Hispanics in Texas Rise Up Against Illegal Immigration

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 8, 2011
CONTACT: Kathryn Richardson Public Affairs Young Conservative Texas-Baylor Chapter
425 891 2319 Kathryn_Richardson(at)baylor.edu

* * *MEDIA ADVISORY* * *

University-Sponsored Illegal Immigrant Activism Sparks Response

Waco, TX –Hispanic leaders in Texas are joining a student’s fight against a political culture they say pigeon-holes minorities as reliably liberal. Daniel Cervera, a senior at Baylor University, filed legislation at his school’s student government in response to what he describes as selective enforcement of university policy. “The school essentially sponsored a speaking platform to an illegal immigrant enrolled in our law school, who then used that platform to speak in favor of civil unrest to push a political agenda,” said Cervera.

Greg Torres, a member of the student senate, agrees the University’s decision to sponsor illegal immigration activism violates established policy and precedent, “It’s embarrassing for all Hispanic students whose families have worked hard to make a name for themselves, as opposed to doing it illegally and in a way that university policy clearly opposes.”

One university official claims Cervera’s proposal threatens to stifle debate on campus. Dr. Elizabeth Palacios, Baylor University’s Dean for Student Development, is quoted in the November 3, 2011 edition of the campus newspaper, saying “As a university, we are never going to be Tier 1 if we censor thoughts that are incongruent [with our beliefs].”

But senior class senator Gabriela Garrett, a Hispanic co-sponsor of Cervera’s legislation, says Palacios’s response all but proves a double standard exists at Baylor. “Apparently, Baylor’s administration would sooner silence a legal citizen advocating for gay rights than they would an illegal immigrant advocating for special government benefits.”

Garrett referenced a report from the March 4, 2011 edition of the campus newspaper, with Palacios defending the private Christian school’s decision to deny the Sexual Identity Forum, a GLBT-advocacy group, an official charter.

“When it’s apparent that there is a stance being taken by the language, by the spirit or by the intent of a group, then it takes on a different purpose and it takes on a different slant,” said Dr. Palacios, explaining the school’s decision to deny a student group charter.

Duke Machado, president of the Hispanic Republican Club, says Cervera’s action marks the importance of minorities becoming more independently engaged. “It needs to start with us,” said Machado, “It’s important that minorities aggressively counter abuses of racial identity for political gain.”

Felipe Reyna, a retired appeals court justice and Baylor Law graduate, also weighed in on the matter, “For a Baylor Law student to speak favorably of engaging in unlawful activity to push a political view is really shameful. I sincerely hope university administrators will rethink their decision to defend sponsoring such an event.”

###

Part III – Time to take charge, not take cover.

(Originally published May 7, 2011)

This installment completes a three-part series of articles written in response to the publication of a New York Times puff piece which gave readers a skewed understanding of religious liberty vs. GLBT activism at Baylor.

Following my remarks in Part II, I believe it’s extremely fair to think that the sorts of antics regularly employed by GLBT activists are typically far more harmful to the likelihood of a “fair dialogue” than the honest attempts professors like Dr. Beckwith have made to reach out with sincerely-held reasons he supports Baylor’s position to deny GLBT groups an official charter–and this is a devout Catholic teaching at a Baptist school.

What’s more, I would argue that activism generally produces these consequences by design; appealing rhetoric aside, the point of this kind of political engagement is rarely ever about “dialogue;” discussion may emerge prominently, but only as an accessory to an end; not the end itself. The sooner one understands this point, the sooner one will see the distinction between a group’s methods, and its actual goals.

A brief glimpse at GLBT language should make this eminently clear. When Pro-GLBT activists at college campuses speak about things as “fair dialogue” or providing a “safe space” for “open discussion,” just who (or what?) is supposed to be the impending threat? One would think that these places are full of students just waiting to look for and hunt down anyone confused about their sexuality.

Of course, we know that just isn’t the case. In practice, these terms usually end up meaning a blanket cultural immunity from legitimate criticism (that would be “non-affirming,” you see). How often, though, does this concern for fairness, safety, and openness ever translate into real respect and admiration for a conservative critic presenting a thoughtful opposing view?

