By: Andrew Parker

At most Christian colleges, particularly those in the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, sexual acts outside the bounds of marriage are prohibited. Exactly what do “sexual acts” include? Well, that question has become increasingly difficult to answer given the widening variety of thoughts, opinions and cultural understandings that surround the creation and implementation of such policies.

Often, schools like ours use broader terms like ‘sexual behavior” or “sexual misconduct.” While using a term that is more enveloping has its challenges, it can create an environment where many questions are raised about what exactly such a term covers, breed profitable formal and informal discussions, and cause those in the community to think carefully about their actions, how those actions might be perceived and the many potential outcomes.

Numerous types of sexual behavior are noted in the IWU 2011-2012 Student Handbook. Some items addressed are actual acts, while others are actions that could possibly be perceived as sexual in nature. For example, the Handbook identifies very specific acts such as adultery and premarital sex (p. 18), but also uses the term “sexual misconduct” (p. 27) to address a variety of other actions that could involve actually engaging in a sexual act or simply something that has “the appearance of indiscreet or sexual behavior” (p. 27).

The Handbook is by no means perfect, and not everything in it has been chiseled in stone, so to speak. In fact, the Handbook is a “living” document, one that should, and does, change over time. The topic of sexual misconduct in the Student Handbook was raised earlier this semester in a February article by a Sojourn reporter; he pointed out an area where such change might be needed. The broader evangelical community has, for far too long, viewed sexual promiscuity and misconduct as happening between a male and female and oft chosen to pretend as though same-sex relationships do not exist. Popular culture has changed, and this change has been evidenced within the Christian community; the term “romantic relationship” is no longer simply synonymous with a heterosexual relationship. Given such cultural shifts and understandings, and the fact that the Handbook is a “living” document, it is imperative that policies are revisited to make sure they are not targeting or ignoring one type of behavior, but rather addressing them all. Perhaps, as noted by the reporter in the aforementioned article, utilizing more gender-neutral terms in certain polices could assist in attending to this issue.

Now, having ventured down that path, let’s explore another for a moment. While dialogue about what constitutes sexual behavior” or “sexual misconduct” is valuable for discussions and even necessary to ensure that people in various circumstances are treated fairly, it is likewise important that we not get caught up in all of the details. We must be careful not to define everything so precisely that the result is a legalistic approach to certain policies. (If there are current policies that are broaching the bounds of legalism, they should merit review.) We must keep a bigger picture in mind of the standard of purity that the Scriptures call us to. It is true, we live within a cultural context and that must be taken into account on various levels. However, in other ways, the purity that God calls us to supersedes specific points in time and places in history; it is, in essence, timeless.

So, what does purity mean? That opens up a new discussion, one that will require more time and space than this article can provide, but one that is closely connected to sexual misconduct. Perhaps it even provides a better avenue to approach the concept of sexual misconduct. Instead of seeking to define sexual misconduct in order to arrive at an understanding of what constitutes purity, perhaps we should seek to define purity in order to understand what might fall within the bounds of sexual misconduct. This seems to follow the line of thinking identified in Philippians 4:8 (New Revised Standard Version): “Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”

By: Andrew Parker

“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.” Freedom of speech – it is a right afforded to all Americans by the U.S. Constitution, more accurately by amendments to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. Free speech, also known more broadly as free expression, covers a wide variety of issues, with the exception of the following: obscenities; fighting words; defamation, which would include things such as libel or slander; child pornography; perjury; blackmail; incitement to imminent lawless action; true threats; solicitation to commit crimes; plagiarism of copyrighted materials; and, in certain instances, treason.

The First Amendment, provided above, is actually the one that guarantees the right to free expression. However, what most people are not aware of is that the First Amendment primarily addresses the government’s ability to forbid such actions; included under government would be groups considered to be an arm of the government, such as a public school. While there are other situations/places in which such freedoms would also be protected, this article will deal with the realm of education, specifically higher education.

