The Mayor’s New Ideas

Once upon a time, in a land where the sun was warm and the ocean breezes drew tourists in droves with the anticipation of enjoying the exquisiteness of an endless summer, a place where the blue skies merged with the green of palm trees to outline the essential beauty of nature, there was situated a small, prosperous community. This community was known to those who lived there as well as those who were familiar with it as TCC – The Christian Community.

TCC was a rather unique community in that while the society around it prided itself in, and existed on its belief in its history of honorable men and women who sacrificed their blood, youth, and innocence for the freedom to live without governmental institutions that were overbearing and unduly restrictive, TCC provided an example of the other end of this political spectrum – it was a microcosm of an authoritarian, repressive government.

But its structural circumstances were unique, and everyone seemed to be, for the most part, happy, thus rendering renewed meaning to the phrase, “ignorance is bliss.”

The mayor of this community was a man by the name of Carlin Morton. Carlin was a fairly well-respected man. He ran the community with a tight fist and an iron law that basically came down to his word, regardless of whether or not that word was consistent with or in contradiction to any pre-established norms, standards or premises.

While Carlin was concerned about the day-to-day activities of his community, he had a particular interest in unique ideas. These ideas were an unusual mix of philosophy, theology and sociology that resulted in a potpourri of well-intentioned, but often imprecise standards. But he loved these ideas. He loved them more than anything else in the world, because they were his, and they were unique only to him.

He would often travel to other communities and towns to show his ideas, and people who aspired to wear the cloak of these ideas would also frequently visit TCC to see for themselves Carlin’s ideas. They were magnificent, no one could doubt that; and they were powerful, for no one would admit otherwise.

Virtually everyone in the community praised Carlin for his ideas, ideas he wore with the ease of a conqueror. His ideas, you see, had allowed TCC to grow fat on the material gains it derived from their application (not to mention some good, old-fashioned business savvy). The community had everything you could imagine – beautiful houses, immaculate gardens and landscaping, cutting-edge instruments for the pursuit of science, entertainment facilities. . . you name it – all as a result of Carlin’s ideas, and all because they were unique, and different from anyone else’s.

One day, some swindlers came to TCC to introduce some new ideas to the mayor. No one really knew these swindlers, or even that they WERE swindlers. These men had simply seen the opportunity to make a profit off of Carlin’s love of unique ideas. They set up a meeting with the mayor and introduced to
him their proposal.

“Mr. Morton,” one of them started, “we have some ideas that we think will go marvelously with your existing collection.”

“Splendid! What do you have in mind?” returned Carlin, obviously delighted with the idea of new and even more exquisite ideas.

“Well, what my partner and I had in mind was this. Many of your townspeople spend a lot of time outdoors reading this Book together, called the Bible, where everyone, particularly visitors can see them.

“Go on,” replied Carlin.

“And since this Book supposedly allows people to read it freely wherever and whenever they wish, to prohibit them from reading it in only CERTAIN places will make your community look better AND will give you a new, unheard-of idea!”

“Magnificent!” exclaimed Carlin, “but how do you intend to devise this new idea?”

“Well,” replied the swindlers, “it may take us a few days and some money, but we promise you it can be done. And one other thing – the validity of this idea has a special quality. The idea’s validity will become invisible to anyone who is stupid, rebellious or who is unfit for his job.”

So, Carlin agreed, and the swindlers got to work immediately. They set up headquarters in a suite of offices located out of the sight of the regular townspeople. They brought in their books and their treatises, their encyclopedias and their religious texts (for you see, this was essentially a religious idea), and they began to work. Night after night they toiled, formulating their imaginary idea.

The mayor was so anxious to see this new idea that he called into his office his vice mayor to have him take a look at the new idea. He knew the vice mayor wasn’t rebellious or stupid and that he was perfectly fit for his job. Therefore, he thought to himself, the vice mayor would be the perfect person to check on the progress of this new, magnificent idea. So the vice mayor went to the swindler’s suit to observe the idea’s status.

“Oh my,” thought the vice mayor to himself, “I can’t see any validity to this idea!” He was obviously disturbed, for he knew he wasn’t a rebellious person, he wasn’t stupid (after all, he had a Ph.D.), and he felt himself fit for his job.

“The idea is starting to make a lot of sense, gentlemen. I know the mayor will be quite pleased,” commented the vice mayor with an unsettling sense of anguish in his soul.

A few days later the mayor took with him the vice mayor and a few of his highest ranking officials in the community to see this new idea. The two swindlers proudly displayed the structure, text and foundation of this new idea. They called it the “Devotions Policy.”

“I don’t see a thing! Surely I am not unfit for my job,” fretted the mayor in his mind. “The idea is exactly what I want!” he exclaimed out loud to the swindlers.

The mayor’s officials didn’t see anything either, but they weren’t about to admit that there was no validity to this new idea called the Devotions Policy. It’s premise couldn’t be weak, for the mayor himself admitted to seeing it. It didn’t go contrary to all they said they believed because they WERE fit for their jobs. These were the kinds of internal turmoils that were churning like a burning cauldron in the pit of each official’s stomach – the Devotions Policy was a splendid idea they all outwardly admitted, yet none could internally rationalize or see it.

Meanwhile, the community at TCC had been waiting anxiously for the unveiling of this new idea. They had always respected Carlin for his ideas, even though many of them didn’t make much sense.

The swindlers were putting on the final touches when the mayor asked his vice mayor to call all the townspeople together for the announcement of the new idea. It would be a festival and a time for celebrations, although each person had to get permission to leave work from their Form Supervisors. The
anticipation was building. Each person knew the special quality that this new idea possessed, and so they were all eagerly awaiting to be able to objectively prove that they were neither stupid, rebellious, nor unfit for their particular job.

