An Unfortunate Journalism Lesson

Our recent blog post entitled "The Bison: Legit Journalism or Good News Sheet?" circulated quickly and widely, generating hundreds of page views in the first 24 hours after it appeared.  I complimented the quality of the writing and the paper's organized, attractive appearance.  I also noted the lack of reporting on important campus issues and the complete absence of news-based editorials.  This leads inescapably to the conclusion that The Bison faces a) censorship, b) fear of censorship, or c) blow-back that creates self-censorship.

Given post-Takeover Baptist (male) leadership's disdain for any free and independent Baptist press, it would not be surprising if OBU's new leaders censored the student newspaper.  The highly authoritarian new Baptists prefer not to allow anything they cannot control.  (Note that among his many duties as provost, R. Stanton Norman is listed as editor of the alumni magazine, a publication that more often than not spotlights successful alumni who are not fundamentalists.)

Whether The Bison faces censorship, fear of censorship, or self-censorship, every indication is that OBU's student paper lacks editorial independence.  No other explanation can account for the lack of coverage of important campus issues and the absence of news-based editorials.  In early April, a situation emerged that proved to illustrate the problem.

On April 3, 2013, an "ex gay" evangelist named Christopher Yuan preached in Raley Chapel.  The premise behind Yuan's entire ministry, controversial even among many evangelicals, is that God can save you from unwanted same-sex attraction and that all Christians -- gay and straight -- should strive for holy sexuality.  Of course, for straights this ideally ends in a monogamous marriage filled with lovemaking and joy.  In their disordered state, Yuan urges gays to be content with the fruits of their completely repressed sexual selves: loneliness, isolation, estrangement, and frustration.  Just like he is.  Or something.

In response to Yuan's appearance and the endorsement from OBU that it represents, a group of alumni penned an open letter addressed "to the OBU family."  Their letter offered support to gay OBU students and pointed toward a different way of understanding homosexuality than what Mr. Yuan presented.  It circulated among a few alumni and, within a few days, garnered 50+ signatures.  The signers represent OBU graduates from six different decades.  They are gay and straight, men and women, clergy and laity, youthful and aging.

One of the authors asked me to sign the letter.  I declined.  At the risk of offending my fellow alumni who thought they could count on my support, I deliberately withheld my signature so that there could be no mistake: Save OBU does not take a position on homosexuality.  We have supporters on both sides of the debate and at every point in between.  While Save OBU supporters have a variety of perspectives on human sexuality and the place of gay men and lesbians in the life and ministry of the church, they are in agreement about standing strong for academic freedom and ethical administration at OBU.

The alumni letter was newsworthy by any standard.  Amazingly, the editor(s) of The Bison disagreed.  Or -- perhaps more likely -- they knew they would be harassed by administrators if they ran a news story about the letter.  Either way, not a drop of ink was spilt on the new pages of The Bison about the alumni letter.  (By comparison, the 2011 alumni petition received news and editorial coverage.)  The authors weren't seeking or demanding news coverage.  They simply wanted their work printed as a letter to the editor.  After trimming their piece to fit the word limit on what passes for an editorial page, the authors were assured that their letter would run in The Bison.

It never happened.

Instead, the authors received a note from the student editorial board explaining its decision not to print the letter.  The editorial board erroneously claimed that "the Save OBU blog has endorsed [the alumni] letter."  Further, the board argues that I "publicly challenged The Bison to publish that letter or face an accusation of censorship."

Going back to the days following Christopher Yuan's chapel sermon, you can see Save OBU's tweets that mentioned the issue here, here, here, and here.  The last tweet was also posted on our Facebook page:

The endorsement charge is ridiculous.  People and organizations discuss and share things on Twitter all the time with the constant assumption that retweets or tweeting news and links do not imply endorsement.  I intentionally went out of my way to not endorse the letter.  As for publicly challenging The Bison to print the alumni letter or face an accusation of censorship, I did say that whether or not the paper reports on or editorializes about the letter "will shed light on how much censorship exists."

The student editorial board said I attempted to bully them into printing the letter.  After initially agreeing to publish the letter, the board declined, "Not because the content will spark controversy or engage dialogue, but because we choose not to be bullied into publication by alumni and/or blogs."  The board also told the letter's authors that they had been encouraged to write a story about the issue and engage it journalistically -- "a project that we are in the process of considering."  Evidently, the board "decided" against engaging the issue journalistically.

