The "Loyalty Oath" Scandal

It is almost impossible to read a newspaper or watch a news broadcast without having to endure yet another analysis of Tea Party anger. Well, let me give you and example of liberal anger. In the Post a few days ago (4/17/10), in place of Tina Griego's beautifully written and admittedly liberal story telling, was a polemic from Newt Gingrich and Jim Garlow raging at the "decidedly leftist world view sold in too many classrooms."

In support of this conservative talking point, Gingrich and Garlow warn us to be watchful of a Supreme Court case to be heard on Monday (today) which has "the potential to strike a ferocious blow for--or against--religious liberty on university campuses."

Wow! A Supreme Court case! Leftist (not just liberal) campuses! Religious liberty in danger!

It seems that California's Hastings College of Law has told a local chapter of the Christian Legal Society (CLS) that they cannot require members to sign a statement affirming their Christian faith. The CLS, outraged, sued the school for violating its First Amendment rights. Since the U.S. Court of Appeals has supported the school's position and the 7th Circuit has supported the opposite position in a similar case, the issue is going to the Supremes. Let me predict that the CLS is going to be vindicated by John Roberts and his cronies.

Gingrich and Garlow loudly assert that Hastings College's position proves the unchecked leftist bias dominating college classrooms all over the country. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how they got from the CLS's oath of affirmation dispute to the domination of university classrooms by leftist proselytizers. Even if the Hastings College official who put a stop to the affirmation was a raving anti-Christian, how does that translate to the classroom?

Hastings College argues that all students on campus must be eligible for all organizations. The CLS and evidently Gingrich and Garlow as well, unable to handle the possibility that a non-Christian might join up and, worse yet, might be elected to a leadership position, saw this ruling as deeply biased against people of faith. It is apparent that Gingrich and Garlow simply don't believe the college's all-inclusive argument. For example, they cite as absurd the idea that the Young Democrats on campus might sign up a republican or libertarian and, GASP, elect that apostate to some high office.

They're right. It is absurd. That's why the other 69 organizations on the Hastings College of Law campus don't ask their prospective members to affirm their faith, or politics, or sexual persuasion. If I were a student at good old Hastings and I wanted to join the SCUBA club even though wild horses couldn't get me to actually go in the water, I wouldn't expect to have to commit to a lifetime fidelity to water sports. Why should I have to commit to Christianity if, for some reason (a girl in Contracts belonged?), I decided to join the CLS?

It seems to me that the real issue here is why does the CLS ask its members to sign such a document? Isn't it redundant? Why would a non-Christian want to join in the first place? I've heard their parties suck.

The thing that makes me mad is that the Supreme Court is going to spend time arguing over this idiotic complaint. Talk radio will work up their angry listeners into an even greater frenzy. John Boehner will get white with rage, thereby losing his tan. John McCain will say some random thing. And Sarah Palin will charge some group a hundred grand to listen to her talk about it.

I agree that the majority of college classrooms I know about tend to be liberal. But when I read through the faulty logic and downright dishonesty of Gingrich and Garlow's essay, I can see why there is a preponderance of liberal professors. They're more reasonable and less prone to paranoid fantasies like the leftist, anti-Christian conspiracy on college campuses.