The Myth of Secular Neutrality (Part 3)

In part 3 (see parts 1 and 2), Dr. Bahnsen continues his lecture to high school students by giving specific ways in which university professors will seek to destroy Christian students’ faith with a supposed secular “neutrality.” What are some of these specific ways?

1. Intellectual Bullying

Antagonistic professors against Christianity will often intentionally use shaming and contemptuous techniques in order to put down their adversaries, such as deliberately talking over student’s heads, using obscure or highly technical vocabulary, showing off all the books and articles the professor has read on the topic instead of answering questions about the topic (i.e. “You are not smart enough to ask that questions or to hear my answer…”). How, then, can Christian students respond?

Our natural tendency will want to be clash intellectual horns in an attempt to meet strength with strength. But, bullying begets bullying. The only way out of this trap is genuine humility. When a professor intentionally speaks over your head, simply ask him or her to explain the new vocabulary, etc.

2. Double Standards and Hidden Agendas

Bahnsen quotes “Harassment Policies in the University,” a journal article by Alan Charles Kors (see Kors’ faculty bio; also see Kors’ The Shadow University as a related resource), to show that universities use such policies as pretexts to enforce political and ethical agendas upon students. There is no neutral moral basis for claiming protection from harassment; for, your protection as a student depends upon which social group you support and which you decry or critique.

To illustrate the non-neutrality of harassment policies Bahnsen refers to the “Piss Christ” controversy which showed clearly that at a university campus you can offend any group (especially Christians) in the name of “social criticism,” except those groups which the university deems as worthy of protection from such criticism. (i.e. You can put a cross in urine–a high offense to Catholics and Christians–and call it art, being protected in your speech by the harassment policy. But if you put a dolphin, homosexual rainbow, or any other ’sacred cow’ symbol of secular humanism into urine, you would be guilty of harassment. Upon what basis is such a decision made? The university’s agenda, not some supposed “neutrality.”)