# Should Liberty University Lose its Federal Loans/Accreditation for its position on Dems? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 29, 2009, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079 "2009-05-29T20:06:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079/41 "2009-05-30T04:26:53Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Probably need to substitute FIRE for ACLU, but the answer is the same. OK, I didn’t read your earlier post closely enough. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079/42 "2009-05-30T04:29:19Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > You make it seem like the school administration came to this happy agreement all on their own. Hmm, I would have thought that my use of the phrase “the College Republicans’ lawsuit against SFSU’s speech codes, which AFAICT was settled in 2008” would have clearly indicated the fact that a lawsuit was involved. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079/43 "2009-05-30T04:31:09Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > The latest dustup seems to stem from this - the school has blocked reservations of outdoor spaces for rallies until policies are revised. The CRs are saying this is an additional First Amendment violation, and are threatening to sue. So, SFSU has, in fact, banned the College Republican organization? I appreciate your informing me, by the way; I hadn’t heard of this and I’m skeptical as to whether the CR group did anything wrong. Nevertheless, I see nothing that makes a comparison to Liberty’s action a valid comparison. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079/44 "2009-05-30T04:33:42Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Do they have it? If they do, this would be a much more appropriate threat. [Yes](http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/05/liberty-university-as-.html). And a watchdog group is apparently [filling an official complaint](http://philanthropy.com/news/updates/index.php?id=8405) with the IRS to have that status reviewed. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079/45 "2009-05-30T04:35:14Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > So, SFSU has, in fact, banned the College Republican organization? > > I appreciate your informing me, by the way; I hadn’t heard of this and I’m skeptical as to whether the CR group did anything wrong. Nevertheless, I see nothing that makes a comparison to Liberty’s action a valid comparison. Certainly they can be compared. Wrong is wrong - and if it is wrong to even contemplate disciplining students for exercising free speech it is wrong to actually do it. Not to mention the fact that the school has effectively suspended outdoor rallies for all students - which pretty clearly flies in the face of the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079/46 "2009-05-30T04:46:59Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Certainly they can be compared. Wrong is wrong - and if it is wrong to even contemplate disciplining students for exercising free speech it is wrong to actually do it. Not to mention the fact that the school has effectively suspended outdoor rallies for all students - which pretty clearly flies in the face of the First Amendment. Err…I never thought Free Speech extended to allowing you to stand on my property and spew whatever was on your mind. My property, I can tell you to shove off. Your free speech rights do not prevent me from doing that. It is University property. They are free to restrict its use and particularly since they are not playing favorites in that restriction…no one can have rallies. Seems about as even handed as you can get. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079/47 "2009-05-30T04:52:03Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Liberty University, AFAICT, doesn’t have a law school. Looks like they do: > [@](#): > > Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, said Liberty’s recent action “had nothing to do with the political nature of the club” and was “solely based upon the moral issues of abortion and marriage.” > > SOURCE: [http://sev.prnewswire.com/education/20090528/DC2419028052009-1.html](http://sev.prnewswire.com/education/20090528/DC2419028052009-1.html) ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079/48 "2009-05-30T05:01:59Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Err…I never thought Free Speech extended to allowing you to stand on my property and spew whatever was on your mind. My property, I can tell you to shove off. Your free speech rights do not prevent me from doing that. > > It is University property. They are free to restrict its use and particularly since they are not playing favorites in that restriction…no one can have rallies. Seems about as even handed as you can get. Uh, no. Public university, public space. [QUOTE=First Amendment] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; **or the right of the people peaceably to assemble** , and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [/QUOTE] By banning all rallies, there is a clear First Amendment issue. