Updated 12:47 pm.EST, Sun November 22, 2009

Education|Tue, Jun. 23 2009 10:09 AM EDT

College Democrats Vote Off Club Sponsor; Embrace New LU Policy

By Eric Young|Christian Post Reporter

Though the College Democrats are explicitly pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, they also support candidates whose views may clash with those of the fundamentalist Christian school. One such politician is President Barack Obama, who the group had been rallying behind during the presidential campaign.

In a statement passed along to LU officials last week, then-sponsor Childress offered a lengthy list of proposals on behalf of the club, including agreement to take no funds from the Student Government Association (SGA), to not endorse candidates as a group but only as individuals, and to continue to “explicitly state that they are pro-life out of personal conviction and respect for the University and what it stands for.”

“LUCD will pledge its support to a pro-life and pro-traditional form of marriage and would like conduct no less than one event each semester that promotes the message of one of these agendas,” she added, touching upon the two issues that LU officials claimed were the main reason behind the College Democrats’ change of status.

But more than the issues of abortion and marriage, Falwell said last week that the club had to find a new sponsor if it wanted to regain official recognition.

Falwell said the university decided that club sponsor Maria Childress could no longer work directly with students in light of her several misdemeanor convictions last month, including misdemeanor assault, disorderly conduct and trespassing.

“I don’t think we could have her serving as an adviser and working with them (the students) on a day-to-day basis,” Falwell said Friday, according to the Lychnburg News Advance. “I think it would raise concerns with parents if people with violent criminal convictions in the last year were working with students. So I don’t think we could do that.”

Childress, however, said that she feels the school was using her convictions last month to justify her removal as club sponsor and that the charges stemmed from a domestic dispute with her ex-father-in-law over visitation with her daughter.

“They had witnesses, I did not,” she told the News Advance. “It is what it is.”

Regardless, the club voted Friday to continue without Childress as it drew nearer to the conclusion of the sensationalized drama that unfolded over the past several weeks.

According to Darvish, “the College Democrat disagreement is basically over” with a proposed change in university policy that Falwell was set to announce over the past weekend.

If accepted, the new policy would put the College Democrats and the school’s College Republicans on equal footing as unofficial clubs recognized by the university.

The policy would also not require the clubs to have a sponsor, thus making the dismissal of Childress “a moot point now,” according to Falwell.

It was not immediately known when the earliest the new policy could be adopted and put into effect.

Pages: 12
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show DP: "Unfortunately, the former sponsor and president of the club made it impossible for LU to do anything else". I think LU could have handled the situation much better from the very beginning. In fact, it was LU itself that precipated the entire incident with the email it sent to the club on May 15. The email was disturbing to some. Wouldn't sitting down and talking with the students have perhaps been better than sending the May 15 email? Wouldn't sitting down and talking with the students have been a wise thing to do even after the May 15 email was sent? DP: "Even the rest of the club said those two had misused their positions". I've been following this story very closely, and this is the first I've heard of the "rest of the club" saying anything. I strongly suspect that you are unable to substantiate this claim. DP: "In short, they broke the rules and then blamed LU for it". What exactly are the rules that were broken? Was there a pre-existing rule about letting the May 15 email see the light of day in the national press? And where did any student "blamed LU" for it? That May 15 email pretty much speaks for itself. I consider spreading unsubstantiated assertions to be a form of bearing false witness. You made several assertions in your post. Please substantiate them if you can. Otherwise please cease your character attacks on the former president. He seems like he's probably a decent Christian kid to me and I give him the benefit of the doubt. I also find it ironic that his reputation is treated worse on a Christian board than on some "new atheist" boards. DP: "The former sponsor and president set it up..." The May 15 email set up all that has followed, and the former sponsor and president are most certainly not responsible for it. DP: "...so that the only way for LU to clear its name would be to put out the entire truth". Engaging in character assassination isn't an ethical or effective means of clearing one's own name. I'd say its usually rather more of a symptom than anything else. Why would LU need to clear its name if its done nothing wrong? And if LU did nothing wrong, why did it bother to change its policy on political clubs? hide

