I just mailed in my Vanderbilt Alumni donor's card:

On October 6, 2011 I sent the following response to Vanderbilt:

Dear James,

I very much appreciate your punctual response to my concerns.  I have been mulling over it for the past week in order to be sure that I understand what you are saying and what the university is doing.  As I understand it, this is the position being taken:

1.  Vanderbilt is concerned that the academic and social environment of the campus is such that every student feels safe and welcome.  (Having been in academia myself for 20 years, I have to agree.  The first thing I want to establish in the classroom is a context where all students feel safe, and thus able to express their opinions freely, especially unpopular opinions.  I also let students know that in no way will their grades be negatively affected if they express and defend views which are contrary to those I, as the professor, hold.  Indeed, I will often play devil's advocate in the classroom and mount a defense of positions that I myself do not hold, just for the sake of forcing the students to think critically).

2.  In order to support this first point, the university has adopted a nondiscrimination policy.  This policy protects the views and lifestyle of all students, even though some students may disagree with the views and lifestyle of others.  (Again, I agree with this policy.  In the context of a diverse and multicultural constituency, the university has an obligation to see that all students are able to pursue their academic careers on an equal playing field.)

3. In order to guarantee that all students have access to extracurricular activities and organizations of interest to them, the university requires all such activities and organizations to adhere to the same nondiscrimination policy.  (I think the spirit and intent of this requirement is great, though the implementation may be problematic).

If I have misunderstood or misrepresented the policy of the university, please correct me, but this is what I understand your response to indicate.

It is with this third point that I am concerned.  Unfortunately, it seems to me that your response, rather than giving me reassurance, has only served to confirm my fears.  You see, the problem is that by requiring the nondiscrimination policy to be adopted by Christian and other organizations as it stands, the university is, in fact, creating a hostile and discriminatory environment against them.  Let me explain once again.

In order for any group to maintain its integrity, its raison d'être, it must of course have leaders who adhere to its goals, purposes and code of personal and organizational ethics.  To put it simply, a group's leaders have to believe in what the group believes in.  Otherwise the organization becomes something of a different nature.  Once this happens, then the original members, who affiliated with the group because of it being just that type of group (Christian, feminist, african-american, etc), have been essentially deprived of the right to belong to such a group.  That is, they are deprived of being able to belong to the campus group that is of interest to them because the group has been, in essence, banished from campus by being forced to become something quite different.

As I understand it, the forcing of religious groups to adhere verbatim to the nondiscriminatory policy denies them the right to define the boundaries of their group leadership in terms of their beliefs, morals and ethical principles.  Regardless of the university's intent, the result is a very clear message:  Christians who adhere to traditional, time-honored Christian morality are not welcome here.  Leave your Christian moral principles at the entranceways on West End and 21st Avenue before stepping on to campus.  I see nothing in your response to me that would indicate otherwise.

The only fair and rational solution to this is to make an exception that specifically allows Christian, and other groups as well, to limit their leadership to students who affirm their belief in and adherence to the philosophy and lifestyle that the group was created to promote. Anything less than this is pure anti-Christian discrimination, and as I said previously, it comes across as hostile anti-Christian bigotry.

We both know that behind this is the sensitive issue of Christian moral teaching as it relates to gay students. The question here, I think, is whether or not the university is going to show favoritism to one group over the other.  The current stance of the university seems to be doing so by discriminating against Christians in favor of the gay community.  However, so far as I know,  the campus Christian organizations in question have no agenda to shut down, interfere with or in any way impede the functioning of LGBT groups or students.  So why then, is it necessary to use coercion to deny the rights of Christian students to organize around their beliefs and vision of what comprises the good life?  For this is precisely what appears to be going on.

