COMMENTARY

Politics overshadow freedom of speech

John T. Bennett

Sparked by comments made three days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks by Liberty University Chancellor Rev. Dr. Jerry Falwell, the Appalachian State University Faculty Senate approved a motion supporting any administrative decision to terminate or not renew athletic contracts with the Virginia-based university.

That move came in October and was followed several weeks later by the passage of a similar resolution by the Student Government Association Senate.

The comments Falwell uttered on the Sept. 14 broadcast of “The 700 Club” blamed a number of subgroups of the American populous including homosexuals, feminists and abortionists — among others — for the attacks, sentiments for which he later apologized.

While I in no way agree with or condone the ultra-bigoted comments made by Falwell, as a student-journalist with a strong belief in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, I stand firmly by Falwell’s constitutionally guaranteed right to exercise his freedom of speech.

Frankly, I see Falwell’s comments as unbelievably ignorant and extremely dim-witted.

But like it or not, we live in a nation where every citizen possesses the right to utter ignorant and dim-witted statements.

In their collective mission to uphold society’s ever-apparent requirement of political correctness, those faculty members and students who led the charge to pass these two pieces of legislation placed being offended before Falwell’s right to free speech.

If the Appalachian administration gives way to this undercurrent of political correctness and does indeed opt to either terminate or simply not renew athletic contracts with Liberty, it will undermine one of the fundamental freedoms on which our nation is built.

But wait, there’s more.

During debate on the floor of the SGA Senate, Ian Mance, an off-campus senator, and on-campus representative Paul Funderburk cited Appalachian’s diversity mission statement and made a strong case that Falwell’s comments were directly contradictory toward it.

Though I agree with that contention, I am left no alternative but to ask the following question: How can Appalachian, a university with very little diversity, use such a statement as grounds to sever athletic ties with another school?

Sure, university officials routinely tout bolstering diversity as their top goal for this institution, but anyone willing to look beyond this administrative spin will find the Appalachian State student body is a homogenous lot.

In terms of things clearly offensive, I merely point to Appalachian’s last-place ranking among UNC system schools in terms of percentage of minority undergraduate students.

On a campus of 12,560 undergraduates, Appalachian State currently enrolls a student body that is 94.4 percent Caucasian this academic year.

To me, that’s offensive.

That said, if an administrative decision is made to implement the proposals offered by the pair of anti-Liberty resolutions, perhaps Appalachian’s current sporting foes should follow the lead of this institution’s Faculty and SGA senates by beginning steps to sever athletic ties with Appalachian State on grounds of being offended by the long-standing lack of diversity at this public institution of higher learning.

COMMENTARY

Eric not speaking for all Christians

Yellow T-shirts all over campus, the entire back page of The Appalachian filled with a blaring advertisement, and spray-painted messages all over the tunnels challenged us with whether or not we agreed with Eric.

The ad campaign for this event was everywhere, and it stirred up its share of controversy. I believe Eric had every right to speak his piece and state his beliefs, just as much as an Orthodox Jew, Buddhist, Atheist or Wiccan would have every right to mount a similar campaign. That is the nature of both freedom of speech and religion.

However, certain aspects of both the large newspaper ad and the event struck me, and not entirely in a good way.

I consider myself a Christian since a particularly dramatic experience I had several years ago, and I disagree with Eric on more than one statement.

For one, I do not believe the Bible is a “flawless manual for living.” I believe that it is a work spiritually inspired by God but written down by human beings who were all too flawed and who in many cases, were trying to describe concepts and experiences words cannot possibly fully convey.

It has also been translated many, many times over the millennia, and many of those translators have had agendas of their own.

A good example involves Exodus 22:18 (KJV): “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,” yet many scholars now believe the original statement referred to assassins.

In fact, King James of England, who ordered the translation of the Bible now most often used, was a notorious witch hunter, and the way that verse was translated was used many times to justify the slaughter of those whose only crime was eccentricity or differing religious beliefs.

Or what about the biblical classification of homosexuality as an “enormous sin?” It stems from the book of Leviticus, part of the law code for the Israelites thousands of years ago, a code that also has in it a host of dietary prohibitions, laws for polygamy and slavery, as well as many other things that almost no Christian, even the most fundamentalist, would think of practicing in this day and age.

This, I believe, does not detract from the Bible’s sacred values; it simply means that one must think when one reads it.

Rather than a “manual” to be taken literally, I believe the Bible to instead be a guide. God gave human beings intellect and free will to make their own decisions, even to interpret the Bible.

I believe Christian morals should stem not only from the Bible’s words, but also from an individual’s personal connection to God.

This is not an entirely new belief; Christian mystics from Hildegard Von Bingen to the poet William Blake have also taken the Bible as a spiritual message of God’s love of flawed humans, one with layers of meaning rather than a simple step-by-step manual for how to stay on God’s good side.

The end of the newspaper ad makes it clear: “You have a decision to make: Do you agree with Jesus?” This implies Eric’s statement and Christian belief are one and the same.

There are one billion stated Christians on the face of the planet; Eric certainly does not speak for us all.

Our Perspective ...

A successful campaign
“Do you agree with Eric” effort a
blueprint for sparking campus debate

As yellow shirts swarmed the campus of Appalachian State University last week, many students finally shed their apathetic skins to either express support or disapproval for Eric, a spokesperson for various Christian organizations.

The highly organized “Eric” campaign spawned conversation and controversy around the campus community, a phenomenon not seen since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The organizations involved utilized highly effective strategies for generating interest in their cause.

Promotion of the Nov. 8 Varsity Gym discussion on spiritual beliefs began subtly with posters and fliers ambiguously asking, “Do you agree with Eric?” and progressed into a massive crusade, perhaps a game plan other campus groups would benefit from using.

Although we are not stating whether or not we agree with the beliefs and ideas of Eric, we are applauding Campus Crusade for Christ members for their diligent and efficient efforts.

It has unfortunately become common knowledge that religious conflicts can sometimes result in anger or violence, and we commend those who possess different values from that of the Christian faith for being tolerant and open-minded.

We also commend those who peacefully and sensibly expressed concerns or disapproval with the “Eric” campaign in various forms ranging from a letter-to-the-editor in this publication to a casual discussion among friends.

The aforementioned individuals showed genuine interest in an issue, something we feel should occur more often on a university campus.
First Amendment rights are a privilege not granted to citizens of all countries, and we should embrace our freedoms more frequently.

However, many opponents of the “Eric” campaign claim the organizations took their rights too far and pushed their beliefs on others.

It can also be argued those who were openly hostile to involved organization members were overstepping the boundaries of the First Amendment.

Although we acknowledge there may have been some offended by the prevalence of Christian ideals, we feel the majority of “Eric” proponents were not aggressive with their presentations.

We also believe an overwhelmingly number of “Eric” contenders voiced their opinions in reasonable manners.

In the near future, we encourage other groups and organizations to promote their ideas in an effective manner as well, no matter how similar or different they are to Eric’s.