The effect of the board's decision is that only a small handful of OBU students ever heard about the alumni letter.  By declining to print the alumni letter as an op-ed submission and in deeming the subject unworthy of a news report, the board missed an opportunity to facilitate a campus-wide conversation about a number of issues arising from the "ex gay" evangelist's appearance and the alumni's response.

Save OBU is just a convenient scapegoat.  In the real world of journalism, outside groups are constantly seeking news and opinion coverage of issues important to them.  I have often been mystified that not one word has appeared in The Bison about Save OBU, an effort that has sustained itself over 18 months of thoughtful research and analysis with 250+ blog posts, 5 guest writers, and a growing network of alumni interest and support.  If the 2011 alumni petition merited news and (timid) opinion coverage, it's impossible to argue that Save OBU has never been newsworthy.  The only reasons I have never complained about it is that a) I'm sympathetic to the faculty advisor's vulnerable position and b) it seems a little obnoxious to pick on student journalists who probably have  very little say in the matter.

But since the student board brought Save OBU into the discussion, I'll offer a gentle observation.  Editors have a responsibility to decide if a subject is newsworthy independent of outside groups or inside pressures (corporate ownership in the case of for-profit news; administrators in the case of campus newspapers).  Everyone has a stake, however, small, in the outcome.  The newspaper wants a reputation for fairness and even-handedness in covering important issues.  Readers depend on such a forum.  The alumni letter's authors want a wide audience for their letter.  They want students to believe that homosexuality is not a sin and that support is available if students have been harmed by how religion has typically regarded sexual minorities.  Save OBU merely wants some evidence that OBU students have access to important debates about controversial issues and that such discussions are not actively discouraged.  The people who run OBU do not want to open the door to questioning whether homosexuality is a sin.  They want students to believe that homosexuals should (if they cannot be spiritually or therapeutically cured of their sinful desires) be celibate for life and that there is no need to question the traditional teaching of biblical literalists on the matter (even though a majority of white evangelicals aged 18-34 now support same sex marriage rights).  By not covering the issue, the people who run OBU won and everyone else -- including The Bison -- lost.

I began my previous post about The Bison with praise for the student journalists, and I'll end this one the same way.  The production value is high.  The layout is attractive.  The writing is good.  The point-counterpoint pieces are interesting and thoughtful.  I especially commend the faith section editors and writers.  Even if the faith pages came about because an administrator insisted that The Bison contain more explicitly religious content, the students have done well with the mandate.

My concern is directed to the editorial staff generally, not from any single year.  There have been a lot of very consequential issues over the past four years that you have ignored.  Reasonable people can disagree about whether there should have been 15 stories or 50.  But it's not reasonable to think that an adequate number of news stories and editorials dealing with widespread discontent about administrators' actions and policies since President Whitlock and Provost Norman arrived would be less than one per year.  That's not journalism.

There's a big difference between being censored and being objectively bad.  If your hands are tied, just admit it.  No one will be surprised and everyone will understand.  But if you are trying to justify your lack of coverage of important campus issues on the grounds that academic freedom, faculty morale, institutional norms, and ethical administration do not matter in a university, that's a problem.  In that case, you can continue to publish sanitized news and cute op-eds, but interest in your newspaper will continue to wane.

[Ed. -- Following is a letter I sent to the Student Editorial Board on April 17, 2013, after I learned that it cited Save OBU as the reason it did not publish the alumni letter.  It was never acknowledged and I received no reply.]

I spoke with [name redacted]. I do not know [name redacted] -- in fact, we have never met and had never spoken until this evening.

[S/h]e was disappointed that, after people took great care to craft a compassionate response to the "ex gay" evangelist's sermon, you declined to publish a trimmed-down version in your newspaper.

I was disappointed to learn that you (correct me if I'm wrong) are essentially blaming me for somehow making it untenable for you to publish the letter.

First of all, this letter is completely unrelated to the Save OBU Blog.  I was asked to sign it, and I declined.  I believe that one of the people who has written for my blog signed the letter.  Others did not.  Save OBU supporters, I suspect, have a wide diversity of opinions about human sexuality and the place of homosexuals in the life and ministry of the Church.  I would not risk alienating half our base of support over an issue that is not relevant to academic freedom and ethical administration.  In any event, Save OBU absolutely did not endorse the letter, as you allege.  Frankly, I have no idea how you could possibly come to that conclusion.

