H. Wayne House, "Anti-Christian Bias in Higher Education: Problems and Solutions" (1990)

http://www.hwhouse.com/Current%20Articles%20Downloads/Law/Anti-Christian%20Bias%20in%20Higher%20Education.htm --- Abstract: This article is a paper given at the American Family Association Conference in Atlanta, Georgia in the spring of 1990. It concerns the hostility expressed in various segments of higher education in America against Christians and Christian perspectives.

ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIAS IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

> Introduction American Higher Education began with reverence for the Bible as the very Word of God, and with a concern for lost souls. The first advanced educational institution in the Colonies, Harvard College, adopted in 1646 this chartered purpose: "Every one shall consider the main end of his life and studies to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life."' Sadly, today its a different story. American Higher Education is generally hostile to religion and to the Christian faith in particular.

The Williamsburg Charter Survey on Religion and Public Life, published in 1988, found that "(n)early one out of three academics (34%) said that Evangelicals are `a threat to democracy.'"2 An academic, as defined in the survey, covers "university faculty members of Ph.D.-granting departments of political science, sociology, history, and English."3 Alarm bells should be going off in our heads when we hear that over 30% of those in academia see evangelical religion as dangerous!

This hostility is increasingly manifesting itself in open discrimination and appears to be part of a larger trend. According to the 1983 United States Commission on Civil Rights report on Religious Discrimination, there is more religious discrimination going on than most of us realize.4 This report defines religious discrimination as a denial of "the rights and freedoms of persons of different creed" motivated by bigotry, i.e., "a rigid intolerance of differences." The report goes on to say that religious discrimination frequently employs tactics ".. to destroy `enemies' who are perceived as enemies only because they are `different.' These tactics include a variety of efforts to intimidate, frighten, injure, ridicule, and on occasion, kill those who hold different religious beliefs. . ." than those of the bigot.5

I have a three-fold goal this afternoon. First, I want to discuss with you fundamental changes that have occurred in the concepts of religious freedom and pluralism that underlie this recent upsurge in discrimination. Second, I want to summarize some recent cases of such discrimination. And third, I want to propose some solutions that we must consider if we are to preserve freedom for Christians on the campuses of America.

The Misunderstanding of Religious Freedom and Pluralism

First, consider with me the fundamental changes in the concepts of religious liberty and pluralism that befuddle otherwise intelligent Americans today.

The framers of the Bill of Rights intended to provide guarantees of certain inalienable rights, including the right to the free exercise of one's religious belief. Since at the time many states had state churches and rivalry existed among denominations as to which would be the official church of the United States, the framers wisely wrote into the law in the same sentence a prohibition of an established government religion. Thus, the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The original intent was that while government should not grant any special privileges to any one denomination, it should generally help Christianity. This is clearly expressed in the historical documents. For example, Justice Joseph Story, who served on the Supreme Court from 1811 to 1845, wrote:

Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the first amendment to it ... the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation. ... The real object of the amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.6

This concept of religious freedom has been turned on its head. In a series of court decisions, the Supreme Court has taken Jefferson's phrase "The Wall of Separation" and misapplied it to the First Amendment. The result has been an interpretation of religious freedom which entails an impassable gulf between church and state. Instead of providing freedom f t the Christian religion, the First Amendment now is understood to provide freedom from the Christian religion. Thus many intelligent people today believe the First Amendment mandates the separation of the state from God and of Christians from politics. The Williamsburg Charter Survey found that the majority of leaders in business (76 percent), government (78 percent), universities (87 percent), the media (64 percent), the Protestant ministry (62 percent) and the rabbinate (78 percent) believe that "the government should not provide any support to any religions."? The framers of the Bill of Rights would be shocked if they could see how the very law which they wrote to guarantee the free exercise of religion has been twisted and used to deny the free exercise of the very religion many of them held so dear, namely, Christianity.

Not only has there been a change in the concept of religious freedom, but of pluralism as well. James Madison, in the Federalist Papers, no. 10, gave classic expression to the original understanding of pluralism in America. He said the division of society into "factions" is inevitable, especially so as the society develops. He argued that since we cannot avoid having factions, a large number of them is desirable, because they will serve as checks and balances against one another. This, in effect, will prevent any particular party from becoming dominant.

But underlying this pluralism, there was for Madison a consensus juris, an
> agreement about justice and right, sufficient to keep pluralism from tearing the nation apart. This means that there are such things as valid rights that people
> have. It also means that some "projects" are things, as or wicked." The bulk of the American people, he believed, would be able to rationally discern these
> norms of justice.8

Today, this consensus juris has been lost. Rather than resting on a foundation
> of natural right and justice, pluralism has come to mean the equality of all preferences. For example, Professor Robert A Dahl, in his influential book A
> Preface to Democratic Theory, postulates that the goals of every adult citizen of a republic are to be accorded equal value regardless of their absurdity.9 He
> argues this, not because these goals have any value at all which reason could discern, but because, in the absence of any rational standard for comparing
> them, we stipulate that all adult values are equal. 10 This is now the dominant view in articulate public opinion.

