“Indiana Wesleyan University is committed to the Biblical standard of sexual purity, and we desire to do all we can to stand against the loosening sexual standards of society,” states Page 18 of the 2011/2012 Student Handbook.

The policy book goes on to explicate what sorts of activities are permissible among IWU community members and how the university intends to address related concerns.

Five types of sexual misconduct are mentioned under the “Exercise Self-Control” heading on Page 19: “Those acts which are expressly forbidden in Scripture, including … vulgarity, adultery, homosexual behavior, premarital sex, … [and] immodesty … will not be practiced by members of the Indiana Wesleyan community, either on or off campus.”

“Students who willingly come forward to seek help and healing in this area (without prior knowledge by university representatives) will be given support with accountability, while those who do not and violate this expectation may be referred to the Student Conduct Process,” according to Page 18 of the handbook. (Note the optional implementation of formal discipline.)

Consider, for instance, if a student becomes pregnant or is found to have fathered a child out of wedlock. Page 27 clearly outlines a checklist whereby those students can avoid the standard disciplinary channels. Upon learning of the pregnancy, the students must opt to not perform an abortion, voluntarily admit their wrongdoing to officials in the Student Development Office, consent to “a personal growth plan including, a vow to abstinence and counseling” and abdicate all positions of leadership or honor on-campus.

But the handbook prohibits far more than actual sex acts.

“Engaging in or the appearance of indiscreet or offensive sexual behavior in relationships is unacceptable and prohibited,” according to Page 28, which also states, “Members of the opposite sex discovered in a student’s room during non-Open House hours may be charged with sexual misconduct. This may include but is not limited to instances when doors are closed, when lights are off, and students are not fully clothed.”

The revised dancing policy further specifies modesty restrictions as well. Heterosexual social dancing is prohibited in residence hall rooms and apartments, according to Page 21, while sensuous and erotic dance is prohibited in all places on- and off-campus.

Page 43 re-asserts the handbook’s jurisdiction, which sees no limits. Even if students are exempt from curfew restrictions, they are required to sign out with their resident directors before spending the night off-campus. Students must be accompanied by a chaperone who is neither a student nor younger than 23. Furthermore, to spend the night off-campus with members of the opposite sex, students must ensure the sexes will bunk in separate rooms and fall subject to the supervision of “a married couple, parent or parents or family member over the age of 23.”

Sex acts and the appearance of sexual misconduct are prohibited as “vulgarity,” “adultery,” “premarital sex” and “immodesty.” Additionally, “homosexual behavior” is disallowed by the handbook, suggesting that there are some actions not already classified as sexual misconduct prohibited for being “homosexual” under this clause. This implication leads me to question, then, under this broader umbrella, precisely which actions and beliefs about social interaction among members of the same sex are inappropriate, according to IWU’s community standards.

Certain statutes that regulate interaction between the sexes, such as the revised dance policy, seem to ignore the possibility of same-sex sexual misconduct. To the credit of the handbook’s drafters, though, the document links to official statements on sexual harassment in the 2011 Annual Security Report:

“Both male and female students can be victims of sexual harassment, and the harasser and the victim can be of the same gender,” according to Page 14 of the 2011 ASR, which also clearly defines examples of sexual harassment, non-consensual sexual contact and sexual exploitation, each of which can be criminal activities.

“The University reserves the right to take whatever measures it deems necessary in response to an allegation of sexual misconduct in order to protect students’ rights and personal safety, including modifying academic and living situations if requested and reasonably available,” states Page 13 of the 2011 ASR. “The university will consider the concerns and rights of both the complainant and the person accused of sexual misconduct.”

Given IWU’s roots in the Holiness movement, I’m unsurprised that the emphasis on sexual misconduct in this document is strong.

While many of the sex-based regulations are well-developed, it could benefit future drafts of the handbook to use gender-neutral terms where practical to avoid unintended loopholes and implications for these policies.

Conversely, while the extensive sign-out procedures place a great deal of knowledge and authority in the hands of RDs, they also exert what may be an impractical expectation on already-busy residence life staff, who must attempt to track hundreds of residents each night throughout the school year. The university could consider toning down to allow students who are not on curfew to take more responsibility for their personal safety and nighttime whereabouts.

This column is part of a series:
The handbook: an introduction
The handbook: intellectual property
The handbook: free speech
The handbook: sexual misconduct

This evening, 2011 Nobel Peace Prize winner Leymah Gbowee is speaking at Indiana Wesleyan University’s campus. This woman is awesome: Not only did she win a Nobel Prize, but she also led a movement that ended the civil war in Liberia, she has her master’s degree and she has six children. Wow.