The absolute moral rectitude driving much of GLBT advocacy on college campuses usually undermines such assurances faster than you can yell “bigot.” It is, after all, a “civil rights” issue (scoot over, MLK). And when the entire topic is cast as a two-dimensional fight between the good and evil, the enlightened vs. the backward, it’s hard to see how SIF can fit Baylor into this universe, while accepting Baylor for what it is.

And thus enters a great irony. If “acceptance” is understood to mean not having to change one’s values or beliefs for someone else, and acceptance is, after all, part of what SIFers demand, it’s a bit strange that they haven’t learned to accept institutions like Baylor, such as it is. It would seem that with all this talk of change, it is Baylor, along with its students, that must do all the changing.

For the time being, and in a minimal way, Baylor has stood by its historically-grounded Biblical principles. The University has at least chosen not to financially subsidize a view which clearly runs contrary to Christian ethics. But neither is it lifting a finger to actively defend a view of its own. Students at Baylor (and at Christian colleges across the country) are justifiably hungry for a different sort of cultural engagement than the kind that Baylor has supported thus far. This kind of engagement is best captured in the words of C.S. Lewis in The Weight of Glory:

“To be ignorant and simple now—not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground—would be to throw down our weapons [and have] no defense against … intellectual attacks … Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered. The cool intellect must work … against the cool intellect on the other side.”

Lewis makes several bold claims: First, Christianity has real philosophical enemies. Not all views are “misunderstood.” Some views truly are inimical to Christian thought and character.

Second, bad philosophy exists, and must be answered; not just “heard.” We, as an intellectual community, have a responsibility to the less-educated to defend against such philosophy. And, let’s be real: “Defense” here means much more than merely denying subsidy to opposing philosophies. It means direct engagement.

This is where Baylor could stand to see some improvement. For all the considerable resources Baylor regularly devotes toward poverty, socio-economic & environmental justice–all “safe” topics to promote amid liberal academic communities–and liberal Christian speakers, Baylor seems to have given comparatively little attention to crucial topics shared by the Christian community. It is evident that Christianity, both in our community and at large, is in a crisis of identity as it attempts to grapple with some of the issues SIF raises. And the only institution that is best and so uniquely equipped to respond to these sorts of challenges is one like Baylor.

Such questions might include the existence of God, the historicity of the Gospels, the sanctity of human life, the role of marriage in civil society, the origin and purpose of human existence, just war theory, the problem of God and evil, secularism and its effect on religious liberty, America’s early Judeo-Christian roots, the violent persecution of Jews and Christians in the middle east and around the world, and how Christians can respond to each of these challenges. In fact, an interdisciplinary conference promoting the merits of traditional family and sexual identity would in itself generate all the dialogue SIF claims it wants.

But rather than promoting traditional speakers, Baylor’s mid-level administration has given much more time to “non-traditional” voices, including one visiting author (Ann Lamott) who uses her spare time openly advocating for abortion and and participating in friend-assisted suicide. This, University staff members assure, is all part of a plan to continuously “challenge” students by “exposure” to “difficult” (read: liberal) views, without offering similar aid and comfort to the distinct views of its own parent institution.

Of course, “exposure” is part of what universities do; one has to countenance contrary views to even begin appreciating the force of what we’re dealing with. But that is certainly not all a Christian university can do for its students. What is neglected in the process is what conceivably is part of Baylor’s main objective: Equipping young people to engage culture from a Christian perspective on these matters. Why else would one go through the trouble of establishing a Baptist institution of higher learning, rather than just another state school?

Given Baylor’s Christian identity and mission, the school has a vested interest in the outcome of these contemporary debates. Baylor’s relative silence on these matters risks leaving students deserted in a time of need. The school, moreover, becomes justly vulnerable to criticism when efforts such as the Sexual Identity Forum begin filling unclaimed intellectual territory.

Central to SIF’s attack against Baylor is the lack of discussion on a matter which, at the very least, picques the curiosity of undergraduates who want to know: is it reasonable to believe as Baylor does on these matters? Simply declaring a policy-stance is hardly a winning strategy for robust cultural engagement, and certainly not one that will provide the intellectual tools necessary to respond to the very real challenges Christian students will face upon graduation.

