Christian Universities in the Crosshairs

Politicians lie. I have known this for years but the breadth and depth of political falsehood continues to amaze me. Politicians lie about their experiences, their agendas and even their beliefs. One of the common lies is about the purpose or impact of legislation. A current law being considered in California, SB 1146, is a law based on a lie.

SB 1146 is a law that has as its stated intent the elimination of discrimination against individuals who are LGBT which is currently a popular issue among progressive politicians. While this is the stated goal of the legislation its actual goal is more sinister. It is a major step in what appears to be a goal of crippling Christian Universities.

Many of the most prestigious universities in America began as religious institutions. When Harvard was founded in 1636 it trained Puritan clergy. Yale was founded in 1701 to educate ministers in the Congregationalist faint. Princeton was also a school for minsters when it was founded in 1746. Jonathan Edwards, the preacher whose ministry launched the religious revival known as the Great Awakening, was at one time the president of Princeton. Over the years these great universities have become increasingly secular, so much so that most Americans are not even aware of their religious heritage.

While religious training, in the classical, biblical sense ceased to be important to these institutions it continues to be valued by many Americans. A large number of private Christian Universities have come into being with the goal of providing young Christians with a university education in the context of a Christian worldview.

These colleges do not limit their education to merely religious instruction. While all include courses in the bible, they offer degrees in a wide variety of disciplines, including degrees in the biological and physical sciences, engineering, computer science and the humanities.

Students are attracted to these private universities for many reasons, both faith based and practical. Students are drawn to campuses that align with their personal values and beliefs. Codes of conduct and morality which discourage sex outside of marriage, alcohol use and other behaviors are attractive to parents.

It is these codes of conduct and morality that have drawn the ire of legislators in California. Schools that adhere to traditional Christian teachings will by definition be opposed to LGBT lifestyles. The obvious solution to this dilemma would be for those individuals who are of the LGBT persuasion to not enroll at a Christian university. This solution is obvious but completely unacceptable to California legislators. They are determined to force Christian universities to change their approach.

The proposed law would require all Christian universities not directly owned and operated by an established church, and whose students receive any form of governmental assistance, grant or scholarship, to notify all current and prospective students that they do not comply with federal anti-discrimination law under Title IX. This notification must be included in all handbooks, policies and recruitment packets sent to students. Failure to appropriately notify students is grounds for civil action.

It does not take a law degree to understand the ramifications of such a law. Individuals who disagree with a university’s moral stance will apply for admittance and sue if any mistakes are made. The same tactics that have been used against Christian baker’s and florists who declined to participate in same sex weddings will be wielded against the schools. The cost of litigating the inevitable lawsuits will be a significant strain on university budgets.

The only way a Christian institution can absolutely protected from such actions would be to end participation in government financial aid programs. As a large proportion ofstudents are dependent on these programs, the loss of this source of financial support would make Christian schools unaffordable and enrollment would decline. Christian universities are left with no viable options. They can deny their faith and their teachings or they can face financial distress and potential ruin.

California legislators have been fully educated on the ramifications of SB 1146. As a result no one can claim that the harm to Christian schools is an unintended consequence of well-intentioned legislation. The intention of the progressive legislators in California is clear. They want to punish those who do not share their worldview. Anyone who says otherwise is not telling the truth.

Bart

Thanks for reading. If you share my concerns about the impact of SB 1146, please share this post with others and consider contacting your state representative. 

When Every Day is Memorial Day

When I saw that she had “liked” a post on my office Facebook page I clicked on her name. I was taken to her Facebook page where I saw an amazing picture. It was of her, embracing the marker on her father’s grave. She had never mentioned him, perhaps because he had died when she was a little girl.

The grave marker read “Leonard G. Svitenko, Captain USAF”. Curious, I Googled his name. I learned that he died in the service of our country, the lone fatality in one of the most significant events of the Cold War. He was 27 years old.