It doesn’t surprise me that we wanted to get this woman to speak at our campus. She is, by all means, a world changer.

But, I kept that uncapitalized for a reason. She’s a world changer, not a “World Changer.” That is, unless the members World Changers committee at IWU have decided to add Gbowee to their list of potential nominees – which, by all means, they should.

It would be great if we as members of the IWU community could submit our ideas for who we believe the next World Changer should be – whether that’s Gbowee or someone else.

Luckily, Dr. Larry Lindsey, chief of staff for President Smith and committee member, already gave us the go-ahead. He said last spring: “The committee is searching for names. And we sometimes receive names from faculty or [alumni] or from other VIPs out there.”

Lindsey said that during our interview last year, when I met with him to learn about the guidelines for becoming an IWU World Changer. I learned the guidelines are as followed: You must be at the top of your profession (president, high official, award-winning, etc.), you must influence your culture for Christ and you must be widely known.

The committee set these standards based on Bob Briner’s book “Roaring Lambs,” which talks about how Christians need to go out into the world and be the best they can be in whatever profession they’re in.

I think it’s fair to say Gbowee fits these standards. And to be honest, I can think of a few more who do. Maybe you can as well.

For our upcoming World Changers issue (April 12), we will feature your nomination ideas. We want to hear who you think would make a great IWU World Changer, based on both the university’s standards and your personal understanding of being a world changer. We invite faculty, staff and others within the University to submit ideas as well.

This is a way for us to cultivate ideas for the future and hopefully begin a dialogue among the committee, students, faculty and staff.

We’ll accept your ideas via email (iwusojourn@gmail.com), Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to give us the reasons why you think the school should nominate your world changer.

The Society of World Changers is important to our university; therefore, I think it’s necessary that all of us in the IWU community take time to consider what it means to be a world changer and honor role models of our faith.

Free speech at a private university is a tricky subject.

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble,” states a portion of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But Indiana Wesleyan University, as a private institution with its own legislative bodies, retains some level of discretion regarding what it will allow to be said on its campus.

In a failed attempt at a complete sentence, Page 26 of the 2011/2012 student handbook states, “Obstructing or disrupting the teaching and/or learning process in any campus classroom, building, or meeting area, or any University-sponsored activity, pedestrian or vehicular traffic, classes, lectures or meetings, obstructing or restricting another person’s freedom of movement or normal functioning, or inciting, aiding, or encouraging other persons to do so.”

The suggestion is, of course, that these things are not permitted. But, in my mind, the regulation leaves more question marks than periods. What precisely does it take to disrupt pedestrian traffic? Would a peaceful protest of picketers in the Barnes Student Center – like the Nov. 2, 2011 “Occupy Wildcat” event – be interpreted as a violation of this clause in the student handbook? I sure hope not.

Likewise, Page 18 says, “Demeaning gestures, intimidation, threats or physical altercations directed toward another person are not permitted.”

Threatening someone with physical harm or actually carrying out said harm is an understandable thing to prohibit. But what exactly is a demeaning gesture? I presume that flipping someone off falls into this category. But what about aggressively shaking a fist at someone, giving someone a thumbs down or placing your index finger into a circle formed by the opposing index finger and thumb? Those are all demeaning gestures, some of which should, I believe, be preserved for the sake of freedom of expression.

Pages 47-48 organize hypothetical violations into two tiers: level one and level two. Verbal altercation or disrespect to university personnel, including resident assistants, desk workers and “Hall Council,” constitutes a level one violation. The list of more severe level two violations includes actions that are considered threatening and/or intimidating. Speaking from experience, I don’t think yelling at one’s roommate should be listed as a punishable offense.

Under the heading “Exercise Self-Control,” page 19 of the handbook emphasizes the regulation-writers’ use of the Bible in developing each guideline: “Those acts which are expressly forbidden in Scripture, including theft, lying, dishonesty, gossip, slander, profanity, vulgarity, adultery, homosexual behavior, premarital sex, drunkenness, gluttony, immodesty, intentional self-harm and occult practice will not be practiced by members of the Indiana Wesleyan community, either on or off campus.”

That list prohibits six types of expression, including lying, dishonesty, gossip, slander, profanity and vulgarity. Let’s discuss four of them.

Gossip is practiced by those with a loose tongue, typically with little regard for fact-checking. Slander is always spoken, and it always involves a false claim that damages someone else.

Profanity and vulgarity have a more nuanced relationship. Oaths, blasphemy and irreverence are all profane, while that which is vulgar is merely low-class, coarse or corporeally explicit.

Consider the words of Jesus as translated in the New International Version of Matthew 5:21-22, when He said: “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!” will be in danger of the fire of hell.”