I also would like to push back against your characterization that I publicly challenged you to publish the letter or else face an accusation of censorship.  In one of our social media feeds, I said, "So, did The Bison cover the controversy over last week's chapel sermon and/or the alumni letter?" In response to a commenter's question, I said "We are curious to see if the paper printed the alumni letter, or even mentioned it. This will shed light on how much censorship exists at The Bison, because it would be hard to argue that a letter offering a compassionate response to a controversial message, signed by dozens of alumni spanning 4 decades, isn't newsworthy."

It's likely that no one beyond the 3 or 4 people on that threat even saw or noticed the comment.  I would hardly characterize this as "bullying" you into publishing their letter.

Look, reasonable people can disagree about whether or not OBU has a truly free student press.  I would love to speculate publicly and frequently about the issue, because I believe it is so important.  But I have shown restraint on this point.  I have also gone out of my way to be kind and complimentary to the several student journalists who have interacted with me privately over the past 18 months. More than anything, I do not want to say anything on my blog that would make things difficult for your faculty advisor, who, based on her predecessors' experiences, is in a tenuous situation almost by default.

But let's review a few quick facts.  First, a simple look at the problems journalism advisors have had at OBU the past 12 years should tell you something.  Second, as far as I can tell, not one reporter or editor lifted a finger to ask hard questions about the circumstances of Jerry Faught's and John Mullen's departures from OBU.  This is symptomatic of the complete and total absence of even the most elementary investigative reporting in The Bison.  Third, my sources on the matter have made it seem like everyone knows that Stan Norman forced The Bison to include even more explicitly religious content.  Fortunately, Casie and Tim have done outstanding work.  Finally, I suspect it seems curious to many people that, even though The Bison covered the alumni petition in the fall of 2011, not one word has been printed on an editorial or news page about the Save OBU Blog, now nearly 18 months along, with well over 200 blog posts.  The blog has literally reached tens of thousands of people.  You can try to believe such an effort is not newsworthy.  But honestly, I think your lack of coverage of the Save OBU Blog only serves to reinforce peoples' widespread suspicion that OBU does not have a free and open student press.

If you really think you have complete editorial control, there are a few experiments you could try.  Run a story on the BGCO's ever-shrinking OBU subsidy (as a percentage of the university's annual operating budget).  Go ask David Whitlock what he meant when he justified his refusal to allow a female to be interviewed for a New Testament position by saying, "There's no point in bringing her to campus. We're not going to hire her.  I have to keep promises I've made to certain people."  Follow up your recent story on the Chapel CREW with a survey or student interviews asking if they would like to see more balance in the theological and political views endorsed from the Raley Chapel pulpit.

I think if you did these things, you would find out pretty quickly that you don't have as much editorial control as you apparently think you do.

Anyway, out of respect for the very fine and loving work these alumni have done in crafting their response to the Yuan message, I respectfully ask you to reconsider your refusal to publish the letter.  Whatever you decide, don't blame it on me.

I have the highest respect for serious journalists and I trust you will bring honor to our alma mater in your careers.  Based on my conversation with [name redacted], it seems pretty clear that you and I may not see things the same way.  That's fine.  But please know that my extensive effort devoted to the Save OBU project is nothing but an expression of love for OBU ---  a love that has grown stronger with the passage of time.

You have my very best wishes.

Respectfully,

Jacob Lupfer '02

Silver Spring, MD

The Bison: Legit Journalism or Good News Sheet?

Many of you have asked for a follow-up to our lingering concerns about the absence of investigative and editorial content in OBU's student newspaper.  Last month, in a list of concerns we're following, I mentioned The Bison:

Though the writing is very good and the production value is high, The Bison simply isn't what it once was in terms of journalistic inquiry into serious campus issues.  There are lots of impressionistic columns, general debates, and personal advice features, but there is no investigative reporting.  Editorial pages (with real editorials) have disappeared.  Journalists go berserk if you accuse them of censorship, but I don't know what else to call it.  I'll say it as nicely as possible: The gaps in news coverage and editorial content could lead a reasonable person to speculate that there is a) censorship, b) fear of censorship, or c) blow-back that creates self-censorship. 