In the early 1960’s the Cold War was at its peak. American leaders viewed the Soviet Union as a constant threat and the fear of nuclear attack was constant and real. The United States had an Air Force Base in Greenland that was tasked with monitoring radar for Soviet missle launches. In order to be able to rapidly respond to a nuclear attack, US bombers equipped with nuclear weapons were continually in flight over Greenland. Captain Svitenko was the copilot of such a flight in January 1968.

Prior to take off a member of the flight crew stored some seat cushions under a seat in the back of the plane, seemingly unaware that they were in close proximity to a heater vent. During the course of the flight the plane's heater was malfunctioned. Halfway through the scheduled flight Captain Svitenko was relieved to take his schedule rest break. As the temperature in the plane continued to drop, the officer in the co-pilot’s chair opened an engine valve to allow for heat to enter the cabin.

Another malfunction allowed the air flow from the engine to enter the cabin unfiltered and extremely hot. The stored seat cushions caught fire. By the time the fire was discovered it had progressed to the point where it could not be suppressed with the onboard fire extinguishers. As the cabin filled with smoke the decision was made to evacuate the aircraft.

The crewmen who were in seats ejected safely. Captain Svitenko, who had given up his seat, attempted to exit through a bottom hatch. He didn’t make it. He suffered fatal head injuries as he tried to leave the plane.

The plane crashed. Although the nuclear weapons did not detonate, their payload dispersed in the crash and contaminated the area, resulting in an international incident. The radioactivity and policy of continuous flight received a lot of attention in the following months but the incident ultimately faded out of the national consciousness.

The nation may not remember the death of Captain Svitenko, but his family does. His daughter grew up without her father. She is one of the millions of Americans throughout our history who have experienced first hand the high price of military service. Although Captain Svitenko was not a combatant in a war and did not die in direct engagement with an enemy, he nonetheless died in defense of our nation, doing his part to keep his country safe.

On Memorial Day, may we all take the time to honor the sacrifices of servicemen and women like Captain Svitenko, those who believed in service, in freedom, and in duty and who proved their commitment with their lives. My we also pray for their families, those who remember the sacrifices every day of their lives.

- Bart

You will Never be Cool. Deal with it.

“You are my son. You will never be cool. Deal with it.”

I said these words to my son when he was 9 years old. He was showing me the new school clothes he had just bought with his mom. Included in the new wardrobe was a pair of extremely baggy jeans, the kind intended to be worn well below the waistline. His mother had told him she did not think they were appropriate and would likely be rejected in the court of dad but he was determined to make an appeal to the judge. The pants were “cool” and he wanted them. Unfortunately for the future lawyer, in the court of dad any objection based on coolness was always overruled.

He was disappointed and not too happy about my verdict. What was the harm in wearing baggy pants? I explained to him that like it or not people judge other people based on appearance, that what we wear sends a message about us. Being cool was not important, but being godly and excellent was. While there may not be any harm in wearing edgy clothes, there is a higher objective.

I also considered a secondary long term goal in rendering my decision. The desire to be accepted, to fit it and be loved, is incredibly powerful and often increases over time. I knew that if I was going to raise a child who was driven by values that I would need to encourage values-driven thought at an early age. One of the most important values is that right and wrong, appropriate and inappropriate, are not determined by culture but by God. Following God inevitably leads to conflict with the culture. I could not expect him to stand up for his values in the future if I did not train him to do so in the present. Standing against the crowd is almost never cool or popular.

This is a crucial matter for people of faith. Christian beliefs are often at odds with the values of the society in which we live. Simply stating one's beliefs can lead to significant cultural backlash, to accusations of bigotry and hate. People who have not been taught from a young age how to stand up for and defend their faith, people who do not value faith over cultural acceptance, are unlikely to be able withstand the pressure. They may cave.

