of the Cumberlands after outing himself in his MySpace.com profile. I should, just to be clear, note that Cumberland is a Baptist university, but not part of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, the global network in which I teach.
This is one case where reporters are going to need documentation on dead-tree pulp. We need to know precisely what the school said in its student-life policies and when it said it.
Why does this matter? In a Louisville Courier-Journal article by Mark Pitsch we learn that at the time the theater major was recruited the school’s code of conduct barred only “lewd and indecent conduct.” Is that true? It would appear so, since we also learn that a new policy says:
“Any student who engages in or promotes sexual behavior not consistent with Christian principles (including sex outside marriage and homosexuality) may be suspended or asked to withdraw from the University of the Cumberlands.”
Obviously, the word “promotes” is crucial. But that is not the big question for reporters at the moment. The big question is this: What did the student life handbook say the year that Johnson actually enrolled as a freshman? Were the policies in the handbook actually referenced in a printed document of some kind that he signed of his own free will when he agreed to become a student at this Baptist-affiliated school?
Here is why I ask. Over at the Lexington Herald-Leader, reporter Jamie Gumbrecht has some additional information, but not the smoking gun.
… (A) copy of the student handbook provided by the university confirmed the policy was not spelled out in 2003-04, when Johnson chose to attend. The school did not provide a copy of the policy for the 2004-05 school year. The 2005-06 student handbook says: “Any student who engages in or promotes sexual behavior not consistent with Christian principles (including sex outside marriage and homosexuality) may be suspended or asked to withdraw.”
School officials said that although the 2003-04 policy did not explicitly mention homosexuality, it did say that students must “conduct themselves, on and off the campus, in a manner which is consistent with the objectives of the College and with its standards of conduct.”
Yes, it would appear the key is that missing 2004-05 student handbook and any documents the freshman signed that fall. However, there is a chance that Johnson — as a sophomore at the start of the fall of 2005 semester — may have signed an updated student-code pledge of some kind. It matters if he, at some point, signed a document that said he was bound to honor future changes in the university’s student-life code.
Reporters need to ask these questions for a simple reason. Private colleges — on the left and the right — have the ability to make the rules for their own voluntary associations. “Freedom of association” is the key phrase here, and this applies to Baptist colleges as well as to voluntary associations of gays, lesbians and lots of other people. On that theme, Pitsch provided some helpful background in that Courier-Journal story:
Sheldon Steinbach, general counsel for the American Council on Education, said yesterday that private colleges are entitled to enact rules and require students to abide by them.
“The relationship between a student and a private institution is purely contractual in nature. A student is presumed to be aware of the terms and conditions of that contract. Case closed,” Steinbach said.
Pitsch also notes:
In a written statement last week, President Jim Taylor said: “At University of the Cumberlands, we hold students to a higher standard. Students know the rules before they come to this institution. We’ve followed our policies and procedures in keeping with our traditional denominational beliefs. … We are different by design and are non-apologetic about our Christian beliefs.”
If students “know the rules before they come to this institution,” that means they are written down somewhere and that students had a chance to affirm or reject them as they enrolled. It appears to me — as a reporter and a veteran professor on Christian campuses — that the journalists covering this story need to find out what the university printed and when it printed it.
The school has every right to make its own rules and to attempt to enforce them consistently. Reporters — find that signed piece of paper and you have the story.
 | Posted at 12:12 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (29) |
April 11, 2006, at 3:46 pm
When in doubt, rely on the contract. I think that’s good advice in covering the “why” of the story, but it probably won’t be much comfort to those who wonder how a contract like that is enforced.
If a student invites roommates in to watch the OC, is that encouraging premarital sex. What if, after chapel, students watch a little MTV. Is that promoting premarital sex, if the videos glorify it?
There’s no doubt that schools can enforce their contracts. Before I became a lawyer, my job was to kick students out of a public school, often based on a contract. That did not, however, make the institution look any better or raise serious questions about the values and goals of the institution and our contract.