Since Dahl's view of pluralism is committed to the premise that there are no
> universal principles or moral values, the great danger in society is viewed not to be tyranny but the imposition of anyone's or any group's values on anyone
> else. Everything must be decided by vote. Thus Christians and the Christian message are seen as a threat, as an attempt to impose our morality on society.
> Pluralism has become a word that defines a new orthodoxy: a rejection of absolute values and oppression against any intolerant to this new orthodoxy.
> Moreover, pluralism is not a conglomerate of groups with different opinions but the requirement that all groups hold to the same opinion of no values and no
> dogmas.

Examples

This misunderstanding of religious freedom and pluralism, among other causes,
> has led to many examples of discrimination against Christians in higher education. Many of these examples are against creationists. Most involve
> individuals and private institutions; some involve discrimination on the part of the government. Discrimination usually falls into the following categories:
> 1. Derogatory and Clearly Inappropriate Comments. 2. Denial of Free Speech.
> 3. Refusal of Admittance to Graduate Programs. 4. Refusal toy Award Degrees.
> 5. Denial of Promotion. 6. Firings, Terminations, and Denial of Tenure.
> 7. Denial of Accreditation to Christian schools. 8. Government interference with Christian schools.
>   Derogatory Comments
> 
> Examples of derogatory comments include minor things such as the placing of obscene cartoons on the worker's desk, or using the term "fundamentalist" in a
> derogatory manner, or making comments such as, "You creationists are Stone Age Neanderthals, and if I had my way I would fire every one of you."11 Stephen J.
> Gould, for example, a well-known paleontologist at Harvard, in an obvious attempt to ridicule Christians he knows are in his class, will at times
> mockingly read letters evidently from uneducated but committed "creationists" who would condemn him to a fiery hell. 12

Denial of Free Speech

In addition to derogatory and inappropriate comments, there are an increasing
> number of denials of free speech. For example, Josh McDowell, the popular evangelist and Christian apologist, was scheduled to speak at Tennessee Tech.
> The school barred him from the campus because his message was religious.13 According to Marty Angell, a student, even Baylor University, a school
> associated with the Baptist General Convention of Texas, refuses to allow pro-life and conservative evangelical speakers on campus. According to Angell,
> Dr. Wimpee, the school chaplain, told him, "... it would be futile to try to bring a pro-life speaker (on campus) because he would not allow it ... (and) he
> has never allowed a Dallas Seminary professor to speak in Chapel-Forum and `would use every bit of veto power' he had to prevent such an event from
> occurring."14 This same chaplain has previously allowed Jeanne Dixon to address Baylor Chapel in the 1970's!

At the T. M. Cooley School of Law in Lansing, Michigan, an activist pro-abortion
> group of students was almost successful in prohibiting several fellow law students from receiving approval for a law, school chapter of The Rutherford
> Institute, apparently because of its pro-life stance. Unlike any other student group, these students were required to appear before the student senate to make
> their case. If the Rutherford Institute was recognized, one student predicted there would be "fighting in the halls." In spite of this the chapter was
> recognized 13 to 11. Don McBeth, student chapter president, commented, "It's ironic to see liberals, who are supposedly tolerant, get upset when their views
> are challenged." To their credit, the school president and several professors were dismayed at the intolerance of the pro-abortionists.5

Recently, the Faculty Senate at the University of Tennessee voted to restrict
> religious events after a student protested an exhibition game between Spirit Express-- a Christian basketball team--and the UT varsity squad. During half
> time, Spirit Express players gave an evangelistic presentation that included a prayer.

A week after the student's objections appeared in the school newspaper, Senate
> president Frederick Venditti wrote to the athletic director, cautioning him of "the need for careful separation of church and state. A religious event--whether
> Christian or not--should not be represented as either an academic or an athletic event." Soon afterward, Spirit Express was told that it was no longer welcome at
> UT.16
Thankfully, Cory Bennet, who directs Christian Leadership Ministries,
> prayerfully decided to seek legal assistance. He contacted Rutherford Institute attorney Larry Crain, who followed up with a lengthy memorandum to the Faculty
> Senate. In the paper, Crain argued that the restrictions violated both the constitutional and civil rights of religious students. The Faculty Senate
> reversed their policy and Spirit Express is once again welcome at UT. In 1986, at the University of Oregon, several pro-life students attempted to
> display in the campus student union two posters showing the effects of abortion. One showed two babies, one born alive and one aborted at the same age. The
> school banned the posters contending they were "offensive" or not "in good taste" -- despite the fact that student displays on such topics as Vietnam and
> the Nazi Holocaust remained undisturbed in the Union, despite their "graphic portrayal of human carnage."17