A few months ago my son interviewed for a position with an attorney’s office in Southern California. During the interview he was asked about his upbringing and values. He told them that as a child his father taught him to do the right thing no matter what. He told them that he learned that doing right was more important than being popular or cool. He shared what he had been told as a little boy, that he was my son and therefore would never be “cool”. The interviewers laughed at the story but were also impressed. They realized that before them was a young man of character.

My son learned the lesson. He also got the job.

- bart

Love and Hate on Yelp

You can learn a lot by reading reviews on Yelp. While you can learn a little about the menu of a restaurant or the quality of service from a physician’s office, you can learn a lot about the person writing the review. You can learn a lot about our culture as well.

A physician colleague received a one-star review because the receptionist asked for a co-pay when a patient came in for a physical. The patient got angry, left the office and wrote the scathing review, calling the office “Dispicable.”

I received a one-star review from a patient who did not like the advice I gave. It may not have been brilliant, but it wasn’t like I told him to take poison or perform a coffee enema. Looking at one of his other reviews helped me understand. He also gave a one-star review to a strip club. Apparently he was upset at the “no touch” policy. For the first and only time in my life I have something in common with a strip club. In the eyes of this man we are both out of touch.

The Yelp page for a mechanic in town reveals something else about our society. We are a love it or hate it culture. His shop has 139 reviews, all but 7 of which are either 1 star or 5 star reviews. How can this be true? It can’t be. It is close to impossible that his service is always either terrific or terrible, the law of averages dictates that there should be occasions when he is just "okay." The reviews can't all be true. What is true is that we tend to publicly express our opinions in hyperbole, and that we are more concerned with persuading than we are with being completely accurate. When people post reviews it is not about informing a reader, it is about persuading others to join us in our love and hate.

Negative reviews reveal another dark aspect of our culture. We are often more concerned with ourselves than others, more concerned about avenging a perceived slight then we are at being understood. I read several one-star reviews written by people who had not actually utilized the business they were reviewing. A bad interaction with a receptionist, a missed appointment or dislike of a policy led a person to choose to leave the business. Even though their knowledge of the quality of the business was incomplete, they felt comfortable telling the world to stay away.

Perhaps the saddest observation is how disconnected we are. Most of the businesses reviewed on Yelp are small ones. Small businesses are not things, small businesses are people. People struggling to make a living and provide for their families, people who do not have business degrees or PR managers. Many small business owners are learning as they go. Scathing and spiteful reviews written over small misunderstandings reveal a culture in which people do not matter as much as things do. The lack of grace, the refusal to give the benefit of the doubt or to seek reconciliation, and the personal nature of many of the attacks is truly saddening.

Online reviews are here to stay and negative reviews are inevitable. As a businessman I understand that I have no control over what people say about me. Nevertheless I do have control over what I say about others. I can and will make it my goal to be truthful and  accurate in what I say, and as much as possible, to be kind, for my reviews say as much about me as they do about a business.

-          Bart

Our Newest Dilemma- Deciding What Bathroom to Use

To pee or not to pee. That is the question.

North Carolina recently passed a law about bathrooms. The text of the law is 5 pages long, but it essentially states that when it comes to multiple occupancy bathroom and changing areas (such as locker rooms) in government controlled facilities, people will need to use facilities that correspond to their biological sex. Boys must use male facilities and girls must use girl facilities. It also prohibits law suits against private entities that institute similar policies.

The response to the law has been one of vehement anger by many corporations, individuals, celebrities and politicians. Those who support the law have been labeled as hateful and bigoted. Curt Schilling, a former All-Star baseball pitcher, lost his job with ESPN for tweeting in support of the law. Is it is easy to wonder how our society came to arrive at such a place.

I grew up in an era where the girl’s bathroom was a place of mystery. No male dared enter the girl’s bathroom for fear of eternal punishment. Accidentally walking into the wrong bathroom was one of the most shameful acts imaginable. It could take years for the facial redness to fade.

