The nation’s oldest Catholic and Jesuit institution of higher learning is being asked to abandon student groups that adhere to the Catholic Church’s definition of marriage. According to two Georgetown University students, the university should refuse to recognize the student organization called “Love Saxa” because it promotes marriage as “a monogamous and permanent union between a man and a woman,” thus allegedly violating university standards.
So what are the standards said to be violated by the understanding of marriage that has been the cornerstone of human civilization since the dawn of time? According to the two unhappy students, Love Saxa is fostering “hatred or intolerance of others because of their race, nationality, gender, religion or sexual preference.”
Let’s set aside the question of whether “sexual preference” belongs in that list of protected classes. If we were to play the game of “which of these things is not like the other,” I would bet that 10 out of 10 players would choose “sexual preference” as the thing not belonging with race, nationality, gender and religion. But that’s the topic of another column.
For now, let’s consider whether students can truly be said to foster “hatred or intolerance of others” merely because they believe something others do not believe. The answer, in a nation built upon the principles of free speech and freedom of conscience, must surely be, “of course not.”
Almost any group that advocates for anything necessarily opposes the opposite of that thing. Those who want to prohibit marijuana sales in D.C. oppose those who would keep marijuana legal. But does that mean that the marijuana opponents hate those who want it to remain legal, or that they are intolerant of them? Does it mean that they hate marijuana addicts? Of course not.
It is no different with the issue of marriage. Many believe that natural marriage is best for families and best for society, and that therefore neither the state nor the church should treat same-sex unions as marriages. Most of those who believe this do not have a shred of hatred, fear, or loathing of those who support or practice same-sex unions. And there is no logical basis for assuming a connection between a certain belief about marriage, and hatred.
If Georgetown were to deem advocacy for a certain policy to be “hatred or intolerance” toward those who enjoy or benefit from the opposite policy, few student groups could be officially recognized. Pro-life advocates would be branded “haters” of women who have abortions. Groups protesting affirmative action would be deemed “intolerant” of racial minorities. Black Lives Matter wouldn’t stand a chance.
Is this the road we want to go down? Make no mistake: it is the road to tyranny, where out-of-vogue viewpoints are silenced by those in charge.
For Americans who are committed to real liberty, where citizens are free to engage in robust debate and no topic or position is off the table, efforts to silence minority viewpoints through authoritative means are deeply disturbing.
What’s astounding is that those of us whose worldview is on the chopping block are being pressured to swing the hatchet. This case, in which a Catholic university is being asked to marginalize a group of students committed to a precept of Catholicism, is a perfect example of how society would have us turn ourselves inside out to achieve a version of “diversity” that is inclusive of all worldviews except our own.
Some churches, denominations and groups have chosen to simply change their worldview to avoid the world’s disdain. If the trend keeps up, soon there will be few pesky believers to exclude from the left’s universe of one wobbly-kneed “progressive” dogma. That dogma may be insufficient to stand on its own in the marketplace of ideas, but it will do just fine propped up by institutions that suppress all competitors.
Sadly, many institutions of higher learning have caved to the demands of those whose frail ideologies need protection from the open marketplace of ideas. In so doing, they have betrayed values they claim to support: academic freedom, freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.
Will Georgetown do the same?
In refusing to officially recognize student groups that “foster hatred or intolerance of others,” Georgetown’s aim is to refuse to support bigotry, which is defined as “intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.” So the question is, who are the bigots? Those who peacefully advocate for a certain definition of marriage, or those who seek to shut them down because of what they believe?