The American Library Association, in their Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom,
> gave the following report: "Last April 9, when the Collegians for Christ invited the famous creationist Duane T. Gish to lecture on campus, he was mercilessly
> heckled by students and faculty alike, with members of the science departments in the lead. At one point, Anthropology Professor Tim White strode onto the
> stage and thrust a human skull at Gish, declaring `That's your ancestor! "18 In 1972 the University of Missouri adopted a regulation prohibiting the use of
> university buildings or grounds "for purposes of religious worship or religious teaching."19 Since the school encouraged the activities of other student
> organizations, officially recognizing over 100 student  groups, and routinely provided university facilities for their meetings, this regulation was clearly
> discriminatory.
How did they justify this rule? They argued in court this regulation was
> necessary to maintain the separation of church and state. Amazingly, the Trial Court ruled in favor of the University. It took the Court of Appeals and the
> Supreme Court to finally apply a correct understanding of religious freedom to this case.

Russ Pulliam, in an editorial in the Indianapolis News on Saturday, December 19,
> 1981, reviewed three stories involving free speech and the practice of religious liberty. The first took place at DePaul University, where the campus newspaper
> insisted on running a story about a student who had been raped. The school at first tried to confiscate the paper, but after considering the editors' right of
> free speech, rescinded their order. The second occurred at Louisiana State University where officials censored an advertisement for contraceptives. The
> student editors were outraged.
The last story came from Arizona State University where Christians were
> publishing their views about the bankruptcy of relativistic ethics and their dominance in the assumptions of many academic fields. There, a sociology
> professor said she was planning to contact the ACLU for a possible lawsuit against the student newspaper. Why? For violating church-state separation by
> publishing religious views in a state university newspaper! Pulliam comments: That's the irony. Rape stories are all right--freedom of the press. But a
> Christian world view violates the Constitution.
What is needed, beginning with the U.S. Supreme Court, is a new interpretation
> of the church-state clause, more consistent with what the Founding Fathers had in mind.20

I can only say amen!
>   Refusal of Admittance to Graduate Program,
> 
> In addition to denying free speech, there are instances where students have actually been refused admittance to graduate programs. Tom Jungmann, for
> example, was denied admission for a Ph.D. in biology in spite of his excellent work at the Master's level. He was at a loss to explain this denial until his
> admission file inadvertently fell into his hands. In his file he found a letter of recommendation written by Dr. Gregor Cailliet, stating that his belief in
> creation would be a "major barrier" to his earning a Ph.D21
Refusal to Reward Degree

Students have also been denied degrees. Dr. Erville Clark was denied his Ph.D.
> in biology at Stanford University despite an excellent record and above-average qualifications. He was forced to complete his doctorate at Oregon State
> University. The department chair there, in evaluating Clark's admission papers, contacted Stanford and learned that Mr. Clark was denied the Ph.D. because he
> was a creationist.22
Another blatant example of discrimination is the case of Clifford Burdick.
> Contrast magazine, reporting on this episode said: "He had already been placed on the list to receive his Ph.D. in geology from the University of Arizona when
> he participated in a pollen study of the Grand Canyon. When he discovered six different kinds of pine pollen in the "wrong" strata, according to the
> assumptions of uniformitarian geology, the university refused to publish the results of his research. As a result he published it in the Creation Research
> Society Quarterly magazine. The review board then denied him his Ph.D.; one professor gave as the reason: a person who believed in creation was not entitled
> to a Ph.D. in geology."23
In 1983, at Iowa State University, a student was actually dismissed from class
> because hecomplained about the professor's dogmatic teaching of evolution (the university later reinstatedthe student). Professor John W. Patterson stated in response to this episode:

I suggest that every professor should reserve the right to fail any student in
> his class, no matter what the grade record indicates, whenever basic misunderstandings of a certain magnitude are discovered. Moreover, I would
> propose retracting grades and possibly even degrees if such gross misunderstanding are publicly espoused after passing the course or after being
> graduated.24

This is blatant and unmitigated bigotry!
>   Richard G. Culp summarizes the problem of creationists' earning doctoral degrees
> in this manner:

The Christian science student can almost expect intolerant opposition in his
> oral examination for the Ph.D. degree. This examination culminates a period of arduous study and research usually lasting seven or eight years, three or four
> of which are on the graduate level. His investment of time and money represents a sacrifice that is drawn out over years. His inquisitors can ask anything about
> his field, even about its historical development over the preceding century. It can be very subjective and the prejudices of the examiners can influence
> considerably their questions and evaluation of the answers .... The Christian must not only know the secular material as well as the other candidates, but
> also must be prepared to defend his conviction that God created the universe ...."Z

Denial of Tenure and Promotion
> 
> Professors have also been denied tenure and promotions. The November 25, 1979, issue of Christianity Today reports on the case of Jerry Bergman, who had taught
> at Bowling Green since 1973, and was denied tenure and eventually dismissed because of his Christian beliefs. Reading from the article:

To the chagrin of some of his former colleagues in the Department of Foundation
> and Inquiry (where he taught assessment and evaluation, and psychology). [sic] Bergman defended in print his view that creationism should be taught alongside
> evolution in public schools.