To summarize, in order to have a truly inclusive and welcoming campus environment, the university must recognize that there are certain instances where it is appropriate to limit the participation of some students in some aspects of campus groups.  Groups should have the right to limit the participation of students whose beliefs and lifestyle are at odds with those of the group itself.  This applies to all groups, but especially in the case of religious groups. Allowing students who are at odds to attend meetings, investigate, participate in discussions and socialize is one thing.  This would, no doubt, contribute to the overall health of any group and should be encouraged I think.  In contrast, forcing a group to allow such students to serve in leadership roles, especially where they could set the agenda and make policy decisions, is to basically undermine the purpose and existence of the group.  This is not inclusive.  It is profoundly exclusive as it denies the rights of students to organize around the beliefs and causes they care about.

I hope that the university will reconsider its position and modify its policies regarding nondiscrimination so that being inclusive is a reality on the campus and not something that is simply mouthed for public consumption. 

I look forward to further communication on this topic and to a satisfactory resolution.  Again, as an alumnus who is very proud to be a Vanderbilt graduate, it is my hope that this pride can be maintained.

Sincerely,

Alan Myatt,  Class of 79

I received this response from Chancellor Zeppos on Oct. 13th.

Dear Alan,

Thank you for your message.  As your email was sent to my account, I am taking the liberty of asking Vice Chancellor David Williams to respond in his role as the university’s general counsel.

I appreciate your engagement as a valued alumunus.

Sincerely,

Nicholas S. Zeppos
Chancellor

I do not recall ever getting a response from Vice Chancellor Williams and I am not able to find it in my e-mail archives. My assumption, after recent events, is that there will be no response. My final response.

On Sept 29 I received the following response to my e-mail to Chancellor Zeppos. At first sight it seems reasonable. However, it fails to substantially address my concerns. This seems to be vindicated by the continued belligerence of the administration in spite of severe criticism.

Dear Alan,

I appreciate your caring enough about Vanderbilt’s nondiscrimination policy to e-mail the Chancellor, and I want to assure you that there is no concerted effort to eliminate religious organizations from our campus. There have been some inaccuracies and misinterpretations in what has been circulated about the recent review by the Office of the Dean of Students of all student organizations to ensure that they are in compliance with the university’s nondiscrimination policy (see below).  

It might help if I provide some context for the ongoing review. Last academic year, an undergraduate made an allegation of discrimination against a student organization. As a result of that allegation, we sought to ensure that the more than 300 student organizations were aware of their need to comply with the university’s nondiscrimination policy. One of the requirements to be a registered student organization is that their constitutions be in compliance with the nondiscrimination policy and that they sign a statement that they will comply with the policy.

 That review, which began April 7, 2011, found that some of our student organizations were not in compliance. Since that time, nearly all organizations have come into compliance. A dozen or so, including five religious organizations, are not yet in compliance. With the start of the school year, we made the decision to give the organizations not yet in compliance provisional status, allowing us to continue to work with them to achieve compliance while allowing them to continue to have the same full access to the Vanderbilt campus as they have had in the past.

We recognize that student organizations help enrich the out-of-classroom experience for our campus community, and we want to preserve existing ones and encourage our students to create new ones if a need exists. We also want to be certain that all of our students have an opportunity to participate in student organizations that interest them. Nothing the university has done should be construed as attempting to limit the participation of any student in any way, including in religious organizations.

I hope this response reassures you that Vanderbilt is committed to helping all of our students have fulfilling experiences both inside and outside of the classroom, and to making our campus a welcoming environment for all of our students.

Thank you very much for your interest in and support of Vanderbilt University.

Sincerely,

James

James E. Stofan
Associate Vice Chancellor
Alumni Relations

615-343-4099 

Vanderbilt University’s nondiscrimination policy:

In compliance with federal law, including the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972, Sections 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008,Executive Order 11246,the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, as amended, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008,Vanderbilt University does not discriminate against individuals on the basis of their race, sex, religion, color, national or ethnic origin, age, disability, military service, or genetic information in its administration of educational policies, programs, or activities; admissions policies; scholarship and loan programs; athletic or other University-administered programs; or employment. In addition, the University does not discriminate against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression consistent with the University’s nondiscrimination policy.

My response is here.