Of particular not here is the fact that The Bison recently decided against printing an open letter to "The OBU Family" (edited for length) in response to a chapel sermon by an "ex gay" evangelist on the grounds that Save OBU endorsed the letter (which is simply not true) and that we tried to bully the paper into printing the letter.

A campus newspaper is more than an exercise for a handful of journalism and graphic design majors.  A free student press is widely considered to be vital to the transparency, health, and flourishing of any university community.  For much of OBU's history, The Bison has met that need.  In the early 1980s, The Bison editorialized strongly in response to the "heresy papers" controversy.  In the early 2000s, The Bison was a forum for a campus discussion in response to a chapel preacher's contemptible (or merely regrettable, depending on your perspective) comments about rape.  These are just some examples I know off the top of my head.

In spite of at least two Bison faculty advisors clashing with administrators, most people report to me that the journalistic and editorial quality remained high throughout the 2000s.  In fact, as recently as 2010 and 2011, The Bison printed letters of dissent against the new administration's policies and reported on the alumni petition.

Around that time, the investigative reporting and editorializing stopped.

Coincidence?  I don't think so.

I have corresponded via email with two Bison staffers from the last several years.  One complained that the paper is censored and the other swore up and down that the paper has complete editorial freedom.  Obviously, both can't be true.  So let's get to the bottom of this.

Either the issues we've discussed on this blog are not newsworthy or OBU's student journalists are being suppressed from reporting on and editorializing about them.  Perhaps every issue we've addressed may not be front-page above-the-fold news.  But at least some of the faculty, student, and alumni concerns about academic freedom and ethical administration are newsworthy by any standard.

The Bison's Twitter account (@BisonNews) has been inactive for over a year.  But on January 26, 2012, it asked what people thought of the Save OBU blog.  That's the closest Save OBU got to the paper's news or editorial pages.  For 18 months, Save OBU has sustained a popular blog that has discussed dozens of campus issues.  We've had 5 guest writers.  We have active Facebook and Twitter communities.  There have been more than 260 blog posts.  Yet nothing we've said or done is newsworthy?!

Look, we don't need the publicity.  This blog gets more readers each week than The Bison, anyway.  Of course, we would welcome more student interest and involvement.  But most of all, we would like to know whether or not students at our alma mater are still allowed to investigate and discuss important campus issues and policies.

Bison staffers already missed their chance to do right by the people who have been fired and demoted.  You could have asked the hard questions, and you didn't.  And you may not be able to prevent the next egregious over-reach.  But you --- perhaps more than anyone else --- can help maintain a culture of transparency and responsiveness on campus.

Start small.  Ask what happened with the bookstore's botched orders last fall.  Ask whether OBU's agreement with Tree of Life is working out the way faculty and students had hoped.  Ask what role faculty search committees have in hiring decisions, and what circumstances the deans and provost believe justify over-ruling a committee recommendation.  With all the coaching hires and athletic scholarships announced this year, ask whether OBU's largest-ever freshman class will face a higher teacher-student ratio or more courses taught by adjuncts.

If The Bison is now a good news sheet that only prints stories and opinions that the administration deems safe for consumption, that's fine.  Just be honest about it.  And if that's The Bison's mission at the new OBU, I suggest the student journalists P.R. staffers start submitting invoices to the Public Relations Office.  Other people earn a decent living to present the polished, official image of an OBU devoid of controversy.  You should, too!

If, on the other hand, The Bison is a still news and opinion organization, I, for one, would like to see a little more courage and truth-seeking.  It's only a matter of time until another religion professor gets fired unjustly.  Then it will once again be too late to make a positive difference on campus by insisting on truth, transparency (to the greatest degree possible), and adherence to institutional norms when it comes to the most important issues.  Even Cedarville University, a fundamentalist school, still apparently has a student paper with editorial independence.  If the same is true of The Bison, we wouldn't know it by the lack of investigative pieces that uncover issues and provide the news foundation for editorials on consequential issues.

"The Norm," the alumni petition, and Save OBU can only do so much.  Administrators can ignore Save OBU.  They can deal with the alumni petition by sending out a private email with talking points for trustees.  When students protest, as with "The Norm," they can simply wait until those students graduate and hope that new students never learn of the violations of academic freedom and assume their way of doing things is normal when, in fact, it is a significant departure from institutional norms.