For tenure, Bergman needed support from two-thirds of the tenured faculty in his
> area of specialty. The school's faculty charter states that 'tenure must be granted or denied solely on the basis of teaching, research, and service.'
>   In college-conducted teacher evaluations, he consistently ranked at least in the
> eightieth percentile. He started a club that raised thousands of dollars for the university's library. His writings include a textbook published in 1981 by
> Houghton-Mifflin, and nearly 200 articles, more than the rest of his department combined.
>   [Wendell] Bird [his attorney] has numerous affidavits, including some signed by
> professors in Bergman's department, stating that Bergman's religion was the primary reason he was denied tenure. 'The evidence is compelling,' Bird says,
> 'that this is clearly a case of religious discrimination.'26 
> In view of the opening up of the Soviet Union and eastern bloc countries, a visit by a Soviet scientist to the Institute for Creation Research is
> instructive. Dr. Dmitry Kuznetsov, a well-renown biochemist and in 1983 a 29 year old winner of the coveted Lenin Komsomol Prize in science (the two
> brightest young scientists receive this award each year in the Soviet Union), came to the Institute because, due partially to the influence of Dr. Henry
> Morris, he "converted" from evolution to scientific creationism and from atheism to Christianity. This imminent scientist recently observed that during this time
> of glasnost "it seems that scientists have more academic freedom these days in Moscow they they do in California," referring to actions by the California
> Superintendent of Public Instruction to close ICR's graduate school.27 Denial of Accreditation
>   In addition to discrimination against individuals, Christian colleges and
> universities have come in for their fair share of unfair treatment. For example, in 1981, the American Bar Association denied provisional accreditation to Oral
> Roberts University's law school, not because it failed to meet the required criteria, but because "its concern for religious commitment in student admission
> and faculty hiring violates ... Standard 211 of the ABA's Standards for Approval of Law Schools."28

On June 8, 1981, Oral Roberts University filed a complaint in federal court
> seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The complaint alleged that "the ABA has applied Standard 211 to penalize the practice of religion by preventing the
> law school from pursuing its religious mission of teaching law in an exclusively Christian environment, and that as applied, Standard 211 offends the first and
> fourteenth amendments to the Constitution."
On July 17, 1981, the United States District Court enjoined the "America Bar
> Association ... from denying provisional accreditation to ORU's Law School in whole or in part on the basis of ABA Standard 211's prohibition against
> religious restrictions."29
At its August meeting, the ABA's House of Delegates changed Standard 211 to
> allow a religiously affiliated law school to adopt admission policies that "directly relate to such affiliation." They added the following language to the
> existing Standard 211:
Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent s law school from having a
> religious affiliation and purpose and adopting policies of admission and employment that directly relate to such affiliation and purpose so long as
> notice of such policies has been provided to applicants, students, faculty and employees.
>   The House then voted to grant provisional approval to Oral Roberts University's
> law school.30 
> Oral Roberts has not been the only Christian school to experience discrimination in the area of accreditation. Liberty Baptist College (now Liberty University)
> tried to achieve certification so that their graduates would be able to teach in the public schools. The debate caused months of controversy --the longest in
> the history of the State Board of Education. To reach agreement so that certification could be granted, Liberty Baptist College was to remove from its
> curriculum and catalog educational objectives numbers 4 and 5, which are: "To give the student greater appreciation of the omnipotence and omniscience of God
> through a study of His creation," and "To show the scientific basis for Biblical creationism." In addition, Biology-300, a course entitled, "The History of Life"
> which taught the creation model of origins, was to be eliminated.31 This is open and blatant censorship.

A current case of open censorship involves the Institute for Creation Research
> in El Cajon, California. ICR is a graduate school of science that refuses to teach evolution as a fact but as an unproved theory. Bill Honig, California's
> Superintendent of Public Instruction, has been threatening to deny the Graduate School its license to operate unless either the creationist content is removed
> from courses or the degrees issued are labeled as theological rather than scientific. Honig has maintained that science can only be taught in a framework
> of evolution, even in private Christian institutions. The Institute has rejected any such compromise.32

The ICR Graduate School has been offering masters' degrees in four areas
> (biology, geology, astro-geophysics, and science education) since 1981. In previous years, it had received unanimous recommendation from two state review
> committees. However, from 1985 to 1988, various anti-creationist groups launched a national campaign against ICR. Anti-creationist scientists from all over the
> country began flooding the California Department of Education with letters and articles encouraging opposition to ICR. One representative described ICR's file
> as "a two-foot-thick stack of outrage."
In the midst of this outrage, in August, 1988, a team of scientists arrived to
> evaluate ICR for reapproval. One of this team of five was a well-known opponent of ICR, who had written the State asking to be on the evaluation team. In spite
> of his strong objections, and in spite of the "two-foot thick stack of outrage," the team voted 3-2 in favor of re-approval!