What about private education? Do the same rights regarding speech apply in those settings? While it may surprise some, the answer, in short, is no. In the First Amendment, though the words are not specifically there, implicit is also the concept of freedom of association. This means that individuals have the freedom to choose the groups they want to associate with, which would include specific colleges and universities. Since institutions of private education are not considered to be an arm of the government, they are not bound by the First Amendment, but rather are covered by what is known as contract law.

Contract law acts like it sounds; individuals are bound by a contract between themselves and an institution. When you applied to be a student at IWU, your signature indicated that you agreed to abide by the expectations and standards placed upon you as a member of this community. Such a document serves as a legal contract and the Student Handbook, Academic Catalog and other posted policies spell out the rules that govern students in the community of which they have chosen to be a part.

So, as strange as it may seem, by exercising one’s constitutional right to associate with a particular institution, an individual may end up limiting other afforded rights such as freedom of speech. Such provisions in the First Amendment allow private institutions to create policies that would not be enforceable at public institutions. For example, a public college cannot prohibit a student from consuming alcohol off-campus if that student is of legal drinking age according to federal law. However, a private institution can do so as a result of the contract to which that student agreed. At the same time, such restrictions are often the reasons many students choose to attend a private college or university. The majority of students at IWU, and other Christian colleges, selected their particular institution largely because of the type of community present, communities significantly shaped and impacted by the policies in place.

Now, as a Christian educational institution, and as one focused on the liberal arts, IWU strives to provide an education that opens students’ minds to concepts and content that develop critical thinking skills and encourage faith development. The balancing act that comes into play here is how to create and enforce policies that create a certain type of community, support its faith-based ideals and principles and encourage the development of critical thinking. It is at the intersection of these things where many conversations over rules and expectations often come into play.

Often, regarding policies specifically related to freedom of speech since that is the focus of this article, the Student Handbook takes its fair share of heat for being somewhat vague in places. For example, an article printed in the Sojourn on Feb. 1, 2012 about freedom of speech targeted specific policies requesting clarification on terms such as “demeaning gestures” and “disrupting pedestrian traffic.” While such questions are plausible, and in some cases necessary, they must also be asked in light of an understanding of critical thinking, which again is something the institution hopes its students develop during their tenure here.

Let’s briefly consider the terms above. Not only would it be nearly impossible to provide a comprehensive list of things that could be considered a demeaning gesture, but providing such a list would not afford the opportunity to think critically about what a demeaning gesture could be. This is best done through seeking to understand the context of the wording in which the policy is couched through the use of intellectual values and reasoning. I will agree that there are times when certain restrictions should be outlined very specifically, such as sexual assault and hours for open house visitation. However, there are other instances where such specification is neither practical nor conducive to the educational goals of the institution.

I want to note that, as part of the educational process, I am willing, as are many other staff and faculty, to discuss issues and questions students may have regarding policies, procedures and expectations outlined in the various contractual documents. In fact, I would welcome such invitations. It is my hope that this article has not only shed some light on the issue of free speech, but that it also spurs discussion that ultimately brings forth better policies and dialogue.

Dear Dr. Smith and Board of Directors:

Admittedly, I am not a spokesperson for Indiana Wesleyan University. In adulthood, I have found myself drifting further and further away from the ideals that IWU considers to be essential, and beg of you to consider my remarks with the requisite grain of salt.

The university’s recent decision to include a personality such as Kirk Cameron in their niche hall of fame is both egregious and embarrassing. It is not embarrassing only to me, a graduate, but should be to those in leadership allowing for such an unmerited and cognitively untested conferring upon Cameron.

With no judgement to his accomplishments as a teen heartthrob on “Growing Pains,” Cameron has since spiraled down into the abyss of irrational religion with the posture that he has taken professionally as an evangelical. His recent comments in the news cycle regarding homosexuality are enough to make me cringe. Regardless of where you find yourself on the liberal/conservative spectrum, Cameron came across as arrogant, old fashioned, and the most contradictory, unloving.