What is needed at Baylor is nothing short of a complete reassessment of its guest speaker selection standards, conference topics, and university-sponsored event themes. When students entering Baylor begin wondering whether a homosexual advocacy group has a case to demand financial subsidy and moral recognition from Baylor, parents–along with any alumni and donors–may want to inquire into how much in student fees the University could devote to making a stronger case for the Biblical positions it currently holds. A good model for this may be the excellent conferences put together by the Veritas Forum, or even an apologetics program similar to that of Biola University.

This is an area many of us sincerely hope will be considered for reform with President Starr’s new Strategic Plan. It’s no time to take cover. It’s time to take charge.

Chairman’s Update

I’ve just returned from what has truly been one of the proudest moments in my time at Baylor. This University has stepped up in a big way to commemorate the sacrifices our men and women in uniform make daily in service to their country and their communities. Our university president, Judge Ken Starr, has time and again impressed me as a man of class and distinction.

If you weren’t able to attend today’s special ceremony, it’s not too late to get involved. Baylor invites the Waco community to come together this Sunday at 5pm, and once again pay tribute to the memory of those lost nearly ten years ago.

Retired Army Lt. Colonel and 9/11 Pentagon Survivor, Texas Senator Brian Birdwell will speak at a special memorial service in Waco Hall, with some closing remarks by Judge Starr.

I encourage all of Baylor YCT and our friends to take time to attend this Sunday. If you get a chance, please shake the hands of the men and women who’ve done so much to prepare these campus events, and for bringing the community together for this historic day of remembrance. I especially want to thank one of our own bright young student activists, Frances Padilla, for leading Baylor YCT’s third 9/11 Flag Memorial, which will be on display at the Fountain Mall through the night of Sept. 11th.

From a grateful veteran, chairman, and student,

Daniel Cervera
Chairman
Baylor Young Conservatives of Texas.

Remember September 11, 2001

Join us and Baylor University in honoring the sacrifices our brave men and women have made in securing liberty and justice to survivors of the worst act of terrorism in American history.

UNIVERSITY EVENT SCHEDULE:

===Friday, September 9, 2011 at 3pm===
Event: A Tribute to Our Fallen Heroes
Location: Northwest Patio of Moody Memorial Library, Baylor University

===Sunday, September 11, 2011 at 5pm===
Event: A Service of Remembrance
Location: Waco Hall, Baylor University

What the Baylor Lariat won’t defend

Allowing Baylor YCT barely enough time to respond via the web, our campus newspaper published an editorial hit piece deriding YCT for its support of pending state legislation that would even up the playing field between radical GLBT programs on college campuses and common-sense traditional family values.

Despite how we’ve given our outgoing editor plenty of grief before, I generally prefer keeping things cordial. Which is why I take no, um.. “perverse pleasure” in bringing this up, but since the editor did, after all, frame the issue in a pretty unflattering way, I would be very interested to know if (and how) they would defend any of this receiving taxpayer support:

A controversial video now has conservative groups taking aim at Texas A&M officials.

The extremely graphic video posted online by the group Texas Aggie Conservatives shows a sex therapist using pictures and videos to teach gays and lesbians how to safely engage in certain activities.

The answer? They wouldn’t. Here’s an excerpt from that Lariat editorial:

The propriety of GLBT centers’ events is not what we have chosen to discuss. There are indeed strong points on either side of that debate…

Really? Here’s a clip of the video in question. As you’re watching this, ask yourself: why anyone support the continued funding of any of this stuff through taxpayer dollars and mandatory student fees?

Be forewarned… this video gets extremely graphic.

GRAPHIC CONTENT WARNING

This is pretty much what passes for enlightened dialogue on GLBT issues at other campuses where entire centers have been established to provide a “safe space” for discussion… they promote “Butt play”.

PART II: This is what “dialogue” looks like

This article is the second in a three-part series addressing a New York Times piece by Erik Eckholm, which gave readers a pretty biased treatment of religious liberty vs. GLBT activism among Christian universities, including Baylor (see previous article). We now turn our attention to the methods employed by chief advocates of the self-described “Sexual Identity Forum” and how their conduct hardly seems to match their promise of fair dialogue.

