Faculty members risk invasion of privacy and discrimination, among other factors, under this policy.
By Rudabeh Shahbazi
Assistant Perspectives Editor
The Bible condemns sexual relations of any kind outside the confines of marriage. Expecting all members of the university staff to teach based on this principle is reasonable. Invading their privacy by forcing them to live by it is not.
When applying at Pepperdine, students and professors agree to recognize and appreciate Christian values in their work and on campus. But employees deserve respect, too. Staff members who responded to a survey last semester by the Seaver Faculty Association Executive Committee voted overwhelmingly to remove the policy, which forbids sexual relations among faculty members outside the union of a husband and wife. Those who are affected by these guidelines should have a say in it, or at least be warned before they accept a job here.
The tens of thousands of dollars students pay every year for an education at Pepperdine should not be to an institution where the personal sexuality of professors takes priority over scholarly standards. For the money we pay, students have the right to benefit from the best academicians possible, regardless of their activity behind closed doors. We can always attend church for free.
Professors who are held in high enough esteem to teach should be regarded as responsible enough to determine the course of their own sex lives at home. Students are accepted to Pepperdine because of their diligent work and academic excellence. Those hired to teach them should be honored on the same premise of purpose, leadership and service. When someone’s personal life overrides his or her teaching ability in the eyes of the administration, the institution
suffers.
It is not worth sacrificing the invaluable contributions of individual employees because he or she, as a responsible adult, legally engages in sex outside the confines of a male-female marriage off campus, behind closed doors. Brilliant minds do not always come in biblical packages, and we should learn to accept other lifestyles if we are ever to make it in the outside world.
As Pepperdine has previously demonstrated, universities that utilize the sharing of diverse ideas are more reputable than those that shelter students by limiting their education without providing opportunity for choice among many options. A true Christian is one who makes the conscious choice to follow the path of Christ, not one who has never been exposed to the choice of another path.
One of Pepperdine’s most valuable assets is its varied range of students who can share and learn from each other. But it is not Christian for Pepperdine’s policy to promote an attitude that denounces those who do not live by specific biblical standards.
Christianity should embrace, not shun others. It should not be contorted as a tool for self-justification or as the authority to pass judgment. But even if the faculty’s choices do not interfere in the classroom, Pepperdine is teaching us to shut out people who should not be discriminated against. Our faculty expects and deserves the privacy granted to them by the Constitution, which typically overrides religious rule extended beyond their bedroom doors at public universities.
Faculty in same-sex relationships will be happy to know that the university plans to heal this affliction with “counseling, assistance and support,” as if homosexuality is an addiction or a disease. Whether or not same-sex relationships deviate from Scripture, “redeeming” others will not be effective, nor is it the university’s place to do so.
Instead of addressing other, more serious issues, like cheating and drugs on campus, Pepperdine enforces the standards of this policy on the private lives of its professors, which is a waste of time and energy.
As a student, I value the faculty members for the quality of their teaching. I could care less about their undisclosed off-campus bedroom activities. This policy threatens the academic prestige of Pepperdine, an institution we pay to educate, not reform, us or anyone else.
It is not logical to assume that professors will change their lifestyles because the threat of disciplinary action suddenly landed in the handbook. It is also impractical to assume that they will openly admit any questionable off-campus activity and risk losing their jobs. The policy encourages them to violate another Christian ideal by lying. It is ludicrous that adults be forced to defend their personal, legal, off-campus lives to the Pepperdine sex police.
October 30, 2003