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Flagged as inappropriate. show DP: "Unfortunately, the former sponsor and president of the club made it impossible for LU to do anything else". I think LU could have handled the situation much better from the very beginning. In fact, it was LU itself that precipated the entire incident with the email it sent to the club on May 15. The email was disturbing to some. Wouldn't sitting down and talking with the students have perhaps been better than sending the May 15 email? DP: "Even the rest of the club said those two had misused their positions". I've been following this story very closely, and this is the first I've heard of the "rest of the club" saying anything. I strongly suspect that you are unable to substantiate this claim. DP: "In short, they broke the rules and then blamed LU for it". What exactly are the rules that were broken? Was there a pre-existing rule about letting the May 15 email see the light of day in the national press? And where did anyone "blamed LU" for it? That May 15 email pretty much speaks for itself. I consider spreading unsubstantiated assertions to be a form of bearing false witness. You made several assertions in your post. Please substantiate them if you can. Otherwise please cease your attacks on the former president. He seems like a decent Christian kid to me. DP: "The former sponsor and president set it up..." The May 15 email set up all that has followed, and the former sponsor and president are most certainly not responsible for it. DP: "...so that the only way for LU to clear its name would be to put out the entire truth". Engaging in character assassination isn't an ethical or effective means of clearing one's name. I'd say its rather more a symptom than anything else. Why would LU need to clear its name if its done nothing wrong? hide

  • Thu Jun 25, 2009 7:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show DP: "Unfortunately, the former sponsor and president of the club made it impossible for LU to do anything else". I think LU could have handled the situation much better from the very beginning. In fact, it was LU itself that precipated the entire incident with the email it sent to the club on May 15. The email was disturbing to some. Wouldn't sitting down and talking with the students have perhaps been better than sending the May 15 email? DP: "Even the rest of the club said those two had misused their positions". I've been following this story very closely, and this is the first I've heard of the "rest of the club" saying anything. I strongly suspect that you are unable to substantiate this claim. DP: "In short, they broke the rules and then blamed LU for it". What exactly are the rules that were broken? Was there a pre-existing rule about letting the May 15 email see the light of day in the national press? And where did anyone "blamed LU" for it? That May 15 email pretty much speaks for itself. I consider spreading unsubstantiated assertions to be a form of bearing false witness. You made several assertions in your post. Please substantiate them if you can. Otherwise please cease your attacks on the former president. He seems like a decent Christian kid to me. DP: "The former sponsor and president set it up..." The May 15 email set up all that has followed, and the former sponsor and president are most certainly not responsible for it. DP: "...so that the only way for LU to clear its name would be to put out the entire truth". Engaging in character assassination isn't an ethical or effective means of clearing one's name. I'd say its rather more a symptom than anything else. Why would LU need to clear its name if its done nothing wrong? hide

  • Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:25 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "In response: Wow DP I finally found something you posted to agree with. "


    ROFLOL!!! Hey, put in your application to be on Obama's spin team. It pays well I hear.... :D

  • Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Defending LU's reputation is one thing, but it hardly seems ethical to do so by attempting to besmirch the reputations of the former sponsor and president of the club. "

    Unfortunately, the former sponsor and president of the club made it impossible for LU to do anything else. Even the rest of the club said those two had misused their positions. In short, they broke the rules and then blamed LU for it.

    Having been raised in a Bible college environment I do understand why LU put out the statements they did. The former sponsor and president set it up so that the only way for LU to clear its name would be to put out the entire truth. It's truely a shame the former sponsor and president wanted to play that game.

  • Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Rhi Bran: "Students who desire to express political opinions without censorship or retaliation..." Its the apparent retaliation which most concerns me. Defending LU's reputation is one thing, but it hardly seems ethical to do so by attempting to besmirch the reputations of the former sponsor and president of the club. It would have been much classier if LU had publicly wished the former president "good luck" and left matters with him at that. hide

  • Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So-called "Rev": Please stop belittling true believes in Jesus Christ on a Bible-believing blog, and maybe we'll stop deleted your posts?

  • Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:02 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Daniel Paul »Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:23 pm It's what happens when you give one person too much power. Perhaps we could learn a lesson from this in 2010....
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    In response: Wow DP I finally found something you posted to agree with. Giving a person like Falwell ALL the power sure showed everyone what happens when you do. The fascist stopped anyone from actually having a political voice opposing his!

    As for the 2010 election, again we agree as the coming election the rest of the slime in Congress (read fundie Republicans) to be voted out.