Eckholm’s choice of words in one segment describing the tenor of GLBT activists at Baylor fits perfectly well: Demanding. Head members of the group have gone to some length to argue that its purpose is not rooted in advocacy, and that its chief goal is to simply provide a “safe space” for dialogue that’s fair and respectful to all points of view. But that soaring rhetoric came crashing the day its founding officer published a private letter written by Baylor professor of philosophy Dr. Francis Beckwith, apparently in a move to invite public excoriation.

In reply to Samantha Jones’s call for petition signers, Beckwith had offered several reasons why he, as a devout Catholic, could not sign such a document in good conscience. He went further to offer reasons why even he, as one who doesn’t share Baylor’s Baptist identity, nonetheless, thinks it perfectly reasonable for a host institution to implement whatever policies are most consistent with its core beliefs, especially since those beliefs are publicly accessible to anyone who asks.

Unfortunately, Jones didn’t reply with much in response to Beckwith’s careful remarks beyond labeling it a case of “negativity.” Rather, her action seemed intent on little more than provoking SIFers to display a darker negativity of their own, one which has become sadly characteristic of much of GLBT activism. Perhaps the worst example of this comes from “Oscar B.”, whose comments betrayed a deep contempt; not for Beckwith’s arguments, but for his Catholicism:

Beckwith is, for the lack of a better word, an absolute charlatan. …I’m not saying that Francis is the type of insidious person that will feign his beliefs until the means justify the end, but it sure looks that way.

If Francis truly held his beliefs, and wasn’t just grandstanding for his audience, I would of expected he cause some sort of commotion about Notre Dame, where he recently functioned as a visiting professor, and it’s LGBTQ programs.

Whatever else one might draw from “Oscar’s” breathtakingly unfair contribution to this “dialogue,” at least he leaves no doubt over what he believes is appropriate to think of SIF’s critics. Not all of the rhetoric, however, is as forthcoming. Eckholm says “homophobia” is the overall bogeyman this controversial Baylor group seeks to fight.

But what is it about this rare medical phenomenon that they’re eager to do battle with?

“Phobias,” of course, fall within a class of strictly-defined medical criteria which are more suitably diagnosed by a licensed counselor than a group of student activists. It’s certainly possible that there really are large segments of Baylor’s population who’ve been certifiably diagnosed with this clinical condition. But there’s no data to support this conclusion. The term, I suspect, is no more than a carelessly used rhetorical device–mostly preferred by activist groups and those influenced by them–to disparage and shame large swaths of people who hold an honest and principled difference of opinion on the nature of human sexuality.

And just about all the rhetoric one might find on the topic consistently supports that conclusion.

As one might guess, there is every reason to doubt that SIF will actually restrict its future activity to impartial “dialogue.” Professors at Baylor with whom I’ve discussed the matter are hard pressed to come up with a single instance where such a group actually kept to that promise. So, where does this leave us, and how do we move beyond the apparent stalemate?

That will be the topic of tomorrow’s article.

Baylor Democrat President responds…

Last Friday, we posted a video of a former president of the Baylor Democrats conducting engaging in some pretty bizarre conduct during DiaDelOso.

We received an e-mail four days later from the organization’s current president expressing regret for Oscar’s conduct, and wanted to add this detail; we’ve excerpted a few of her comments explaining her side of what happened that day:

“Oscar was NOT acting on behalf of Baylor Democrats… I told Oscar and everyone else to stay away from your table after that. Oscar is not a current officer and technically speaking, he is not a current member of Baylor Democrats, per our constitution (which is on our website). He has not paid dues for the current year.”

You can find the above quoted in an updated video description, along with a link to this blog post.

PART I: The “Battle For Acceptance”

Yesterday, the New York Times ran an article on various Christian colleges and universities, giving readers a decidedly skewed treatment of religious liberty vs. GLBT activism on Christian campuses. This will be the first of a three-part series of articles designed to address the news piece, SIF’s goals, and conclude with some humble advice Baylor might consider as the campus community moves forward.