Then Bill Honig, in an unprecedented move, re-convened the evaluation team.
> Finally, in December, using creationism as his sole argument, he convinced one member to change his vote. The result was a 3-2 vole against re-approval. The
> State next insisted that all creation teaching be taken out of the science courses if ICR wanted to continue offering masters of science degrees, and
> scheduled a "verification team" visit for August, 1989.
The verification team, which came in August, 1989, consisted of five members,
> four of whom were famous evolutionists from large state universities, who had expressed in print and in public lectures a bias against creationism.33 ICR's
> protests over this "stacked deck" were of no avail.
Visiting teams such as this generally make recommendations for improvement, but
> this team verbally informed ICR that it would be denied "Approval" to operate. This decision was made in spite of the outstanding credentials of the faculty,
> who have doctorate degrees in science from such respected institutions as Harvard and Berkeley, ICR's high financial integrity, its administration, its
> facilities, and the excellent accomplishments of its graduates.
This team issued "the death penalty" with no recognition of any positive aspects
> of ICR's programs, and without allowing any opportunity to grow and improve. Clearly, a fair evaluation was not a goal of the committee. Instead, their aim
> seems to be to shut down ICR because of its religious beliefs.34
This decision raises an important constitutional issue. Does the State have the
> power to tell a private Christian school such as ICR (which has never accepted a penny of state or federal money) that they cannot teach as their consciences
> dictate? Does the State have the power to command Christian schools to teach science only as the state defines science? While continuing to negotiate, ICR
> has retained an attorney and is investigating the possibility of legal appeal to uphold their constitutional rights of religious freedom and free speech.35

Of central concern to the accreditation of Christian colleges and universities
> is the case for recognition by the U.S. Secretary of Education of a new accreditation agency serving the needs of conservative private Christian
> post-secondary, institutions. The name of this agency is "Transnational Association of Christian Schools," popularly identified as TRACS.

TRACS has been functioning in this capacity since 1979, and has been working
> closely with officials of the U.S. Department of Education in its development during this entire period. Essentially all Criteria for Recognition have been
> satisfactorily met, and the Accrediting Agency Evaluation Branch (AAEB) of the U.S. Department of Education has recommended it. However, TRACS has been injured
> by various postponements in recognition that are difficult to explain. TRACS has diligently followed all recommendations of AAEB since the first
> contacts were made in December 1979. AAEB representative have attended at least three TRACS Board meetings and at least one on-site accreditation evaluation
> visit. All reports have been very positive. However, their petition for recognition has been repeatedly postponed for one reason or another.
> In 1985, AAEB encouraged TRACS to form a consortium with other Christian associations involved in accreditation. This was done with much time, energy,
> and resources invested. However, in 1987, the Department of Education decided no longer to recognize agencies accrediting elementary and secondary schools, which
> left TRACS on its own again.
Finally, TRACS was evaluated by AAEB at the May 1988 meeting of the National
> Advisory Committee on Accreditation and Institutional Eligibility. They deferred action because TRACS had not yet activated the Accreditation Commission. TRACS
> was then placed on the agenda of the December 1988 meeting. By this time the Accreditation Commission had been acting, and an AAEB staff member, had attended
> one meeting, giving a positive report.
However, the Department of Education, in the meantime, had instituted a new set
> of "Criteria for Recognition," effective September 16, and TRACS was forced to quickly submit a new petition under the new regulations. Despite these time
> constraints, TRACS was shown to be in substantial compliance with all the new criteria, and the agency recommended recognition for at least a year to the
> Committee.
The Committee agreed that all criteria had been met, with one exception. That
> one exception was the question of whether or not TRACS was "needed." Although need is clearly not one of the Criteria for Recognition, of the 15 Committee
> members, a quorum of 9 was present and voting. These voted 5 to 4 against TRACS based on this one criterion, thus obviating a 10-year investment of much time,
> money, effort and concern into the establishment of a viable, high-quality accreditation "home" for a significant body of post-secondary schools that are
> not really compatible ideologically with any other recognized agency. The officials of AAEB seemed surprised and disappointed and encouraged TRACS to
> submit an appeal for reversal to Secretary Cavazos, requesting immediate approval of TRACS. This was done within the week. However, TRACS received no
> reply to this appeal until July 1989, at which time they received a denial, noting only those few items which the AAEB staff analysis had said were not
> fully met, and noting again the main reason was lack of need.
Secretary Cavazos invited TRACS to submit another petition, but this
> notification came too late for the June meeting of the National Advisory Committee and was even too late to prepare a complete petition for the December
> meeting, since the petition must be submitted to AAEB by September 1. Although need should be excluded as a criterion, there is a definite need for
> TRACS. No existing agency deals with post-secondary institutions which are committed to creationism and Biblical inerrancy. Not even the existing
> "religious" accrediting agencies (AABC, ATS) can fill this need. Neither one deals with liberal arts or vocational colleges, for example.