Contract or not, this is going to be a bad few months for this university where it will have to question its own values and the media probably shouldn’t let “a contract” be an excuse not to ask questions.
Like when do they start kicking out stuidents who watch the OC or MTV.
April 11, 2006, at 6:10 pm
“What did the university print and . . when did it print it? That’s the question.”
Sorry, but I think that’s entirely the wrong question.
Given that the institution in this case identifies itself as “Christian”, I’m less interested in all the chatter about legalisms, “contracts”, and such. The more important issue is where is Christ in this situation? And how is He represented to the world through this? How is He represented to this student? If indeed Jesus sat on the board of this school, would He support expelling this student based on the fact pattern outlined here?
April 11, 2006, at 7:08 pm
So true.
A contract may keep you out of legal problems, but it won’t help in the court of public opinion. Just ask Bob Jones U.
April 11, 2006, at 11:06 pm
Exactly what part of the Bible would allow us to assume the Returned Jesus would be advocating students participating in gay sexual relationships in this college?
Let’s start backing up these statements with facts. And we wonder why the media’s confused about religion. Could be because folks in the pews are.
April 12, 2006, at 7:15 am
MICHAEL:
Religious and cultural minorities can all be thankful that we have the Bill of Rights and do not live in a land in which the court of public opinion rules on such matters.
The free association rights of religious groups was affirmed, big time, during the Clinton years in new laws and in rulings affirming old ones. You are opposed to free association?
The Bob Jones case is a crucial one and one that many, on the left as well as the right, worried about at the time. It is tricky when the government starts deciding that it can edit doctrines.
April 12, 2006, at 8:03 am
Oh, I’m sure the college can win in a lawsuit. And so they should.
That doesn’t mean the college won’t face negative publicitiy and people won’t ask serious questions about the policies of the educational institution for removing a student based on a comment in a personal on-line journal.
I’m not opposed to free association. I believe a private college can decide its values and enforce them through their contract. But I also believe that the private college can be held up to ridicule, questions, and criticism by the public for their decisions.
As Roland point out, clinging to the contract may be a good legal move, but not a great public relations move.
April 12, 2006, at 9:15 am
The school is not demonstrating Christ like behaviors, I do not feel Christ in this situation at all….so is that how Christians/Baptists want to be portrayed? As an exclusive club with requirements?
The handbook when Jason came to this school did not mention “homosexuality” for a fact. I just graduated from the school in December and still live in the area.
My problem is this, why are those engaging in premarital sex not being expelled? There have been many many cases of females being caught in the male dorms after hours (the girl is “asked to leave” while the sport playing guy is allowed to stay), or what about all the illegal drug activities going on here, or the underaged drinking? Why aren’t these people being expelled? Why aren’t their Myspace, Xanga and Facebook accounts being checked over? Check the records for arrests in this area, you would be surprised how many of them are students of the University of the Cumberlands.
April 12, 2006, at 10:06 am
When your first defense is, “it’s in the contract,” you are in big trouble. Especially when you are an educational institution that is supposed to nurture students and their education.
I agree with Michael—and you, Terry—that they can probably win in court, although the term “promote” seems awfully vague. Nonetheless, lawyers often tell clients that just because they CAN enforce a contract, doesn’t mean they should.
You’ve used the example of the conservative copy editor in New York who was terminated—according to her employer—for violating company policy. You believe, and so apperantly does she, that she was terminated for being Conservative and religious. That company enforced it’s contract (or lack of a contract) with that employee to justify her termination.
That hasn’t stopped you and others from arguing there was something more insidious going on there and arguing she was a victim. And that’s what we have in this story. A college standing by it’s contract, while others questioning the motives and the policies and the media protratying the 19-year old theater major as a victim.
April 12, 2006, at 2:49 pm
No matter what the legal situation, I see no reason why this story isn’t still news. While the University of the Cumberlands has the legal right to discriminate as it sees fit, it does not necessarily follow that it should be shielded from the consequences of its exercise of that legal right in terms of its public reputation. This is a story that deserves coverage, regardless of its legal status.
