Comments

Cedarville has much bigger problems...all alumni & parents need to visit:
http://www.cedarvillealumni.com

Thanks Christianity Today for blogging about this important issue. It's great to see outside sources paying attention to the concerns of Cedarville students, rather than the unfortunate clamor of various factions outside or formerly-of-Cedarville factions.

Please, anyone who views this site, do not take anything you see at the above "cedarvillealumni.com" link without a significant grain of salt. I won't say they don't have some good points, but the publicity generated by that group and its compatriots at Cedarville Situation and Coalition of the Concerned have harmed quite seriously the name of Christ in its association with Cedarville. Most of the students on the campus and the majority of the faculty to which I've personally spoken fully support this administration. Please please please, dear reader, do not succumb to these types of drive-by blog slander (here of course, I'm referring to the first comment, not to Christianity Today's article).

Again, Sarah, thank you so much for your attention to this issue. It is most welcome

PR staff editing a student newspaper? Ugh. A student paper is the responsibility of the students and faculty adviser, and is not a propaganda tool of the administration. PR have their own organs of communication; use them!
What does this kind of censorship say about Christian higher ed? Administrations so afraid of looking bad that they have to minutely control student publications, preempting every imagined threat to their reputations with PR staff wielding red pens. Trust in and forgiveness of students, rather than paranoia that they might at any moment disappoint unrealistic expectations of perfection, better befits administrators in Christian higher ed.

No, don't visit CedarvilleAlumni. It's full of misinformation and the people who lead it are also people who have previously criticized Cedars for being too liberal. They're hypocrites. Don't feed the trolls.

The fact of the matter is that Cedars would have been restructured regardless of this censorship deal. The world of media is fast changing and in order for print media to survive it has to change to. The creation of the Journalism department at Cedarville will help Cedars make that change so that it can survive the transition into the future of media. the reason it will not come back until 2010 is because of the restructuring of the newspaper will take some time because it is switching departments as well as getting some new advisors. Freedom of speech still exists and this restructure of the newspaper would have happened regardless of this censorship situation. The changes at Cedars have everything to do with the changing media.

Sounds like we've already had a couple of posts from the Cedarville PR Dept... Fascinating.

Alan: Let me take a moment to defend Dr. Ruby. The decision to censor Cedars was made by the board of trustees and Provost Gredy. Carl Ruby had nothing to do with that decision.

Our daughter attended Cedarville and they make it very clear that they are coming from a particular viewpoint and set of values and that students that don’t agree with it should not attend Cedarville and are free to leave at any time. Included in this is the forgotten idea that the University is acting "in loco parentis". This particular case is difficult, but I agree that the role of the university is to shape there students in all areas of endeavor.

I was the News Editor for Cedars, CU's student newspaper.

Three quick comments:

1. Peter: You have no idea what you're talking about. We, the editors, decided to cease publication because of excessive restrictions. We hope that the PR department won't censor the restructured student newspaper next spring. A few trustees---a minority, I have heard---were angry about a few liberal-leaning articles that don't fit what Provost Gredy called "the Cedarville view."

2. Daniel hit the nail on the head. As editor for the student newspaper, I can say happily that we've enjoyed no greater enthusiast than Dr. Ruby. Alan's condemnation of Dr. Ruby typifies the ignorance that pervades those that surf the internet daily to find some dirt on CU so that they may propagate their own destructive agendas. I would have left a while ago without authentic, Christ-centered administrators such as Dr. Carl Ruby.

3. Read Jordan Wood's comment---comment two---entirely. Those at www.cedarvillealumni.com, led by angry cynics such as Dr. Bartholomew, only add fuel to the fire. Theirs is a mission of destruction and disunity. The students, faculty and staff at CU almost entirely reject their kingdom-less ethic.

Daniel: My apologies to Dr. Ruby. Please (with your permission of course) allow my previous insult and criticism to be transferred fully upon the shoulders of the Provost and the Board of Trustees.

As the editor-in-chief of a Christian university's student paper, I understand how the Cedarville editors are feeling. Censorship is the enemy of freedom in this country. How can student journalists learn how to properly address and cover significant and controversial issues when they have to present the university's viewpoint?
It disappoints me that often Christians are more concerned with how things look to others than they are concerned with the quest for truth and conversation about difficult subjects.
Keep up the fight Cedarville students. Down with censorship.

Why would anyone interested in freedom of expression attend (or teach at) Cedarville in the first place?

Whoa Scott. I don't think high school students are weighing their right to freedom of expression when they are choosing which college to attend. These are issues that get seriously explored in college. The responsibility is on the university, not 17 and 18-year-old kids.

First I deplore the venom I see by Christians (?) here. Whether you agree or disagree with CU, such an attitude is foreign to the Kingdom. This is not censorship. That can only be done by a government. CU does not have absolute free speech; nor does any entity, but especially a private and Christian university with a specific mission and vision. If the articles and editorials were biased, that is, for one thing just plain bad journalism and for another, might well (indeed did) violate the limits of so-called "free speech." This is not a university designed to explore anything and everything without limits. I fear our obsession with being heard has overshadowed our obligations as Christians.