In order to view the treatment TRACS has received in perspective, it is
> instructive to compare it with that afforded to the Commission on Accreditation, Council on Naturopathic Medical Education, during the May 18-19, 1987 meeting of
> the National Advisory Committee. This agency did not demonstrate compliance with five criteria with an additional nine criteria listed as needing improvement.
> The committee voted to recommend to the Secretary of Education that he grant the agency initial recognition for a period of one year and that for renewal of
> recognition, they submit a report addressing the areas of noncompliance and minimal compliance. The vote was taken by a voice vote and the initial
> recognition was granted with no opposing votes.
This is clearly a case where an agency was given the benefit of the doubt. Why was not TRACS granted the same benefit of the doubt? When the Secretary of Education had three options (to grant TRACS one-year recognition, to defer providing TRACS with an opportunity to address the areas deemed weak, or to deny the petition), why did he choose to follow the option that was the most negative toward TRACS?

Government Interference with Christian Schools

Of special concern to us should be the increasing interference and regulation by
> the state of Christian schools. For example, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 redefines the scope and application of four federal anti-discrimination
> laws (regarding sex, age, race, color, religion, and handicap), and clarifies that they pertain to, among other entities, "all of the operations" of a
> college, university or other postsecondary institution, "any part of which" receives federal funding. This means, for example, that any private religious
> college would have to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws even if only one of its students received some type of federal aid, such as a student grant.
> How serious is this? According to David K Winter, "A 1982 study of 59 Christian College Coalition schools revealed that all of the colleges participated in some
> federal student financial aid program and that together they received over $96,900,000 in federal aid, which amounted to an average of $1,076 per
> participating student in each federal program. Many students participated in more than one program."36 Westmont College, for example, received about
> $2,750,500, or 20 percent of the total operating revenues, from state and federal government student aid in 1984-85

According to the Rutherford Institute, `The ramifications of this Act to
> religious groups are serious and pervasive .... The definition of a handicap continues to evolve - accelerated by the aggressive tactics of special interest
> groups. This evolution poses the real danger that activity regarded as immoral or otherwise anathema to the fundamental tenets of religious
> groups will be granted legal protection .... Religious organizations would therefore, under compulsion of law, be forced to accommodate the protected
> activities in derogation of their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion."38

Christian schools have to carefully weigh the consequences. Are they willing to
> receive direct or even indirect assistance from the federal and state governments under this threat? They may be forced to provide an answer sooner
> than they think.
Proposed Solutions

Education

As Christians what should be our response? The Scriptures tell us first of all
> to rejoice when we are persecuted for righteousness sake, and second, to pray for those who despitefully use us. Let us surely do so.

Is there anything else we can do? Yes! We can educate and re-educate ourselves
> and our fellow Americans concerning the meaning of the First Amendment. The Williamsburg Charter survey found that "only 33 percent of the general public
> surveyed even knew that the freedom of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment!"39 One of the blessings of living in America is that the fundamental
> law of the land -- the Constitution -- is on our side! The better we understand it, the safer we are.

There is available for churches an excellent series of 10 lectures on
> Christianity and the Constitution by John' Eidsmoe entitled "Institute On The Constitution." Dr. Eidsmoe is available to come in person or the lectures are
> available on video and cassette tape. These may be ordered through Plymouth Rock Foundation. They would make an excellent study for small groups in the church.40
> In addition, every Christian, and especially every pastor should read a good book on the original intention of the First Amendment. I recommend Robert Cord's
> book, Separation of Church and State: Historical Fact and Current Fiction (Baker Book House). This is a book that can be read and passed on. Several useful books
> for university ministries have been published by The Rutherford Institute: The Freedom of Religious Expression in the Public Universities and High Schools,
> Religious Liberty, and Religious Activity by College Coaches and Athletes on College and State University Campuses.

Develop a Public Policy

In addition to education, we need to develop a public policy that embraces
> freedom for all persons of whatever faith. Part of the reason evangelicals have been perceived as a threat to pluralistic democracy in the 1980's is that our
> involvement has at times centered on evangelical concerns. There is much we can learn from earlier evangelicals. William Wilberforce, for
> example, expressed a concern for public justice, not simply for special evangelical interests. In his plea for an end to the slave trade, he identified
> himself with the whole body politic in the effort to promote civic righteousness.