Over the past year, my undergrad alma mater, has embarked on a policy that effectively persecutes, discriminates against, and apparently will banish, Christian groups on campus. The details are here, while Vanderbilt's official response is here. Finding this statement to pretty much a whitewash of the situation, I wrote the following letter to Chancellor Nicholas Zeppos, this past Sept 27 (2011).

Dear Chancellor Zeppos,

I remember with great fondness my four years as a Vanderbilt undergrad.  They were some of the best years of my life.  I particularly was pleased with the professionalism of the faculty and the welcoming atmosphere for people from all walks of life.  People were respected both in and out of the classroom for their beliefs, even though animated debate was encouraged. I remember the university as a true place of tolerance, where I learned the value of respecting those who brought diversity of views and ideas to the table.  Vanderbilt served me very well in preparing me for masters and PhD studies in settings where I was able to learn from both students and faculty with very different worldviews and lifestyles from my own. This was a valued part of my Vanderbilt education that I have been proud to commend to others, including young people I have written recommendations for who have subsequently studied at Vanderbilt.

Hence, I was profoundly disturbed to read the news that the Vanderbilt tradition of tolerance for other views and respect for liberty of thought has apparently been forgotten. Indeed, it is disturbing to see the Orwellian use of the terms "tolerance" and "creating a welcoming environment" as a pretext for the perpetration of intolerance and what could easily be construed as anti-Christian bigotry.   I am not saying that I believe this is the intent of the actions being taken, but that is the impression that is being created.

I understand and am in complete sympathy with the general parameters, and more importantly I think, the spirit of the non-discrimination policy of the university.  However, I think any rational consideration of the situation would have to recognize that the complete absence of discrimination in every context is neither possible or desirable.  Any time a requirement is placed on someone for membership in any organization, committee or group that is an act of discrimination.  Such acts are not a statement that anyone is more valuable than anyone else.  It is simply the recognition that in order for any group founded around a belief system or for the purpose of supporting a cause, to function it must necessarily have members and leaders who are in agreement with its purpose.  Otherwise, the group loses its distinctive reason to be.  When that happens, especially under the threat of sanctions, it is quite natural for group members to feel that they are being excluded and that their views and lifestyle are not tolerated.  And they would be drawing the correct conclusion, regardless of the intentions of those setting the policy.

Would it be desirable to do away with the discrimination that keeps wheelchair bound differently abled person from being on the Vanderbilt football team?  Obviously not.  Likewise it would not be beneficial to anyone in the university community to allow a racist, white supremist to hold a leadership position on an African-American student group.  Are we to imagine someone who is convinced that being gay is inherently immoral as a member or even leader of a GLBT student group?  Or shall we deny the right of a student group dedicated to the advancement of socialism to prevent its leadership from being taken over by students who favor the Tea-Party movement?  No, it would be absurd.  Yet this is exactly what is being done to the Christian Legal Society and other similar groups.

 In fact, if the accounts I have seen in the news are accurate, it appears that Vanderbilt is now on a mission to make sure that Christians feel singularly excluded and unwelcome on the campus. It would seem that distinctly Christian organizations are no longer tolerated on campus if they do not drop the boundaries that assure that they remain distinctively Christian.  For, you see, to demand the changes in policy that you are attempting to enforce is to gut the Christian character of the campus organizations, essentially banishing distinctively Christian groups from campus.  If a Christian group cannot require its members, or at least its leaders, to actually adhere to its core Christian beliefs, then in what sense can the group be said to be Christian?  And if Christian students are not allowed to form campus groups around their common Christian faith as it relates to their life as students, then in what sense can it be said that Vanderbilt is a place where ALL students, including Christians, may feel welcome.  Surely you can see the irony, and even hypocrisy, in not tolerating the right of an entire class of students to be who they are and thus making them feel singled out as unwelcome on campus, in the name of so-called tolerance and creating a welcoming environment.

