The moral fragility of modern education

In case you weren’t convinced that the state of higher education is in a place of free-fall, there have been some noteworthy events in recent months that bear mentioning.

The first is the BYU-Duke university fracas. After a Duke player at a volleyball game—with some assistance from camera happy family members—claimed she heard racial slurs being yelled at her from the crowd while she was serving, a credulous media spread the story far and wide. (Worth noting that the BYU-Duke incident spawned possibly the dumbest and most inflammatory newspaper column I’ve encountered, and I am a true connoisseur of bad journalism.) With hundreds of witnesses and video of the event, BYU conducted a thorough, good-faith investigation and concluded there’s no evidence that any slurs were said.

Instead of acknowledging the obvious possibility that the player misheard something from the din of the crowd, Duke doubled down. “We unequivocally stand with and champion [Duke volleyball players], especially when their character is called into question. Duke Athletics believes in respect, equality and inclusiveness, and we do not tolerate hate and bias,” read the statement. Actually, persisting with damaging accusations of racism when you’ve been confronted with evidence your claims are baseless is a pretty good reason to start questioning the character of those involved.

However, when it comes to woke excess it’s hard to top Oberlin college, which finally agreed to pay $36 million to a bakery near campus. After the bakery tried to stop students from shoplifting, the students in question deflected and said they were victims of racism by the bakery—a dubious claim that politically addled university administrators supported. Oberlin likely could have settled for much less had they not been determined to prove the 137 year-old family business was racist. A court found Oberlin guilty of defamation and the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the ruling.

Both the Duke and Oberlin incidents were heavily publicized, but another recent court case involving a college received little attention and bears mentioning. In July, a federal judge excoriated the University of Idaho for persecuting students—and a professor—for the crime of expressing Christian beliefs out loud.

And no that’s not hyperbole. Becket Adams at The Washington Examiner does a good job of summarizing the case, but the short version of what happened was this: Someone apparently left an anti-LGBT slur on a white board at the school, and there was a meeting to address what happened. Members of the law school’s Christian Legal Society showed up and prayed for the school’s LGBT community at the event.

Another student—identified only as “Jane Doe”—approached the members of the Christian Legal Society and asked them about their beliefs on marriage, and they affirmed that they believed in the biblical notion that marriage was between one man and one woman. One of the students later left Jane Doe a note that read: “I’m the president of CLS this semester. Feel free to come talk to me if you have anything you need to say or questions you want to ask. I’m usually in my carrel: 6-034. over by the windows. Peter [smiley face].”

A few days later, when CLS members showed up at another law school event, Jane Doe expressed concerns the group was bigoted, and CLS members spoke up in their defense. Three days after that, the University of Idaho’s Orwellian “Office of Civil Rights and Investigation” issued a “no contact order” between three members of the Christian Legal Society and Jane Doe. The order applied on and off the campus and had no termination date. The Office of Civil Rights and Investigation even issued a “limited contact” order to the professor at the school whose crime was being the CLS faculty advisor.

After unsuccessfully trying to remedy the situation with the school administration, CLS students eventually sued the school. U.S. District Judge David Nye, an Obama appointee, heard the case, and found the CLS students were unequivocally in the right.

“There is a sad irony in the fact that the restraint on Plaintiffs’ speech began at an event meant to reiterate acceptance and tolerance and to dissuade bullying and marginalization. The Court shares law school Dean Johanna Kalb’s hope that, at a law school … the foundation for all of these discussions [will be] mutual respect and grace,’” Nye wrote. “Some may disagree with Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. Such is each person’s prerogative and right. But none should disagree that Plaintiffs have a right to express their religious beliefs without fear of retribution. The Constitution makes that clear.”

All three of these incidents speak to how corrupt higher education is. Universities do not fear making unfair and vile accusations because they know a credulous left-leaning media will support them and treat rumors and innuendo as news. Liberal administrators would rather pay out $36 million settlements and get smacked around by federal judges for punishing Christians than be forced to admit the reality that bigotry doesn’t lurk around every corner in America.

If universities will go to such dramatic lengths to defend an environment that values political indoctrination over actual facts, reform is almost impossible. Our future may depend on parents who can help their children demand an education rather than ideology—and a college that values truth above anything else.