According to Dr. Carl Henry, "The theological basis for evangelical involvement
> in public justice is located in God's creation-ethic and his universal revelation including the imago Dei that, however sullied, nonetheless survives
> the Fall.... The basis for a public philosophy is therefore not located in sectarian religious tradition but in universal revelation and public reason,
> without disavowing the crucial importance of special revelation."41
Support Religious Liberty Organizations

We need to support organizations God has raised up to protect religious liberty.
> For example, "The Center For Law and Religious Freedom," associated with the Christian Legal Society, is a ministry which was founded to "protect, maintain
> and defend the rights of Christians to practice their faith freely without improper interference and regulation."

Another excellent organization is the Rutherford Institute, a legal and
> educational organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and family autonomy. The Rutherford Institute has
> affiliated chapters in many States.
There are other organizations as well, such as the Christian Law Center in
> Cleveland, Ohio, The Western Center for Law and Religious Freedom in Sacramento, California, the American Family Association, and Concerned Women for America.
> Churches should seriously consider putting one or more of these organizations on their monthly budget. It may be they will be needed in the near future!
> In like manner, Christian law schools that are committed to preparing Christian attorneys to defend our liberties, such as CBN (now Regent University) and the
> Simon Greenleaf School of Law in Anaheim, California, should be on our churches' monthly budgets. Simon Greenleaf is school that is non-denominational and is
> dedicated to the integration of law, apologetics and human rights. Now is the time to prepare for any legal liability preaching the gospel might entail in the
> decade of the nineties!
We may as well need to form a Christian Anti-Defamation League so that there is
> vigilant monitoring of anti-Christian bias in the public marketplace.
Legal Assistance

In addition, we need to prayerfully consider obtaining legal assistance when
> appropriate. St. Paul is our model here. Following his third missionary journey, he returned to Jerusalem against the advice of his friends, who thought the Jews
> would kill him because of his conversion to Christianity and his evangelism work. Sure enough, Paul was spotted at the temple and a riot broke out. The
> Romans rescued Paul from the mob and he quieted the throng with a stirring testimony of his Damascus Road experience. The mob listened for a while, but
> then the disturbance broke out all over again. Once more it was the Roman military that rescued him. But then the commander ordered him flogged. At this
> point, what did Paul do? He did not preach. He did not pray. He did not spiritualize. All he did was demand his rights as a citizen not to be flogged
> before having a fair trial! He said, "Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn't even been found guilty?" In a similar situation in Philippi,
> when he and Silas were thrown into jail without due process he called the city magistrates to account (Acts 16:16-40).

Like Paul, we too are citizens. We have certain rights that are protected by
> law. And there are times when we, like Paul, should demand these rights. Oral Roberts University filed a complaint on June 8, 1981 alleging that the ABA was
> violating the school's constitutional right of religious  freedom. On July 17, five weeks later, the federal district court enjoined the ABA from
> discriminating against them. In August, in response to this injunction, the ABA's House of Delegates changed their Standard to allow a religiously
> affiliated law school to adopt admission policies that "directly relate to affiliation," and then voted to grant provisional approval to the law school.42
> Because Oral Roberts was willing to obtain legal assistance, within three months, justice was done. (We can be thankful that we have a justice system in
> America that generally works!)
As a result of accreditation, graduates of the law school were able to take the
> bar exam and practice in all 50 states of the Union. In addition, other Christian law schools, such as Simon Greenleaf, in Anaheim, California, have an
> open window for similar accreditation.
Because Cory Bennet decided to contact Larry Crain regarding the Spirit Express,
> religious activities are still allowed today at the University of Tennessee.
Support the New Accreditation Agency

Essential to the fair and just treatment of Christian colleges and universities
> is the recognition by the U.S. Secretary of Education of an evangelical accrediting agency, such as TRACS. First, we can pray for TRACS. Second we can
> contact our representatives and senators concerning this need. Conclusion
>   As attorney Michael Patrick has said, `Time has nearly run out to prevent wholesale disaster in our country. Idle complacency or compromising friendliness with the world is the wide, easy -r path leading to destruction. Whatever your personal ministry, it will be tested. Start praying fervently. Then join with those who take action to preserve our constitutional freedoms for the religious remnant of future generations.

"Remember, those who fail to defend liberty by day are doomed to fight tyranny
> by night. It's the twilight hour, and the front line fighting is growing much more intense."43

Dr. H. Wayne House, formerly Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at
> Dallas Theological Seminary, is Vice-President of Academic Affairs and Professor of Theology at Western Baptist College in Salem, Oregon, as well as Visiting
> Professor of Law at Simon Greenleaf School of Law in Anaheim, California. Dr. House has doctorates in theology and law and is widely known for his books,
> articles, and talks on theology, law, and ethics. 
> He wishes to express appreciation to Dennis Rasmussen, student at Simon Greenleaf, for his assistance in the preparation of this essay.
>   1Charles Malik, The Two Tasks (Westchester, Ill.: Cornerstone Books, 1980), p.
> 7. 2The Williamsburg Charter Survey on Religion and Public Life (Washington, D. D.:
> The Williamsburg Charter Foundation, 1988), p. 7; quoted in John Whitehead, "The New Intolerance," Rutherford Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Spring, 1988), p. 1.