This recent occurrence is just one of many blunders on Cameron, and Co. A quick stroll through the Internet reveals a litany of irrational, non-intellectual responses from Cameron. With all do respect to Mr. Cameron, from what I can gather, he hasn’t earned a blamed thing from Indiana Wesleyan University or ANY respectable academic institution. This cheapens my accomplishments in both undergraduate studies and more recently in my return to IWU’s enrollment as a Transition To Teaching candidate.

Cameron’s stance may be lauded by some of IWU’s conservative and Wesleyan constituency, but for an organization so aggressive in private higher education, it is simply not representative of the base of alumni that so patiently open appeal letters from the University Advancement Office on a monthly basis. Aside from this disconnect, it’s just bad business. It reeks of incredulity. It smacks of ignorance beyond the evangelical bubble. A public endorsement of Rick Santorum would only top this in the realm of all possible poor public relations decisions.

I know many of my fellow alumni cannot risk the political backlash for speaking out against their alma mater, let alone their church, but since I am no longer part of either, I will.

I beg of you, Dr. Smith, and those board members who saw fit to confer this recognition upon Kirk Cameron, to reconsider and rescind your offer to honor this minor celebrity in lieu of someone who is actually deserving.

I ask of the university’s leadership to consider the broadening of influence and foresee how this event ranks less as a commendation, and more as an insult to many of the IWU alumni, and do so with the deepest respect.

Sincerely,
Eric Nentrup

by: Andrew Parker

This article was written in response to a column printed on January 25 of this year regarding IWU’s policy on intellectual property and associated rights. The author of that piece, Steven Porter (sr), did a good job of presenting the information and pointing out some of the potential problems with the policy as it currently exists. The policy, found on page 30 of the 2011-2012 IWU Student Handbook, reads:

“Exclusive Property
All equipment, services and technologies provided to students as part of Indiana Wesleyan University’s computer system constitute the exclusive property of Indiana Wesleyan University. Similarly, 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.”

The item of concern addressed by Porter lies in the statement, “all information composed, transmitted, received or stored via the IWU computer system is also considered the property of Indiana Wesleyan University.” Such a statement indicates that the university owns anything, from class files to pictures of your family vacation, created or transmitted using the IWU computer system in some fashion. In many ways, this policy is similar to Facebook’s as the terms of agreement that users agree to state that Facebook has the rights to use anything you post until you delete that information or close your account.

Intellectual property statements are not uncommon among universities. Ball State University’s current policy, which can be found in their student code, states the institution’s rights of ownership to information and/or files created under one of the following conditions: it was created within the scope of employment or a class-related project; it was created as a result of a research agreement with Ball State; it was created using significant funds, resources, or facilities of Ball State; it was commissioned by Ball State or was the result of contracted work and the appropriate agreements were signed.

The obvious difference between Ball State’s policy and IWU’s is the detailed definition of what constitutes ownership and this is an area that should be, and is being, addressed. In fact, a proposal is currently being reviewed that would address the Exclusive Property policy and seek to provide more clarity and boundaries. The proposal, as it reads presently, states, “All original material created by IWU students using IWU equipment is the exclusive property of that student unless the University specifically engaged the student to create that material.” While this is a draft and the issues related to what students create as part of a class remains to be addressed further, I believe things are moving in the right direction.

Another concern that came to light when reviewing the current policy was mined from the final sentence of the current policy: “IWU reserves the right to disclose all stored information to management, law enforcement and other third parties, with or without notice to the student.” While this type of statement is not foreign to other university policies and exists to allow information to be disclosed for the necessity of handling conduct and criminal matters, there was a recommendation by the university’s counsel to better define who constitutes “third parties.” The reason for this is to create some safeguards regarding with whom information can be shared with in order to decrease the possibility that shared information/intellectual property could be used without the owner’s consent.

While a topic like intellectual property is not the most exciting thing to talk about, especially in the midst of March Madness, its importance and implications for students and the rights they have to the work they produce are quite substantial. Thanks again to Steven Porter and The Sojourn staff for casting light on a topic that needed to be addressed. Once review of the current policy is completed, revisions will be reflected in the upcoming 2012-2013 Student Handbook.