This is especially true in regards to a school like that University of the Cumberlands that, while private, receives public funds. Taxpayers have a right to know the types of institutions their money is going to support.
April 12, 2006, at 4:50 pm
This is a private school, but they receive state money. That changes everything. The odds are that by discriminating based on sexual predisposition they will lose their state funds. If they don’t want any gay people in their school, that is fine, but they should not expect to get state or federal funds.
April 12, 2006, at 7:10 pm
Two points.
1) If state funds are used to punish religious schools for their religiously motivated practices then we have abrogated the free exercise clause of the constitution.
2) Some posts seem to raise the question as to the wisdom of expelling the gay student. I suppose that depends on the mission of the college. If the mission is to train future clergy and Christian leaders then such discrimination is necessary. If the purpose of the school is to evangelise a non-Christian student body then to expell a gay student would be counter productive.
April 12, 2006, at 8:59 pm
As the parent of an student at the University of the Cumberlands, I feel that the school’s real problem in any lawsuit may lie with the uneven application of this method of punishment. A number of hetrosexual students have been observed by university staff violating the terms of the code - on school grounds, no less - yet remain enrolled.
It’s entirely possible that the expelled student may have a documented history of previous violation of school policy , making this a “strike three” incident - but if not, the school is going to find itself wide open to a substantial damage suit for selective enforcement of the “student contract.
The school can scarely afford such a hit - one entire dormitory was closed in the the middle of the school year due to the failure of the plumbing system, and another dormitory has been without heat or air conditioning for two weeks, supposedly because the school is unable to afford the repair due to cash-flow issues. Sadly, it appears that the remain student body will wind up footing any bills that result from this incident.
April 13, 2006, at 3:48 am
Absolutely, a collage has a right to free associate as it will.
It does not have a right to have it’s discriminatory practices underwritten by taxpayer money.
As to whether or not the school is acting in a Christ-like manner, I seem to remember Jesus saying something along the lines of “I have come for the sinner…”
April 13, 2006, at 7:31 am
I don’t think the tax question is really the issue. Sexual orientation finds no protection on the federal level, and Kentucky’s governor just rescinded protections on the state level, so discrimination against gays and lesbians is not a public policy concern for any governments. Except in rare situations, religous institutions are usually free to discriminate while still taking government money.
April 13, 2006, at 10:35 am
“Sexual orientation finds no protection on the federal level, and Kentucky’s governor just rescinded protections on the state level, so discrimination against gays and lesbians is not a public policy concern for any governments. Except in rare situations, religous institutions are usually free to discriminate while still taking government money.”
This is sadly true, thanks in large part to the efforts of many so-called “Christians”.
April 13, 2006, at 5:33 pm
There seems to be an important fact that nobody has seemed to touch on yet. Was the expelled student confronted, and what was his response?
I believe there is a TREMENDOUS difference between whether the student admits to his struggles in this area, or defiantly denounces the schools policy and proudly flies his flag of homosexuality.
If the student was prideful, then he and the college simply do not mix, oil and water. If he asks for forgiveness, then he should be welcome.
This is why all of the other students having sex, drinking, doing drugs are probably still at the school. Most (if not all) when confronted, would admit their guilt, even attempt to reform to the schools standards.
Bible says we are to forgive seventy times seven. When it comes to confronting sins, Matthew 18:17 states what we are to do if someone will not listen to a group of friends or the church,
“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
If he won’t listen to the truth, treat him as if he doesn’t know the truth of Jesus Christ.
April 17, 2006, at 4:14 pm
To Roland and all the others that continue to cling to the single verse where Jesus says “he without sin, cast the first stone”, pleaseeeee read the entire text in the Bible! Jesus then turns to the woman caught in a sexual sin, releases her, and says “go, and SIN NO MORE”. The compassionate, loving and forgiving Christ calls for people to turn from their sins, not remain in them. “Repent and believe the gospel” was his message, as recorded in the Bible you quote. You may want to say sin[as defined by the Bible] is no big deal, but don’t expect followers of Christ to accept that. Every believer fails and stuggles to various degree with their own sins, but they and their institutions can never give up the effort to put them away. That is the command of Christ to all who follow Him. This University is not being “unchristian”, but obediant to the call of Christ.