"This is not a university designed to explore anything and everything without limits."

Then it is not truly a university. Academic freedom and freedom of press are not forfeited when a person becomes a Christian. Apparently Marc doesn't quite grasp the concept of free speech, and I fail to see how any of our articles violated the limits of free speech. Free speech is typically only limited by hate speech, and Cedars never published hate speech. Finally, editorials are biased. That's the point of an editorial. Again, I suggest you broaden your understanding of journalism.

The university is not our parent. The idea of 'in loco parentis" only applies to minors. University students are at least eighteen years old (usually) therefore "in loco parentis" does not apply.

I wrote for Cedars back in the late 1990s. I didn't understand the purpose of journalism, nor had I thought much about free expression. What we produced back then was more or less a feature section. Don't get me wrong: I love features, especially of the narrative variety. But since we were all learning the craft, none of our features were particularly good, and we weren't really learning how to be reporters -- how to ask tough questions, how to get elusive information, how to write fairly and with balance. I'm really glad to hear that current students are fighting the censorship because that's the only way they'll get the practice they need to do good journalism. When I was there, censorship was so ingrained in Cedars as an institution that I, for one, took for granted that we didn't really do any work that mattered. I almost concluded that journalism was a waste of time. I didn't even know what I was missing until I got out into the real world and started writing for newspapers who took seriously their role of holding accountable those in power. That, of course, is the role celebrated by the Founding Fathers whose Christian heritage the folks at Cedarville so often want us to remember.

Censorship was so ingrained in the Cedars culture when I was there in the late 1990s that for a while I concluded that journalism was a boring waste of time. It's a shame I had to get out into the real world to become aware of journalism's role of holding the powerful accountable. All I did as a student journalist was write a bunch of bad features. I didn't learn how to ask tough questions, get elusive information or write fairly and with balance. Those central journalistic tasks just weren't on my mind, and no one was encouraging me to think about them.

It's not uncommon for the PR department to oversee content of student newspapers at Christian universities. I was horrified when I arrived at my current institution to see that the PR/Marketing department ran the student newspaper out of its office. I've never seen any editorial or article on anything remotely controversial. Everything must tow the institutional line. Student newspapers are supposed to be spaces for students to have a voice – sadly, to many Christian institutions are ruled by fear, whether of alumni, parents, or trustees. I agree that there has to be some oversight by an advisor, but PR marketing pieces should not masquerade as journalism. I'm proud of these brave students for revealing the facade.

Once again, the rhetoric borders on ad hominem. sarah is nitpicking because I included aricles and editorials in the same sentence with "biased." I quite understand the difference, but I will add that the editorials were most certainly NOT censored because the only time an individual or entity has a right of free speech that borders on absolute (there is no asbolute right) is in relation to government attempts to prohibit. Cedarville is a Christian university with certain standards and has every right to apply those standards to anyone--like it or not, right or wrong. As for academic freedom, that too is a euphemism these days for saying whatever one wants, to "politicize" the clasroom oftentimes. Sarah also betrays her bias by speaking about "our articles." Perhaps she needs to step back and consider dispassionately the issues at stake. Neither she nor anyone else has any absolute right to publish any articles thatcontradict the mission/philosophy of the university. That sounds terrible politically incorrect. But it is true. And yes, Cedarville is a university--just not in step with the vast majority of universities.

I was the editor-in-chief of the newspaper for a Christian university very similar to Cedarville in it's political and cultural stances (no R rated movies, no dancing, etc.). The adviser of our newspaper was also the head of PR, so it created several instances of censorship. They were always wondering about how the university would look in the newspaper and never once considered how the newspaper reflected the student body as a whole. We were not allowed to even raise questions concerning the firing of professors or staff. The newspaper was, at its lowest points, a propaganda mill that cheered on the school no matter what they did, like super-positive stories about teams that were winless during their seasons. The newspaper was really more like Teen magazine for Christian college students in the Philadelphia area, with top ten lists and places to go visit along with book reviews and critics views on movies and music.

I did not find Cedars to be a very attractive paper in the 90s when I attended, mostly because you knew exactly what to expect with every singe issue published: dispensational/calvinist theology and content features as someone already pointed out above. This is not bad in itself, but it does not encourage the critical approach that a media program should encourage, and I don't see how it teaches journalism.

My understanding is that the paper had gotten a lot better in the last few years but what is "better" in my eyes apparently needs to be censored in the eyes of the trustees. It's sad and unfortunate. While the school is a private school and can exercise the right it has to censor student activities, it also has the right and opportunity to display an attitude of openness by allowing students to voice their opinions, create dialogue and encourage the exchange of ideas and content. Censorship has never allowed for the furthering of knowledge and of Christ's Kingdom.