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079/49 "2009-05-30T05:12:04Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Uh, no. Public university, public space. Huh…well, there are lots of public spaces around where I live and if I want to hold a rally I need a permit which can be denied. > [@](#): > > By banning all rallies, there is a clear First Amendment issue. Three words: [Free Speech Zones](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones): _“The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079/50 "2009-05-30T05:18:53Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Three words: > > [Free Speech Zones](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones): > > _“The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.”_ The government may kindly fuck off. It is none of the government’s business when or where or how I tell it or any other entity to fuck off. “Free speech zones” are an abomination. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079/51 "2009-05-30T05:23:34Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Uh, no. Public university, public space. > > By banning all rallies, there is a clear First Amendment issue. Hmm… Maybe any group at all can tell the University to stuff their rules and just do their thing anyway: > [@](#): > > In September, 2004, U.S. District Court Judge Sam Cummings struck down Texas Tech’s free speech zone policy. “According to the opinion of the court, campus areas such as parks, sidewalks, streets and other areas are designated as public forums, regardless of whether the university has chosen to officially designate the areas as such. The university may open more of the campus as public forums for its students, but it cannot designate fewer areas… Not all places within the boundaries of the campus are public forums, according to Cummings’ opinion. The court declared the university’s policy unconstitutional to the extent that it regulates the content of student speech in areas of the campus that are public forums”. > > SOURCE: [Free speech zone - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones#On_college_and_university_campuses) Would be fun to see someone have a go at that. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079/52 "2009-05-30T05:24:40Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > The government may kindly fuck off. It is none of the government’s business when or where or how I tell it or any other entity to fuck off. “Free speech zones” are an abomination. I agree completely but it seems to be the way of things these days. “Abomination” is a good word for this. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079/53 "2009-05-30T10:20:50Z")
(Cold War era joke…) So this Russian guy and American guy were talkling, and the American asserted the advantage of Free Speech… “Why, I can stand in the center of Washington, D.C., and give a speech denouncing American policy!” “Is same in Russia! I can stand in the Kremlin and give a speech denouncing American policy!” ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079/54 "2009-05-30T17:10:51Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > _“The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.”_ Uh huh. What if the scope of such regulation is such that expression may take place at no time, in no place, and in no manner? I am not an zealot - I recognize that all rights are subject to reasonable regulation. The question here is whether this regulation is reasonable. I don’t think it is, and I don’t see a lot of support for it from other posters. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079/55 "2009-05-30T20:22:15Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Uh huh. What if the scope of such regulation is such that expression may take place at no time, in no place, and in no manner? > > I am not an zealot - I recognize that all rights are subject to reasonable regulation. The question here is whether this regulation is reasonable. I don’t think it is, and I don’t see a lot of support for it from other posters. I am pretty zealous about free speech. As I noted in post #51 it seems the courts have decided university parks and sidewalks and such are public forums and cannot be restricted but use of other facilities may be. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2009, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079/56 "2009-05-31T20:57:34Z")
It looks to me like the case at SFSU is an example of the civil legal system working the way it should. The university was acting in a way that was harming the conservative club, the conservative club sued the university over it, and the outcome of the court case was that the university stopped harming the conservative club. I don’t see any grave injustice here: The club was right to sue, and it was right that they won. Likewise, it would be perfectly fair and reasonable for Liberty U’s Democrat club to sue the school, and I hope they win, too. ---
**Author:** ![Nicolas\_Bourbaki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecc23a/32.png) [@Nicolas\_Bourbaki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nicolas_Bourbaki)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2009, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079/57 "2009-06-01T07:20:00Z")
About these ‘free speech zones’; how much of this is thought police cracking down on crimethink, and how much of it is a logistical thing (protests tying up foot traffic, bullhorns in areas adjacent to classrooms)? That question sounds loaded, so I’ll backtrack; obviously the examples linked to earlier were hella shady, and if the administration only enforced the rules when a certain viewpoint was being espoused, that would also be a clear reason to sue somebody’s ass. But it seems to me, building off what **Moto** said, that people can be free to speak without