    Then after the voting and taxes business is done it will either work out completely or you will then be able to complain that the Democrats were wrong but at least the fundie fascists will not be able to stall it any longer.

    It is amusing to read the fascists in various Republican groups whine and complain about others using the very term I just used so it shouldn't be a problem since it has already been used on others.

    http://alockslee.blogspot.com/ Fundies fear this blog!

    TFR

  • Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ID4234 asked,

    <<"If they are pro life and pro traditional marriage, how can they still be Democrats. That sounds like a contradiction in terms.">>

    Pro-life means you believe in the sanctity of human life, and not necessarily specific governmental policies to enforce that sanctity. Issues such as abortion, poverty, death penalty, war, ect. all have sanctity of life issues and yet there are differences between the major parties and even within the major parties.

    There are pro-life democrats who want to see abortion ended, but think it would be wrong for judges to make that decision against the will of the majority of the American people, just as it is wrong for judges to change the definition of traditional marriage against the will of the majority of the American people.

    And there are lots and lots of democrats who are in favor of traditional marriage, including the current president.

  • Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:30 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Rhi Bran: "Students who desire to express political opinions without censorship or retaliation..." Its the apparent retaliation which most concerns me. Defending LU's reputation is one thing, but it hardly seems ethical to do so by attempting to besmirch the reputations of the former sponsor and president of the club. It would have been much classier if LU had publicly wished the former president "good luck" and left matters with him at that. Since I can't find any Biblical justification for character assassination, I must conclude that Christians smearing Christians isn't very Christian. hide

  • Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    If they are pro life and pro traditional marriage, how can they still be Democrats. That sounds like a contradiction in terms. Where do they agree with the Democrats? Is it on liberal, constitution changing judges? Wild spending? For veiled dealings in public transactions? For ever larger deficits? Not enforcing immigration law? A more powerful central government to admiinister the nanny state? What? I'd like to know.

  • Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:45 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Rhi Bran: "Students who desire to express political opinions without censorship or retaliation..." Its the apparent retaliation which most concerns me. Defending LU's reputation is one thing, but it hardly seems ethical to do so by attempting to besmirch the reputations of the former sponsor and president of the club. It would have been much classier if LU had publicly wished the former president "good luck" and left matters with him at that. Since I can't find any Biblical justification for character assassination, I must conclude that Christians smearing Christians isn't very Christian. hide

  • Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:23 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Rhi Bran: "Students who desire to express political opinions without censorship or retaliation..." Its the apparent retaliation which most concerns me. Defending LU's reputation is one thing, but it hardly seems ethical to do so by attempting to besmirch the reputations of the former sponsor and president of the club. It would have been much classier if LU had publicly wished the former president "good luck" and left matters with him at that. Since I can't find any Biblical justification for character assassination, I must conclude that Christians smearing Christians isn't very Christian. hide

  • Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:50 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Rhi Bran: "Students who desire to express political opinions without censorship or retaliation..." Its the apparent retaliation which most concerns me. Defending LU's reputation is one thing, but it hardly seems ethical to do so by attempting to besmirch the reputations of the former sponsor and president of the club. It would have been much classier if LU had publicly wished the former president "good luck" and left matters with him at that. Since I can't find any Biblical justification for character assassination, I must conclude that Christians smearing Christians isn't very Christian. hide

  • Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:27 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Rhi Bran: "Students who desire to express political opinions without censorship or retaliation..." Its the apparent retaliation which most concerns me. Defending LU's reputation is one thing, but it hardly seems ethical to do so by attempting to besmirch the reputations of the former sponsor and president of the club. It would have been much classier if LU had publicly wished the former president "good luck" and left matters with him at that. Since I can't find any Biblical justification for character assassination, I must conclude that Christians smearing Christians isn't very Christian. hide

  • Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "when a Republican president allowed the wire-tapping of an entire nation! "

    ummm... not quite. The computers doing the work were looking for key words much like a search engine. If those words didn't come up in a converstation then the computer ignored your call. Just fyi, the computers run your phone service. (That's why they don't have to send anyone out to cut off your phone anymore. They just tell the computer to stop servicing your line. It's also why you have 911 service even when your phone is cut off.) The computers are "listening" to your conversation anyway. It's called throughput.