But they can't ignore you.  Sure, administrators can refuse interviews.  They will, of course, decline to comment on personnel matters.  But it reflects very poorly on them if they never give any answers or explanations for their decisions and actions.  After all OBU has been through lately, it's clear that administrators either haven't been pushed very hard or they are censoring the paper.

Maybe the difference between the year past and previous years wasn't related to censorship.  Maybe The Bison had a fundamentalist yes-man student editor who chose not to pursue important news stories or run real editorials.  I simply don't know.

But I hope next year's Bison staff will receive this message with humility, grace, and a sense of journalistic responsibility.  If your hands are tied, that's understandable.  It would surprise no one to know that Dr. Robinson, Dr. Norman, or Dr. Whitlock are blocking the paper from being anything more than a good news sheet.  Just say so, and your readers can lower their expectations accordingly.  But if you have editorial independence as you should, you need to step up your game.  Simple as that.  The entire OBU community deserves better.

In an upcoming post, I'll share the story of how The Bison blamed Save OBU for its decision not to publish a letter to the editor in response to a controversial chapel sermon this spring.

SBC President Speaks at OBU --- Significant or Not?

We've often noted the spectacular lack of theological diversity among OBU chapel speakers, especially in recent years.  In Save OBU's realm of concerns, however, chapel has always been a secondary problem.  There are unfortunately much bigger issues at OBU.  Plus, "to the victors go the spoils" --- it's the leadership's prerogative to bring in who they want.  The fundamentalists have their men on Bison Hill now, and there's nothing we can do about it.  Complaining about the exclusion of moderates will do nothing.  This problem will persist until students vote with their feet and simply boycott chapel until some balance is restored.

OBU's all-white, all-male (would God have it any other way?) post-Takeover religion administrators probably congratulate themselves, thinking that having one lady and two black men per semester is going above and beyond in terms of diversity.  They hope no one notices that the dozen so so speakers all represent almost the exact same point on the theological spectrum.  At the fundamentalist end.  Well guess what?  People notice.  And some people expect that a well-rounded Christian education demands more rigor, more diversity of thought, and a faith unafraid of new perspectives because it can withstand the most stringent intellectual scrutiny.

Given the parade of far-right speakers we've heard this spring, I really don't have anything to say about SBC President Fred Luter's sermon yesterday.  What could be more appropriate than a Southern Baptist college hosting the SBC President?  Interestingly, however, I don't think it's happened before at OBU, at least not since before the Takeover.  (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)  We've had past SBC presidents (Bobby Welch in 2007; Tom Elliff in 2010), as well as many famous mega-pastors and the intellectual leaders of the convention (Al Mohler in 2007; David Dockery in 2009).  I don't have the entire chapel archive handy, but you can see all the chapels since 2005 here.

Having the SBC president is symbolic, of course.  But it's worth noting that the president of the SBC's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission is much more the public face of the SBC than the convention presidents who come and go every two years.  It was a much bigger deal when Richard Land spoke at OBU in the early 2000s than it would have been if then-SBC President James Merritt had spoken.

We've commented elsewhere about OBU's over-the-top attempt to curry favor with Luter, as well as what it must be like to be the president of the SBC.  Last summer, OBU awarded Luter an honorary doctorate in spite of a complete lack of connections to OBU.  There seems to be an unprecedented effort among top OBU administrators to cozy up to this SBC president.  Judging from the opening part of the chapel sermon, it seems that OBU's Dean of Spiritual Life, the Reverend Dale Griffin, has been the administrator working to secure Luter's appearance.

I just think it's worth remembering that there was a time when OBU made an effort to keep the often-ugly politics of the Southern Baptist Convention as far away from Bison Hill as possible.  In the 1980s, for instance, students were as likely to hear a sermon by someone who opposed the Fundamentalist Takeover as by someone who supported it.

Those days are over.  Today's OBU leadership, though too young to have participated in the Takeover directly, hail it as the best thing that ever happened to the SBC.  By their actions --- and by their silence --- they celebrate people like the Reverend Dr. Tom Elliff, who boasted that he had scraped all the "barnacles and parasites" (referring to moderates) off the Ship of Zion.