April 18, 2006, at 1:20 pm
To the previous poster - I have no clue what you are babbling about. My point was that, although we don’t know all the details, it seems bizarre to me that when a case like this pops up, all many of my fellow ‘Christians’ seem to care about is legal gobbledygook. “What did the contract say?” Is that what your Jesus would say? “You violated the contract, so you are expelled, you sinner!” What kind of Jesus is this? The Jesus recorded in the Gospels forgave sinners even when they didn’t “repent” and ask for forgiveness, regardless of what the contract said. It is this sort of ‘legalism’ Christianity look so phony.
April 18, 2006, at 7:49 pm
Dear Roland,
I did not take Arnold’s comment as either babbling or denying the reality of God’s eagerness to forgive.
Arnold cited an example in which Jesus urged the woman caught in adultery to repent. Would you cite an example from the Gospels in which Jesus extends forgiveness to an unrepentant person?
It seems to me the Jesus who confronted the Pharisees and Sadducees was rather keen indeed on repentance, whether the sin was sexual or hubristic in nature.
Finally, I think it is safe to say my colleague Terry was making a journalistic point, not a theological one, in saying that the college’s conduct code is a crucial element in this story.
April 19, 2006, at 11:20 am
“Arnold cited an example in which Jesus urged the woman caught in adultery to repent. Would you cite an example from the Gospels in which Jesus extends forgiveness to an unrepentant person?”
According to the Gospel account, the thief on the cross did not ‘repent’ - yet Jesus promised him that he would be with Jesus in paradise that day. The notorious woman who wept and spilled perfume on Jesus’ feet did not ‘repent’ yet Jesus said that because she loved much, her many sins would be forgiven. Nothing wrong with repentance, it’s good and maybe even very desirable, but God is willing to forgive our sins even when we don’t see them. Maybe it’s because of what God sees in the person’s heart, or simply because God chooses to extend grace.
If you want to only be forgiven for the sins of which you actually repent, have it your way - I hope that you will remember this when you meet God and all the sins you committed in your life that you didn’t even think about, and never repented of, are laid out before you. Then you can say, “well, Lord, I shouldn’t be given your mercy because I never repented - I should be expelled just like those gay students!”
This isn’t to say that there are never circumstances in which a school might have no choice but to turn away a student. It’s an observation that every time an incident like this occurs the reaction of most Christians is to immediately turn to rules, and contracts, and legalisms, and voting the sinner off the island.
April 19, 2006, at 12:31 pm
Thanks for your response, Roland. The words of the thief on the cross, as recorded in Luke 23 — “We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong” — suggest repentance, as do the tears of the woman washing Jesus’ feet.
To claim these folks did not repent because they are not recorded as speaking explicit words of repentance is, I think, a form of literalism that even most people usually accused of literalism (i.e., conservative Southern Baptists or other “fundamentalists”) would decline to indulge.
I’m not suggesting that God only forgives those sins we remember (or otherwise acknowledge) and repent of. I am saying that repentance is crucial in the life of any Christian.
I’m suggesting, further, that it’s strange to expect a Christian institution to ignore behavior it understands as unrepented sin.
People of good will can disagree about whether the institution’s understanding is correct, but it is the institution’s prerogative to set standards of behavior and to hold students accountable to those standards. It’s a principle known as in loco parentis, and it’s practiced, in varying degrees, even at secular universities.
I’ve known Terry Mattingly for 15 years now, and — despite your heartfelt beliefs to the contrary — he is not a legalist. He is a religion reporter, pointing out a journalistic issue on a weblog devoted to discussing the journalistic issues in religion coverage. I would be very thankful if this discussion could return to that topic.
