FIRE Is Not In Favor Of Student Rights

FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, has either forgotten and strayed from its original mission, or it was lying about that original mission to begin with. This is the inescapable conclusion that can be drawn from the tortured defense of the scuttling of the College Democrats club from Liberty University, from the chief of FIRE, David French. The first conclusion to be drawn from French's defense of Liberty University is excusable but must be redressed. The second is inexcusable.

As a matter of quick background, the evangelical private university, Liberty University, which was founded by Jerry Falwell, decided that the College Democrats could no longer be a recognized campus organization, because of its affiliation with the Democratic Party, which supports abortion and equal marriage rights. These positions were held to be at variance with the official positions of the university. Now, to be perfectly honest, there is not much of a First Amendment issue here. Liberty is a private organization. The question becomes, not was this legal, but was it right?

Here is part of FIRE's mission statement, from their website: The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America's colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience—the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity.

Well, Yay! I Cannot disagree with anything there. Which makes defenses of Liberty by French, all the more: weird.

Let us try to follow it: In my experience, private colleges — especially religious private colleges — run into problems when they try to be all things to all people, when they promise freedom but impose speech codes, when they try to advance a religious mission but crave approval from an overwhelmingly (and aggressively) secular academic culture, and when they try to "broaden their appeal" while still telling donors that they have retained their "religious roots."

So, as this applies to the case at hand: Liberty is different. The school could not be more explicit about its mission; from its doctrinal statement to its purpose, to its "Distinctives," Liberty positions itself as not just religiously conservative but politically conservative as well (heck, one of its "Distinctives" is an "absolute repudiation of 'political correctness'").

So, I guess expecting it to encourage viewpoints different than its doctrinal statements would be like asking a a wifebeater, to stop beating his wife. After all, is it not a distinctive trait of wife beaters to beat their wives?

So here then is why FIRE, though it has taken other private universities to task for what it perceives to be threats to student liberties: When a private university, however, acts in a manner that is consistent with its stated mission and purpose, it is exercising its own civil liberties, not violating student rights.

Uhhhh….Yeah, except as noted above it is not the stated mission of FIRE to defend corporate rights, but Individual rights. The right of Liberty to do what it did is roughly equivalent to the right of French to bop me in the nose. It ends where my nose begins.

Here is what it comes down to: Censorship by conservatives-good. Censorship by liberals-bad.

I hate speech codes at college campuses as much as French does. However, once could argue that it would be against the mission of a secular university to recognize student religious organizations. Here is the difference between me and FIRE. I would never make an argument like that. FIRE has made such
an argument, and that is all the difference.