According to Zondervan’s NIV exhaustive concordance, “raca” was a Greek derivative of an Aramaic word meaning “empty-headed,” and the English phrase “You fool!” was translated from the Greek word “moros,” which simply means “fool.”

So saying “raca” was a crime, according to the Law, but saying “moros” jeopardized the fate of one’s eternal soul by violating a higher Law. How, then, did Jesus justify his exclamation later in Matthew’s Gospel?

“You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?” asked Jesus in the NIV translation of Matthew 23:17. Translators selected “moros” as the best Greek equivalent for whom Jesus called “fools,” and they did so before the end of the very Gospel in which Jesus forbade such designations.

My point? Jesus did not blacklist words. The words themselves were not dirty – the words were vehicles for acts punishable by Law or by fire.

These passages remind me of multiple stories I’ve heard of evangelical congregations being shocked by their pastors’ use of vulgarity to solidify a sermon point. But what does this have to do with the enforcement of the IWU student handbook?

Certainly a Christian university will prohibit the use of profanity, but vulgarity is more difficult to define. Currently there seems to be an assumption among those in the IWU community that certain words are appropriate and certain words are not. I would suggest that we, instead, discuss why we collectively accept or reject certain vocabulary, as a diversity of opinions thrive regarding this very issue.

This column is part of a series:
The handbook: an introduction
The handbook: intellectual property
The handbook: free speech
The handbook: sexual misconduct

The past week marks a major shift in the American debate over intellectual property rights and the enforcement of existing legal codes.

Online powerhouses roused dissent among commoners Jan. 18 by publicly protesting two bills proposed by the U.S. Congress. Wikipedia censored itself for 24 hours to draw attention to legislation that could, according to its opponents, “break the Internet.”

FBI agents acted on more than 20 search warrants Jan. 19 in nine different countries, seizing $50 million in assets and 18 domain names related to Megaupload.com, according to The New York Times, all in the name of enforcing existing copyright law.

“Anonymous” responded quickly. By day’s end, the clandestine collective of hacktivists took down major websites that supported the Megaupload raid, including sites belonging to the FBI, the Department of Justice and the copyright offices in the U.S. and France. Also affected were websites belonging to major proponents of the proposed anti-piracy legislation, including the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, Universal Music, Warner Music and others.

Congress then tabled the two controversial anti-piracy bills Jan. 20, two days after their proposals caused such a stir online.

But Congress isn’t the only legislative body with an interesting stance on intellectual property rights. Crack open a 2011/2012 student handbook, if you care to read a curious claim made by Indiana Wesleyan University officials regarding content produced by its students:

Page 30 states that “all information composed, transmitted, received or stored via the IWU computer system is also considered the property of Indiana Wesleyan University. As such, all stored information is subject to disclosure to management, law enforcement and other third parties, with or without notice to the student.”

This “Exclusive Property” clause in the handbook may appear to be an attempt to comply with lawful requests by law enforcement officers, whether they be enforcing state law or IWU codes of conduct. But if this were truly the only purpose served by the rule, it would merely restate the “Technology Equipment” clause a page earlier, which reads:

“Technology equipment provided by the University is the property of IWU, and as such IWU retains the right to remove, reallocate, or change equipment at its discretion. No information residing on any computer hardware owned by IWU should be considered private and therefore is subject to review by University staff.”

This “Technology Equipment” clause is completely acceptable, but the “Exclusive Property” clause makes the dubious claim that everything I transmit, using IWU’s technological equipment, belongs to the school.

I spent a semester at the L.A. Film Studies Center, a program offered by the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. For insurance reasons, all films produced by LAFSC students belong to the center, which I was required to list as the “production company” for each of the three films I produced.

Upon returning to IWU, I spoke with my academic adviser, Dr. Randall King, to ensure that the short film I produce for my senior project would remain my property alone. Instead, this rule could possibly indicate otherwise.

The question rests in how the interpreters of these two clauses choose to define “information.” Does the “Exclusive Property” clause claim intellectual rights to my film and anything I write, such as this column? Or does the term “information” apply solely to the lingering files archived by the IWU technology equipment? The former interpretation presents some terrifying legal ramifications, while the latter makes me ask what the “Exclusive Property” clause adds to the “Technology Equipment” clause a page earlier.

Policies like these are not unique to IWU. Other university policy books include similar clauses which are similar to rules commonly enforced in the corporate world. Regardless, this is a prime example of an ambiguously worded student handbook rule with potentially contentious implications.

This column is part of a series:
The handbook: an introduction
The handbook: intellectual property
The handbook: free speech
The handbook: sexual misconduct