I urge you to reconsider this policy immediately and return to the Vanderbilt I knew and loved, where tolerance does not mean forcing everyone into a bland sameness, but rather retains its true meaning; allowing those who may hold to divergent and incompatible viewpoints to peacefully and respectfully exist side by side.  In any case, until I have some assurance that this policy is not in force, I will not recommend any of my current students to consider Vanderbilt as an option for doctoral studies.  Nor shall I encourage any high school students I know to consider Vanderbilt. 

Sincerely,


Alan Myatt,  Vanderbilt B.A  (A&S, class of 1979)

The response I got back was less than satisfactory. Here it is.

I would like for this blog to be a place for open and productive discussion, where topics can be debated in a friendly manner. Now, this does not mean that tough and forceful statements may not be made, but attacks should be reserved primarily for ideas rather than people. In any case, it seems like a good idea to establish some ground rules for comments. So here goes.

Blog Rules

Be respectful. Ideas may be challenged and mocked - but generally speaking, people should not be the subject of ridicule. If you make a generalization about someone or something, be ready to back it up.

The same goes for snarky and sarcastic comments. Use them sparingly and be prepared to support any assertions or accusations with hard facts and evidence.

You are a guest here. Please behave like you are a guest in my home.

No profanity. Period. Violators will be banned.

No flaming. No personal attacks - except in extraordinary circumstances.

Refrain from name calling. Labels applied to people should be supported by facts.

Stay on topic. Off topic comments will be deleted.

You must be a member to comment. This means I know who you are and how to get in touch with you. You may still be anonymous to others.

It's my blog. While I will strive to be fair, I will determine when someone crosses the line. If I decide to break the rules, it's my prerogative. If I make comments on your blog I will strive to follow the same rules. If you don't like the rules here, you are free to go elsewhere.

Comments will be disabled on some posts. At times I will want to make a statement about something, or share a link, that for whatever reasons I deem appropriate, will not be open for discussion.

I reserve the right to terminate a discussion thread at any time; My work load is heavy and my time is limited. My failure to respond in all cases is not an indication of surrender. In some cases, I am reserving material for book projects and articles I am working on.

Have fun! This is the most important rule.

Recent reading and conversations have included a lot of material on alternative worldviews. Atheism and the occult seem to always crop up, as well as the ever present postmodernist influences. An underlying current of all of this is the seemingly unending capacity of intelligent people to pursue irrational philosophies in order to feel good. From the inherent irrationality of atheism to the mystical meanderings of occult Spiritism, the willingness of people to commit intellectual suicide in order to assuage their personal pain is nothing short of astonishing. On the other hand, perhaps it should be no surprise that hurting humans are so driven by their sense of need for peace and purpose to the point that they are willing to accept just about anything. Couple this with the sinner's natural inability to face the cold hard facts of his or her own fallenness and need, and the proliferation of atheistic fantasies and occult delusions is really no surprise at all. As Paul tells us, we all start off as dead in our trespasses and sins and until the Holy Spirit frees us by an act of His sovereign grace, we are unable to accept the truth (Eph. 2:1-6).

I've been reading one particularly naive work by an atheist, a self identified Humanist, who imagines that he can establish a rational basis for morals and ethics without beginning with God. While the quality of his work could pretty easily be demolished by any decent undergraduate in philosophy, he does raise some good questions for framing the conversation. At the outset he notes that simply invoking the word "god" to justify ethics is a useless activity, since the different religions have such divergent definitions of "god" as to make the term meaningless. He is surely correct in this. There is no use debating about the existence of God unless we know exactly who and what it is we are discussing. In addition, there are other issues of the Christian worldview that need to be defined if an intelligent discussion is to be carried out.

So before getting into the discussion of this particular book, which I will do in due time, first things need to be established. I have no interest whatever in defending a generic concept of God as some nebulous, undefined deity. It's either the Triune God of the Bible or nothing. Neither is some humanistic self-help system of emotional pain management adequate to the task of generating meaning and purpose. It's either the gospel of Jesus Christ or nothing.