restrictions while their right to be a nuisance may be curtailed. Apropos of nothing, did anyone else giggle at the fact that Liberty’s seal is a book being burned? ‘Knowledge Aflame’ indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2009, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079/58 "2009-06-01T08:18:00Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Why? in reference to [QUOTE=Sampiro] An accredited university should not be allowed to discriminate against any nationally chartered and recognized organizations that do not advocate violence. [/QUOTE] Because it is the purpose of a _residential_ 4 year college to educate and expose students to a diversity of thoughts through formal education and through extracurricular activities and environment. This isn’t saying that the administration is approving all of the rhetoric and stances of every student group (it would be impossible since the Baptist Student Union and the Gay Lesbian Transgender Club are _never_ going to have consensus on certain issues) but that so long as the student groups act within reasonable and responsible clearly defined “don’t be a bunch of dicks” guidelines" they are allowed to be an official extracurricular presence on campus. Online education, which is fast gaining on conventional colleges in terms of revenue, works just as well according to most studies in the amount of information it imparts but most students who have the option greatly prefer the brick/mortar version precisely for the social exposure. College is also the time that millions of students first explore and experiment and are exposed to new ideas (or old ideas that are new to them) and learn to network with others of like mind and of diverse mind as, ideally, part of the preparation for their careers. For this reason I believe it is important to have the Baptist Student Union, Catholic Students Association, Young Democrats, College Republicans, GLBT groups, Black/Asian/other minority groups, etc., because the students are probably going to exist in a world with all of these people and it’s a good time to become familiar with them, to explore them if they are curious (though admittedly there’s no overabundance of curiosity among most conservatives- almost a defining trait in fact) or debate them if they are against them (hard to have a debate team when both sides are arguing against abortion) and have dialogue. If Liberty wants to be a private institution like Bob Jones and say “we permit no dissent from this political and religious agenda and all students must dress as bunny rabbits each Easter and eat only olives on odd numbered Tuesdays” I have no problem with it, but when they accept public monies in the form of government sponsored/guaranteed loans, tax exemption, infrastructure, etc., they should abide by certain non-discriminatory guidelines. I would never insist that they _form_ a Democrat or GLBT organization, but if a nationally chartered college group is formed it should be allowed to operate without discouragement or discrimination from the administration. I would say exactly the same thing if an anti-abortion or pro-Iraq war or Baptist group wished to open a chapter at Brandeis or one of the other “most liberal” colleges. The fact that liberal colleges have discriminated against conservative groups is blatant hypocrisy, but _tu quoque_ does not a good argument make. (Not saying that you personally have made it, but it has been made in the thread.) ---
**Author:** ![Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d9b06d/32.png) [@Boozahol\_Squid\_P.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boozahol_Squid_P.I)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2009, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079/59 "2009-06-01T08:55:09Z")
Federal loans? Sure. Giving money to colleges via students should come with some pretty tight regulations. We don’t allow single-sex schools to take federal loans, I don’t see a reason why we should allow single-political viewpoint institutions to take them either. But accreditation is supposed to be a mark that the school has a certain level of academic standing. There are certain on-line programs and commuter schools that don’t offer any sort of social atmosphere for its students, but retain accreditation, because a social atmosphere doesn’t have anything to do with academic standards. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2009, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079/60 "2009-06-01T12:56:37Z")
Um, cite? My wife went to a women’s college, and I don’t recall that she had any problem getting subsidized student loans. Also, I’m wondering about this tu quoque thing. I’m not defending Liberty here, and have no desire to. Catholics tend not to dig the Falwell empire much. The fact is that this has been a problem for quite awhile now, and groups of various kinds have suffered. Not only have conservative clubs frequently been a target, but fraternities and sororities all over the country are facing massive crackdowns. There are numberless other cases spanning the ideological and non-ideological spectrum - the thing they have in common is the fact that crossing the school administration or a supercilious student government can leave a group or individual with few options save a lawsuit, which most will not pursue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-liberty-university-lose-its-federal-loans-accreditation-for-its-position-on-dems/498079.md?page=4)