Congratulations, Drs. Jordan, Whitlock, Norman, McClellan, and Griffin.  You can now definitively say that you have scraped all the barnacles and parasites off the Raley Chapel pulpit, too.

With no exceptions that I have seen, moderates (let alone liberals --- if you can actually find any in Baptist life) are unwelcome to preach under the new regime.

Given that Luter avoided controversy and preached a well-received sermon, I see no need to be critical.  There have been plenty of questionable chapels this spring --- a Tea Party politician, a Calvinist celebrity preacher on a book tour, and a "pray the gay away" evangelist.

Please take note of a recent Bison story on the process by which chapel speakers are selected.  We'll analyze that article soon enough.  We may even editorialize about it, since editorial content has all but disappeared from The Bison's pages in recent years.  But that's another topic for another day.

Rather than keeping SBC fundamentalism at a distance, as OBU did under President Bob Agee and, to a lesser extent (though it hardly felt like it at the time), under President Mark Brister, the new OBU makes no mistake about where its true loyalties lie.  Hosting the SBC president is icing on the cake.

Multiple Storms Brewing on Bison Hill

It was bound to happen sooner or later. Our run of good fortune/divine blessing may be ending.

Regarding academic freedom and respecting the institution's norms and heritage, the past year has been pretty great at OBU compared to the 3 years before that.  Last April, Provost Stan Norman finally underwent a performance evaluation that included faculty input.  (And notice how quiet he's been since then...)  Last spring, most departments were allowed to hire their candidates of choice for faculty positions.  As far as we know, the candidates did not face the provost's fundamentalist litmus test questions that previous years' job candidates reported facing.  There were no ideologically-motivated firings last summer.  The new trustee leadership seems as great as the last.  This winter, a well-respected professor was granted senior faculty status --- a victory, given that some faculty feared that the administration may use the tenure decision as a weapon.

But the news has not been all good.  OBU continues to fall in the Forbes rankings, losing ground to Southern Baptist peers and to other evangelical colleges.  And we were disappointed that the usual faculty search procedures were once again ignored in the College of Theology and Ministry, this time so that a young-earth creationist could be brought in from Southwestern Seminary.

Two current developments:

College of Fine Arts
As we began to see encouraging signs last spring, I thought it best not to open yet another line of criticism against the administration.  But there was widespread student and faculty anger about goings-on in the Warren M. Angell College of Fine Arts.  Last week, I explained why I neglected to bring these issues up last year and began writing about some of those concerns.  It looks like there may be some developments to report soon, so I'm holding off on finishing the "Fine Arts Fiasco" series.  The Angell College of Fine Arts has a hard-earned reputation for excellence, and it's heartening to see people standing against unasked-for changes that threaten to degrade the College's quality and reputation.

Alumni Respond to Christopher Yuan Sermon
A group of several dozen alumni wrote an open letter to the OBU community in response to "ex gay" evangelist Christopher Yuan's April 3 chapel sermon.  The letter can be found here.  Note that Save OBU has not and will not endorse any outside issues or causes.  I suspect our supporters hold a wide diversity of opinions about human sexuality and the place of homosexual persons in the life and ministry of the Church.  We remain committed to two issues and two issues only: 1) Preserving academic freedom at OBU and 2) Insisting that the institution's norms and heritage be honored.

A recent poll indicates that 51% of white evangelicals aged 18-34 support same sex marriage rights.  Given those numbers, it follows that a significant number of students were troubled by Yuan's message.  I figure a campus-wide conversation is underway about how OBU should treat the gay and lesbian members of its own campus community.  The alumni letter speaks to that issue.


I hope all is well with each of you,
-Jacob

P.S. I have been very busy with work lately, and have not been able to devote much time to Save OBU.  I have family in town this weekend as my bride and I celebrate our daughter's first birthday.  I'll try to keep you updated on OBU happenings as I'm able.

OBU Doubles Down on Far-Right Ideology in Spring 2013 Chapel Lineup

Thankfully, things have been quieter on the fundamentalist encroachment front at OBU than at any time in the past 4 or 5 years.  It's hard to undo the harm that has already been done, but perhaps the administration has scaled back its ambitions -- or at least its timetable -- in this regard.

Chapel: An Important Symbol of Where OBU Stands
Unfortunately, one area of campus life that remains as controversial and polarizing as ever is the roster of speakers invited to Raley Chapel.  The Wednesday chapel hour is an important representation, in symbol and in fact, of where OBU stands.