So the next few posts will concentrate on What Matters Most - who God is, how we can come to know Him, and how knowing Him is the beginning of wisdom, meaning and purpose for life. This will be the basis for everything that follows.

This speaks for itself. It is the logic of the gay movement carried to its logical conclusion.

Every now and again I hear about some young person who has fallen under the spell of atheism, perhaps with the notion that it is the sign of a superior intellect. While they have likely not done anywhere near the reading necessary to justify such a move, they seem to have bought into the notion that atheism is based on reason rather than the supposed irrationality of faith. And who wants to be irrational, right?

I have to admit that when I hear that this has happened to a teenager, no matter how intelligent they may appear to be, I am more than moderately irritated. My guess is that this phenomenon is due to influence of the "new atheism" as kids of this age are usually more prone to feed on popular fads rather than serious philosophy.

But whatever the case, it is tiresome to see young minds being hoodwinked by the pseudo-intellectualism of an adolescent worldview whose credibility died with the demise of Enlightenment epistemology under the corrosive acids of post-modern irrationalism. The real intellectual challenge of our age is to reconstruct a viable alternative to the irrationalist ontological, epistemological and ethical relativism that is the quagmire from which the contemporary atheist has no possible means of escape. Unless, of course, he or she comes to their senses and recognizes that only a transcendent, personal, infinite reference point can solve both the intellectual and social problems confronted by finite beings such as ourselves.

To those young folks who imagine that atheism is somehow so sophisticated and intellectually superior that Christianity is not even worthy of consideration, I would simply say this: atheism itself is a thoroughly irrational worldview. You don't believe me? Well then, I dare you to read and study the work of some serious Christian philosophers on this question. You may think you don't want to dignify Christian theism with condescending to spend any time on it (since Christianity is obviously stupid), but my reply is that such arrogance is nothing more than a smokescreen for intellectual cowardice.

So again, I dare you to read Alvin Plantinga, Gordon Clark, Scott Oliphint, or Douglas Groothuis. Prove that you have some guts. Delve into the work of Francis Schaeffer and Cornelius Van Til. See if you can deal with the writings of J. P. Moreland or William Lane Craig. Refute, if you can, the work of William Dembski and C.S. Lewis. Prove that you have more nerve than Richard Dawkins, whose cowardly avoidance of debating William Lane Craig is a reproach to atheists everywhere. You can even start with my own ruminations over the deficiencies of atheism as they appear on this site if you like.

C. S. Lewis said it best in Mere Christianity. Atheism is a philosophy for boys; overly simple and not worthy of a mature intellect. At some point you have to grow up and leave childish things behind, as the foremost apologist of the 1st century once wrote. So the gauntlet is thrown down. Take it up, young atheist, I dare you. Or are you just too scared?

In the days of ancient Greece and Rome baby girls were left to die of exposure in the woods. Barbaric? Yet today the same thing continues, though in a more hidden and sanitized form. Today's Wall Street Journal notes that the war against girls continues with a vengeance.

"...there have been so many sex-selective abortions in the past three decades that 163 million girls, who by biological averages should have been born, are missing from the world. Moral horror aside, this is likely to be of very large consequence."

The usual suspects are here. "Ms. Hvistendahl also dredges up plenty of unpleasant documents from Western actors like the Ford Foundation, the United Nations and Planned Parenthood, showing how they pushed sex-selective abortion as a means of controlling population growth...The following year another Planned Parenthood official celebrated China's coercive methods of family planning, noting that 'persuasion and motivation [are] very effective in a society in which social sanctions can be applied against those who fail to cooperate in the construction of the socialist state.' " No surprise here. The road to the socialist utopia is paved with the blood of baby girls.

The real irony is that the reporter of these stats is too blinded by ideology to see the obvious. She wants to cling to abortion rights, in spite of its systematic assault of women.

Patrick Chan, at Triablogue, has posted a devastating set of quotations from prominent atheists, demonstrating the futility of grounding morality in philosophical naturalism. Check it out.