3lbid., p. 30; quoted also on page 1 of the Rutherford Journal.

4United States Commission on Civil Rights, Intimidation and Violence: Racial and
> Religious Bigotry in America (Clearinghouse Publication 77, January, 1983), pp. 4-8.

Slid., p. 3.

6Joseph Story, Familiar Exposition of the Constitution (New York Harper, 1862),
> p. 261; see § 444. Emphasis mine. 
7Williamsburg Charter, p. 17.

8Francis Canavan, S. J., "Pluralism and the Limits of Neutrality," " in Whose
> Values? The Battle for Morality in Pluralistic America, ed. Carl Horn (Ann Harbor: Servant Books, 1985), pp. 163-64.

9lbid., p. 154.

10Ibid., p. 155.

11Bergman, The Criterion (Richfield, MN.: Onesimus Pub., 1984), p, xi.

12Ibid., pp. 20-21.

13Herbert Schlossberg and Marvin Olasky, Turning Point: A Christian World View
> Declaration (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1987), p. 47.
14Marty Angell, letter to author, 30 June 1989.

15Action (March, 1990), p. 4.

16Chapter Update, The Rutherford Institute Magazine, n.d., p. 14.

17"Oregon State Gags Free Speech of Pro-Life Students," The Rutherford Institute
> Magazine, AprilMay 1986, pp. 6-7.

18American Library Association, Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom (May
> 1983):96.
19Robert T. Miller and Ronald B. Flowers, Toward Benevolent Neutrality: Church,
> State, and the Supreme Court, (Waco, TX: Markham Press Fund, 1982), p. 606.
20 Indianapolis News, 19 December 1981, editorial; quoted in Franky Schaeffer, A
> Time for Anger (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books,1982), pp. 60-61.
21Bergman, p. 22.

22 bid., p. 18.

23 Luther D. Sunderland, "First Amendment Free Exercise Guarantees Are A Joke,"
> Contrast. Vol. 2, No. 5, Sept.Oct. 1983, pp. 1-4, quote in Bergman, p. 62.
24Kendrick Frazier, "Competency and Controversy: Issues and Ethics on the
> UniversityPseudoscience Battlefield," The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1983 (Vol.
> 8), pp. 2-5, quoted in John Eidsmoe, God & Caesar (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1984), p. 165.

25Richard G. Culp, Remember Thy Creator (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975),
> p.142
26"A Professor Is Fired for His Creationist Views He Believes," Christianity
> Today, 25 Nov. 1983, p. 35. 27A news release from the Institute for Creation Research, January 18,1990.

28Religious Freedom Reporter, 1, No. 6 (June 1981), pp. 132-34.

29Religious Freedom Reporter, 1, No. 7 (July 1981), pp. 163.

30Religious Freedom Reporter, 1, No. 8 (August 1981), pp. 193-94.

31Bergman, p. 39.

32Institute for Creation Research, News Release, 17 January, 1990.

33Ibid.; also see ICR's publication, "Religious Freedom Being Denied at ICR,"
> September, 1989. 34Ibid.; also see ICR's publication, "Religious Freedom Being Denied at ICR," September, 1989.

34Ibid.; also see ICR's publication, "Religious Freedom Being Denied at ICR,"
> September, 1989.
35Ibid.; also see ICR's publication, "Religious Freedom Being Denied at ICR,"
> September, 1989. Wendell Bird has been retained by ICR.
36David K. Winter, "Rendering unto Caesar. The Dilemma of College-Government
> Relations," Making Higher Education Christian, n.d., p. 255.
37Ibid.

38"Act Signals Increased Federal Regulation of Religious Groups," Rutherford
> Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Spring, 1988), pp. 2-3.
39The Williamsburg Charter, p. 17.
> `John Eidsmoe may be contacted through Plymouth Rock Foundation, Fisk Mill, P. O. Box 577, Marlborough, NH 03455 (603) 876-4685 or directly at 8769 S. 129 E.
> Avenue, Broken Arrow, OK 74012, (918) 254-1787.
41Henry, p. 27-28.

42See discussion on Oral Roberts University's Law School and endnotes (supra).

43Michael Patrick, 'The Twilight Hour," Rutherford Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Spring, 1988), p. 6.

Document Actions

Send this

Print this

Sections

Personal tools

H. Wayne House, "Anti-Christian Bias in Higher Education: Problems and Solutions" (1990)

Document Actions