This is the wrong decision. I hope the administration will reconsider it; going back to the culture of 80s and 90s will not increase attendance.

I love watching a professor (Marc Clauson) and a student (Sarah Jones) engage each other in this flame war. You two are so cute.

I'd hardly call it a flame war, but thanks for calling me cute.

This entire controversy involving Cedarville is both distracting and sometimes nauseating. It's never pretty to watch an ugly fight like this, and it is quite embarrassing and troubling - especially since I am close to people who are at least listed as personalities on opposite sides of the issue. I'm also saddened by the enthusiasm with which some feel it is necessary to proclaim their immature response to the issue (from both an intellectual and Christian perspective). (Not a comment about any particular post here, but just a general comment on the issue).

I work for a private healthcare organization, and the PR department here employs a similar level of scrutiny, call it censorship if you want, of all materials bearing its logo, name or any representation of them. It is done, appropriately, in the name of brand preservation and brand identity. Since I'm an employee of this institution, I should not expect that I can write negative or controversial things, as a bearer of the name of my institution, without some repercussions and yes, censorship. It is validly stated in previous posts, that if the University is providing space, supplies or any other support to the production of the student paper, then the University, by default, reserves a right to exercise some control over the content of the paper. There is a student radio station at Cedarville - but the DJ certainly does not have the license to broadcast anything he or she wishes.

Anyone who wants to fly the flag of "don't censor me" should understand that they ought to then remain unaffiliated. Censorship by our government - that's bad. Censorship by a private institution, upon its own voluntary members - that's understandable; maybe not what people want, and certainly an indication of the level of mistrust that exists, but hardly a case for this type of public food fight. I decidedly avoided some colleges when I made my college choice because I knew what they were about, and I didn't agree with their viewpoint(s).

Unfortunately for all involved, the original issue of the mishandling of a faculty termination has now morphed into multiple quarrels - and I really wonder where the end lies.

I'm jumping in here late. Cedarville does have the legal right to censor their newspaper, that's the reason the ACLU isn't involved. That doesn't mean that it's perfectly fine for them to do so.

I am outside of this. I graduated (I think?) in 2003 and haven't been within 2 states of campus since. But I do keep an eye on what's going on, because it's interesting to me. The administration's handling of Cedars, from what I know, has been fundamentally wrong.

This has been a long time coming. Ultra-fundamentalist gossip blogs started all of this. It started with the Cedars forum getting porn spammed and an article critiquing a pamphlet on homosexuality that had been distributed to the student body. Cedars got taken offline, which was a shame.

Then Kevin and Sarah, who in small ways are both heroes of mine, had the guts to stand up and say things that needed to be said, and people didn't like to hear it. ROTC fundamentally un-Christian? It's as true as can be, but no one likes to believe it. Modesty panels offensive to both common sense and healthy sexual ethics? You'd better believe it. Sarah Palin totally unqualified for the position she was nominated to fill? Absolutely.

People don't like hearing these things because they don't like critical thought... which should be something present at every university. Even if you don't agree... if one of those articles made you think, at all, about an issue, then it was worthwhile. It's fundamentally backwards of the administration to try to curb that.

They never made the distinction they should have made. This was a student newspaper. It contains the views of students. They have a place for the views of the administration. It's called the website, or the alumni magazine, or they can send out DVDs to everyone if they get antsy enough. When students are raising issues like these, the answer is not to shut those voices out, and that's what Cedarville tried to do.

I'm thankful that you pulled the last issue. Thanks for calling attention to this. I hope the administration has learned a lesson, but only time will tell.

Michael Shirzadian, you're actions are hypocrtical, to put it mildly. Since when does "freedom of speech" override spiritual maturity? The Bible is the final authority in the believer's actions, to which you need to apply to your protesting/whining. Since when is Cedars a soapbox for your unchristlike agenda? Christian pro-abortionists? No such creature. Making an ex-student feel good about his disgrace by using Cedars to peddle advocacy of another's sin choice? Unless "critical thought" is viewed through the lens of the written word of God (the Bible), it's not "critical thought" but thinking after the prince of this world. Some college kids don't like a Bible based view of something? Well, tough. Do you really think you have entitlement/rights to whine and protest using the resources of a Christian college?

Another poster said, "People don't like hearing these things because they don't like critical thought... which should be something present at every university."

Have you ever heard of us who are steadfast in our biblical convictions and certainties? What Bible based law says I have to "listen to every side"?

Again, even another poster said, "Censorship has never allowed for the furthering of knowledge and of Christ's Kingdom." missing the point. I get sick of the "censorship" card. Censorship is not automatically wrong, it's right quite often.

It takes a dozen or so ignorant, whining, protesting college kids to make Christian college look bad, and you, Michael Shirzadian, played your part. Are you in closer fellowship with God with your actions and protesting? I can answer "no" for you.