For many years, great care was taken to make chapel a unifying experience.  Administrators invited speakers who would not tack strongly to the far left or far right.  During the SBC's Fundamentalist Takeover years, President Bob Agee avoided embroiling OBU in the controversy.  Yet both fundamentalists and moderates regularly gave invited lectures and sermons at OBU.  On the rare occasions when politicians were invited to campus, OBU welcomed both Democrats and Republicans.

Those days are over.  More than ever before, OBU's religion administrators are dividing the campus community, offending students and faculty, and pushing down a fundamentalist and political agenda with their choice of chapel speakers.

At least some of the time, there has been a student committee to suggest chapel invitees.  I don't know if that's still the case, but even if it is, it is completely devoid of moderate representation and/or vetoed altogether.

Given the wide availability of moderate preachers, theologians, historians, evangelists, and other speakers in Baptist life, OBU's wholesale exclusion of them is inexcusable.  The BGCO's outsized control over what OBU does is scarcely as evident as in the chapel lineup.  Can you imagine the flack President Whitlock would get if OBU had a chapel speaker Anthony Jordan didn't like?

To further prove this point, we may examine past semesters' chapel preachers in the weeks to come.  But since a controversial "ex gay" evangelist is speaking in Raley Chapel today, let's take a moment to look at this spring's lineup.

Jackson Dunn
Earlier this spring, Focus on the Family staffer Jackson Dunn came and promoted the idea that Christian college students should get married very young.  While there is currently an encouraging public debate about the economic, social, and relational advantages and supposed costs of later marriage, OBU does not need someone pushing early marriage so explicitly.  Can't we agree that this idea is already prevalent enough in OBU culture?!

T.W. Shannon
On the political extremism front, OBU welcomed Tea Party politician T.W. Shannon, Speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives.  While a number of staunchly conservative politicians have spoken at OBU in recent years, I cannot even think of the last time a politician with moderate or liberal political views -- Democrat or Republican, fundamentalist or moderate -- spoke at OBU.  Gov. Brad Henry, a moderate Democrat, spoke in chapel in 2006.

Tulian Tchividjian
In March, the Rev. Tulian Tchividjian, grandson of Billy Graham, brought his book tour to OBU. Tchividjian is a noted Calvinist affiliated with a fundamentalist Presbyterian split-off denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America.  He followed the Rev. Dr. D. James Kennedy in the pulpit of the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Florida.  While somewhat less overtly political than his predecessor, Kennedy and Coral Ridge were long influenced by the most extreme form of Christian theocratic politics, dominionism.  Tchividian's sermon was, I'm sure, well received.  But it does seem curious that OBU so actively promotes Calvinists' book projects.

Christopher Yuan
Today, an "ex gay" evangelist named Christopher Yuan is speaking.  Yuan holds a M.A. in biblical exegesis from Wheaton, an identical credential to many 23 year-old OBU alumni/ae.  Yet Yuan is on faculty of the Moody Bible Institute.  He has a compelling personal story about how God saved him from his unwanted same-sex attraction.  Promoting the "ex gay" movement is now extremely controversial, even among evangelicals.  Yuan's invitation is perhaps most alarming off all, given how angry many students, faculty, and alumni will be.  While Dunn, Shannon, and Tchividian may come from the far right fringes of evangelical culture and Republican politics, at least their sermons could do no harm.  The same may not be true for Yuan, given how many OBU students are gay and struggle mightily with how to come to terms with it, given their church, family, and community background.

Fred Luter
Later this month, SBC President Rev. Fred Luter will speak.  In retrospect, OBU might rather have invited the Rev. Dr. Russell Moore, president-elect of the SBC's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.  Moore, as with Richard Land before him, will be the public face of the SBC even more prominently than the convention presidents who come and go every two years.

Summary
Ideally, the Wednesday chapel hour would be a uniting experience for OBU students and faculty.  But the current lineup, as with recent ones, indicates a conscious decision to double down on far-right ideology in terms of theology, culture, and politics.  It would be one thing if there was some balance.  But there is very little.  (Tom Terry's address this winter is a notable exception to the complaints registered above.)  Instead, chapel is an ever-more divisive and disappointing experience for a large plurality, if not an outright majority, of OBU students and professors.