    Now...a wire tap is where someone is listening to your conversation and recording it.

  • Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    For once, Rhi Bran/Brown butt finally said something with some truth to it.

  • Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:24 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    It appears that the University is clear about its mission. Students who desire to express political opinions without censorship or retaliation will attend another an institution that fully supports the principles of a constitutional democracy rather than theocracy.

  • Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Seems to me that this "community organizer" turn President wasn't vetted correctly by the ...gasp!... democratic party. They rush him to the front like frothing animals with people like Ayers and Barney (what a farce) Frank to make sure their cronies are going to get pay backs. Of course, we have other classic democrats like Pelosi and Barbara Boxer. These piece of scum representatives deserve to be trashed, but some boneheads keep electing them in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryEGmkjv8R8 hide

  • Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Buzo - We'll compromise. And it's 2nd grade, not 3rd - thank you!

    So why doesn't Obama just produce the birth certificate some lawyers are asking him for?

    It's documented that they've sealed his records and won't let the public have access - I suppose that the word transparent is now taking to mean: dark, mystery, and cloudy!

  • Bujo »
    Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:24 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Clever insult rollin, how's 3rd grade treating you these days? And I'm not even going to get into the insanity that is fringe right-wing misinformation about Obama's birth certificate. I'm not saying that he's going to be the best president we've ever had. He may not even be a good one! He's certanitly not going to keep all of his promises, no one ever had and no one ever will, it's impossible in politics. But I'm also not going to harp on things that have nothing to do with anything like you are. And weekenderman, Bush did not have the autority of Congress to wiretap on civilians. He gave the NSA permission to do it, Congress had no idea. We're just now learning on who was spied on, even President Clinton was!!! I don't think anyone believes he's going to plot a terroist attack on America! President Bush was in office during a very difficult time. I know I wouldn't have wanted that on me, but he also really REALLY fouled some stuff up big time. I don't think anyone can aruge against that. Obama won't do everything right, I know, but the only presidency harder than one like Bush had is being the guy to clean up that guy's mess! hide

  • Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Bujo or Bozo - Ahhhh, but I thought we had a new Democrat in Obama - supposedly going to be so transparent - you know - as in firing Chrysler's CEO with one stroke of the wand. Then striking down 3 IG in just almost a week after they we caught investigating - gasp! - Obama's friends' use of money. Then the big "O" has yet to produce a birth certificate outside of the short form one that you nor I would be able to get away with. A team of Obama lawyers are shadowing anyone trying to obtain any proof of how the "Great O" even paid for college, much less a birth certificate. In fact, nobody is not even able to get the "Great O" to "release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years." WOW! What transparency! What has the democrats in Congress been doing to help the citizens find out more about "their" president? Nada! WOW! What transparency. Can you say "N-A-Z-I"? hide

  • Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "You really can't be talking about Democrats listening to conversations when a Republican president allowed the wire-tapping of an entire nation!"

    Whatever. (Or are you referring to Nixon?) Bush's administration, with the permission of the courts and of Congress, listened in on the conversations of suspected terrorists and their contacts within the U.S.

    Goodness, GWB hasn't yet been out of office for 7 months and the Bush-bashers are already making up things about what he did or did not do!

  • Bujo »
    Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:25 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show rolln, You really can't be talking about Democrats listening to conversations when a Republican president allowed the wire-tapping of an entire nation! And no, I will not apologize to Falwell. This still stinks to high heaven to me. I'd like to see his proof of this Democratic espionage. Seems to me he's doing what the Southern Baptist did in the 70s and 80s with their moderate leaders. hide

  • Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    It's what happens when you give one person too much power. Perhaps we could learn a lesson from this in 2010....

  • Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:28 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Diaz had allowed a high-level Democratic Party official to secretly listen in on a meeting between College Democrats leaders and LU officials."

    LOL! It seems that Democrats are doing a lot of secret things lately. Must be that Obama "transparency" disease that is taking effect.

  • Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:25 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Apparently Liberty is still in damage control mode, and evidently an integral part of that damage control is the public smearing of the club's former sponsor and former president by Liberty officials. If as Darvish stated the disagreement is over, why the continued smears and personal attacks? hide

  • Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:04 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    I expect the apologies from all the Falwell bashers to start rolling in anytime now. Not.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links