Shame was not limited to opposite sex facilities. As an adolescent male there was more than enough shame for a boy in the boy’s locker room. Puberty is cruel and it arrives on an inconsistent schedule. In the 7th grade locker room some boys were already men while for others signs of manhood had not even begun to appear. While I have no firsthand knowledge of the girl’s locker room I am certain there was similar variability. Young women at opposite ends of the pubertal spectrum dealt with similar angst. The thought of changing in the presence of someone with the opposite biologic gender would have been terrifying!

Yet a new variable is being introduced into the locker room equation, a transgendered one. Individuals born male (with male genitalia) who identify as female have sued school districts for the right to use girl’s locker rooms. Their belief is that it is unfair for them to not be able to have access to the same facilities as all of the other “girls”. Many of the other girls, who do not have penises, have expressed discomfort with having to change in the presence of someone who does. Remarkably, a federal court sided with the transgender student and against the district.(1)

The battle is not limited to middle and secondary schools. Elementary schools have been met with similar law suits. While there are typically no common circumstances in which fully disrobing occurs in elementary school, there have been arguments regarding bathroom use. Parents are understandably concerned that their young children who have not yet learned about the birds and the bees may not be emotionally equipped to process transgender issues. The problem is compounded by studies that have shown the overwhelming majority of “transgender” school age children ultimately identify as their biological sex. (2)An argument can be made that given the potential harm there is no need to accommodate what is likely to be only a temporary preference.

There are different concerns when it comes to adults. For the overwhelming majority of adults who are transgendered the reality is that if they have taken steps to appear as the gender with which they identify and use a bathroom stall there is very little chance of anyone even knowing their biological identity, much less objecting to it. Even if the law “prohibits” them from a facility the risk of prosecution is miniscule. The risk most often cited by proponents of laws such as North Carolina’s is instead the possibility of sexual predators taking advantage of the opportunity the law affords and preying on innocent women. While the risk of sexual assault is minimized by those who oppose the law, it is nonetheless real. There are documented instances where such assaults have occurred. (3,4)

Lawmakers are left with a difficult decision. Apart from the extremely costly and unrealistic option of mandating that all facilities be single user and non-gendered any policy implemented will favor one side of the debate over the other.

An often overlooked part of problem is the rarity of transgenderism (estimates I have seen range from 1/3000 to 1/12,000 or less). Rarity results in it being very difficult to make any scientific assertions as to the normalcy of the condition. It also makes it less reasonable to demand governmental protections. Even if a biologic cause is ultimately discovered it will not necessarily constitute evidence of normalcy, for there are many genetic conditions that are considered abnormal (sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis and other such diseases). Normalcy for such things is always a matter of value judgments rather than facts.

It is obvious that there is no solution that will be universally acceptable. There is nevertheless a common sense answer available. If a policy or practice has been followed for centuries without significant or widespread negative consequences, and there is not overwhelming evidence that it should be changed, it is best to leave it alone. A law such as the one in North Carolina should not be necessary but it is. The definitions of male and female that have been the foundation of societal relationships since the dawn of humanity need to be defended, as does the innocence of our children.

-          Bart

Thanks for reading, if you find this post valuable, please click one of the share buttons below and share it with others. It is the only way others learn about the blog. For those who are new to the blog, feel free to visit the "about" page. You can subscribe to the blog by clicking on the subscribe link. I am a frequent guest speaker in various churches, you can listen to sermons on the "sermons" page, where there is also a link to my vimeo page. If you are interested in having me speak to your church group, contact me by clicking on the "contact" page on this site. I can also be followed on twitter @bartbarrettmd.

1.       http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-transgender-student-locker-room-palatine-met-20151012-story.html

2.       Wallien MS, Cohen-Kettenis PT. Psychosexual outcome of gender-dysphoric children. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2008; 47:1413.

3.       http://www.crossmap.com/news/sexual-predator-jailed-after-claiming-to-be-transgender-to-assault-women-in-shelter-26962

4.       http://www.dailywire.com/news/330/university-toronto-dumps-transgender-bathrooms-pardes-seleh