First, who is the author of the news piece? Erik Eckholm, who, in addition to an impressive 24+ career at the New York Times, spoke at a George Soros-sponsored event entitled “Reframing the Story of Black Males in the Media: A Philanthropic Call to Action” in July of 2009. Of course, Soros is a well-known multi-million dollar financier of many left wing activist organizations. So Eckholm’s sympathetic treatment of GLBT activists should come as no surprise, especially given his most recent articles, which include such flattering portrayals of Christianity as:

An Iowa Stop in a Broad Effort To Revitalize the Religious Right

Suit Says Jesuits Ignored Decades of Warnings About Priest

With Few Jobs, A Single Pastor Points to a Bias

Hard Partying and Bible Study, at the Fraternity House

Rob Bell Stirs Wrath With New Views On Old Questions

Back to the article in question, there is some irony in Eckholm’s description of recent events at Baylor as a “battle for acceptance.” That this battle has to be framed from the GLBT advocate’s point of view is a decision he simply takes for granted. Not much consideration is given for the “battle of acceptance” Christian universities wage throughout the United States to exist as Christian institutions. What’s so carelessly left absent in these discussions is any question into why GLBT advocates, who already receive enormous subsidy from campuses all over the country, can’t come to accept the existence of a traditional voice in the national discussion?

As Eckholm correctly notes, GLBT-friendly agendas practically dominate just about every other post-secondary institution of higher learning in the United States, save the few Biblically-based colleges and Universities. Those institutional remnants descend from a legitimately historic tradition of Christian-oriented colleges such as Harvard, Yale, and Brown–all of which, prior to their secularization, shared wholeheartedly Baylor’s philosophy on human identity and sexualtiy.

It’s a different world today. Now, advocates of traditional gender distinctions are curiously labeled as “narrow,” and, with great irony, were served with an eviction notice: such views had no place for expression in professional life, and should any Christian seek to practice according to this traditional view, they must do so within the confines of their own privately-run reservations.

Enter a medium-sized private school in the heart of Waco, Texas. For many Evangelicals, Baylor remains one of the few towers of Christian intellectual development, where promising students can gain a top-notch education in an environment that’s not just suggestive–but actively supportive of their Biblical beliefs. That’s not to say every student must endorse every view Baylor affirms (YCT certainly doesn’t), but the arrangement nonetheless met the requirements secular institutions had laid upon Christians.

But GLBT activists are saying that this just isn’t enough. As Eckholm reports, the Sexual Identity Forum is “demanding”–again, from a Baptist institution—the kind of “moral validation…that would come with formal status.” Incidentally, such a move would emburden traditional Evangelicals who value Baylor’s unique environment to once again find another school that is free to openly support their values.

It’s not clear where else SIFers would have them go. One could ask, in vain, that they point to some area on a map that would be suitable for building a private Christian educational system that freely adopts and advocates on behalf of traditional gender distinctions. A reasonable question would be: Why not a city called Waco, Texas?

Read: PART II: This is what “dialogue” looks like

Fallout: Qur’an-burning FL pastor reason for killing 12 in Afghanistan

Last fall, a pastor of a tiny church in Florida announced his plan to burn a copy of the Qur’an in protest of the widespread religious violence it continues to inspire in militant sects around the world.

For that, leaders of entire nations, world organizations, and editorial boards (including Baylor’s own) came out in condemnation of the pastor… for what Islamists would later do in response to his threat. Perhaps it was divine providence that led the pastor to decide not to burn the book after all, because what that left on display for the world to see was a frantic and out-of-control body politic which was desperately in search of some excuse to explain the utter hysteria caused by one man’s freedom of expression.

Today, CNN reports that eight months later, Islamists in Afghanistan have finally performed the requisite killing of innocents in response to the pastor’s eventual decision to burn the book last month:

Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) — At least 12 people were killed Friday in an attack on a United Nations building in Afghanistan that followed a demonstration against the reported burning of a Quran in Florida last month, authorities and a U.N. source with knowledge of the events said.

So there we have it, folks. Two sets of parties, each guilty of their own “crimes.” On the one hand, we have a pastor whose culpability on this issue pretty much matches that of artists who’ve been given cash awards for basically doing the same thing.

On the other, we have a group of people who see every reason to inflict incredible suffering on harmless men, women, and children for the actions of a low-profile individual halfway across globe.

Do we really need to spell out the moral implications further, or are we still going to seek more “understanding?”

Tsk, tsk, tsk…

In a speech to parliament in Damascus, Syrian President Bashar Assad is blaming “conspirators” for recent protests. The U.S. has responded by saying Assad’s speech lacked substance…