April 21, 2006, at 10:33 am
This issue can be argued on assorted grounds, with assorted results. But for me, personally, it comes down to a matter of human interpretation versus the Mind of God. As humans, we cannot know the Mind of God. We have the Bible, which most Christians, regardless of their “flavor” take as authoritative. Some take it as a set of guidelines, and some as literal. Some as open ended and evolving, and some as final and complete.
What can’t be disputed is that although the Bible might be any of the things above, PEOPLE and SOCIETY indeed ARE constantly evolving and changing. That, I think, is what causes the questions as to the nature of the what exactly, are God’s rules.
Even within the text of the Bible, this is explored. Jesus took the religious leaders of his time to task for their literal (and harsh) interpretation of the law. He promoted forebearance and forgiveness. One poster above said something about treating a sinner as you would a tax collector — which shall I read to mean that as Jesus did, I should invite him to dinner? Or make certain I get a running start on my smack-down?
Among the thousands and thousands of words in the Bible, only a few are specifically attributed to Jesus himself. The most direct and pointed instructions he gave were those about protecting and defending. Honestly, I can’t remember a quote where Jesus encouraged other people to condemn, censure, monitor, punish, or shame another person. Is there one?
Why (on earth) do we need to wrestle control from God on this issue? Or any other sin, for that matter?
Are we that afraid that God might have mercy on someone we don’t think deserves it?
Isn’t there enough God to go around? Are we like children who are afraid that the Almighty Parent might love one of us more than the other? Something about a prodigal son and his jealous brother comes to mind…
April 23, 2006, at 12:05 pm
Freedom of association does not justify discriminati on the basis of innate characteristics.
Religion is chosen; sexual orientation is not.
Universities that discriminate on the basis of identity rather than conduct should be banned from state funding and lose accreditation.
April 23, 2006, at 12:11 pm
Sheldon Steinbach should know that the state is a part of every contract. Some contracts are simply void because they violate the law. No university can exclude anyone on the basis of religion. For the State to uphold the exclusion of a student based on sexual orientation by a religious university would be a violation of equal protection under the law.
April 23, 2006, at 12:22 pm
Anon-in-Louisville,
There is, in fact, too much God going around. Evangelical Christians and radical Muslims are hell bent on destroying the world because both religions want to bring on an apocalypse now. They want to do this to brown nose God, whom they think hates the same people that they do and will appreciate their good faith efforts in murdering the people on God’s shit list.
Right now the First Rapture Monkey is thinking about starting a nuclear war with 1.5 billion people. And the rat-brained fundamentalists and goose-stepping Evangelicals put him in office TWICE!
The Evangelicals have made the Apocalypse a self-fulfilling prophecy, and you’re still talking about “God”?
April 23, 2006, at 12:35 pm
rfr:
You have a problem with the US Constitution.
It protects religion at the highest level, even though it is a choice. It is the only such protection for conditions that are not in DNA, age or handicap.
Meanwhile, the ever-changing nature of sexual identity is something that the US Supreme Court has NOT ruled on. The court has not even begun to debate bisexuality and the law.
April 23, 2006, at 12:38 pm
Oh, and non-profit religious schools — left and right — have the same right to freedom of association as any other non-profit. The religious right folks in the Clinton White House stressed this just a few years ago.
Religious groups can have more freedoms than other non-profits, but never less. Ask the court.
June 28, 2006, at 10:32 am
Turns out that Cumberland College changed all the student’s grades to “F” when they expelled him.
Cumberland’s accreditation is toast for falsifying a transcript. SOP would be to give the student a W.
So much for Christian integrity. Should be fun watching TMATT whore himself to justify this one.
June 28, 2006, at 10:39 am
Actually, I think that is horrible and there is a good chance that the school should get wacked.
The only justification I can see for that action is if the withdrawal took place at a late point in the semester where — due to legal, academic rules on the books — they had no other option.
I still would have requested the professors involved to give a W or an I, so that the student could complete the work of transfer without penalty.
If the student had already RECEIVED end of the semester grades and the school changed them, call out the lawyers — again.