Finally, the day came for the reading of the new Devotions Policy. All of the townspeople were gathered at the town’s main center which was generally used for big announcements and festivities, the Vale Morton Auditorium. The people were excited. They loved Carlin and everything he did.

The mayor got up slowly, pulled out a piece of paper from his coat pocket, and read the details of the new idea. This Devotions Policy was simply a prohibition of, and a sanction against, anyone reading and studying this Book, called the Bible, in certain public areas.

Sure, ideas similar to this had been used for centuries to shut down “religious” folks. In fact, it was rumored that there was even a story in this Book about some Hebrew named Daniel who faced a similar “idea.” The freedom to worship how one pleased was a sensitive issue in the country, but not to the community at TCC. They didn’t care what went on around them, for Carlin said it was ok, and if Carlin said it was ok, it didn’t matter what anyone else said.

As the idea was pronounced, all of the people nodded in agreement. They each espoused an acknowledgment that this idea truly was wise, yet amazingly unique. However, while all were in outward agreement, not a one of them could see the validity of this idea, yet they were not about to admit to this
fact, because they knew what it would say about them individually – they were either stupid, rebellious, or unfit for their jobs. So the public praise continued unabated. . . until someone spoke out.

A representative of some community group called The Prudent Choice stepped up and shouted, “Hey, look! The mayor has no idea! There is no validity to this Devotions Policy!” And the crowd gasped, but they all knew in their hearts and in their minds that it was true.

The mayor’s reaction was one of surprise and defensiveness, but to this day, the community is still waiting for the mayor to acknowledge the emptiness and illegitimacy of this idea, and that the swindlers did just that – swindled away the spiritual maturity and exploited the intelligence of an entire population. . . and they are still laughing all the way to the bank.

A Common Misconception: Constitutional Rights

A rather common theme that is often expressed by those who feel that PCC has overstepped its boundaries and by those who feel that PCC’s regulatory system is unduly burdensome is that PCC violates the “constitutional rights” of its students (and sometimes staff and faculty as well).

For instance, claims are made that PCC’s refusal to allow any single comment in support of The Voice or in opposition to itself (PCC mistakenly merges these two concepts together as one single, indivisible doctrine) is a violation of a student’s right to free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (“Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .”). Or a claim will be made that when PCC prohibits its students from worshiping freely (see Dr. Horton’s Comments regarding The Student Voice, specifically the policy prohibiting “public devotions”) this is a violation of the First Amendment’s freedom of association or the freedom of worship (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. . . .”).

While I must acknowledge a certain degree of logic to these propositions, I must also point out that these propositions misunderstand the Constitution and are therefore completely incorrect. Please allow me to briefly explain why this is so, so that we can eliminate these false accusations against PCC.

1. The General Structure of the Constitution.

Understand the Constitution for what it is. It is simply a blueprint for the American system of democratic government. It sets up the structure for how our government will operate. Article I sets up the legislative function, the mechanism by which laws may be enacted. Article II sets up the executive power, the mechanism by which these laws will be carried out and enforced. Article III sets up a judiciary, the mechanism by which disputes will be resolved.

A fourth “part” of the Constitution, though, is generally where “issues” supposedly arise with regard to PCC’s restrictions, and that is the Bill of Rights (certainly, a part of the Constitution). Note that both the Bill of Rights and the general text of the Constitution (1) grant certain POWER to the government, (2) grant (or acknowledge) certain RIGHTS to (in)
individuals, i.e, they restrict the power of the government, and (3) serve other functions which are not relevant to this discussion. Therefore, since we are not concerned with the power granted to the government, we are instead concerned with rights granted to individuals.

2. Individual Rights.

As was discussed in Issue 4, No. 1, a right is a privilege that is capable of being claimed against someone else. The question, then, and THE MOST IMPORTANT factor to understand in addressing whether PCC violates any constitutional rights is to know AGAINST WHOM may those rights be claimed? If they cannot be claimed against PCC through the principles of the Constitution, then PCC does not violate any Constitutional rights.

Please note this: except for the Thirteenth Amendment (dealing with slavery), no part of the Constitution/Bill of Rights applies to private individuals in their private capacity or to private groups. They apply ONLY to the state, or the government. Therefore, since PCC is a private group, and NOT the state, the Constitution DOES NOT apply to it. In other words, PCC cannot violate a student’s constitutional rights because the Constitution only applies to government and does not apply to, among other things, private colleges.

Remember, this whole discussion about PCC should be divided into two parts: (1) what authority does PCC have (see Issue 1, No. 1), and (2) how SHOULD it exercise that authority it does have? It is difficult, if not impossible, to understand the second question if one does not understand the first. The question of constitutional rights as it applies to students and faculty goes to the first question. PCC’s authority is neither derived from nor restricted by the U.S. Constitution.

I trust this has been enlightening, and I hope this clears up a very common misconception that is prevalent among PCC observers. Of course, I realize that there will still be those of you who will find some way to slam my motives, my life and lack of Scriptural support for this discussion, but so be it. Part of rational understanding requires a desire to understand rationally.

Myths About Christianity: Christianity Stifles Personal Freedom

Many people today accept a number of myths about Christianity, with the result that they never respond to Jesus as He really is. This is one of ten articles that speak to some of these misconceptions.

Freedom is the prevailing cry of the world today, the overwhelming preoccupation of individuals and nations. Yet even though Scripture speaks of a liberty that Christ offers (Eph. 5:1-12), some people resist Christianity as itself an obstacle to freedom. Is this view of the faith justified?

On the face of it, it seems strange to identify Christianity as an enemy of freedom. After all, Christians have historically stood up for the poor, the oppressed, the captive, and the underprivileged. Likewise, liberation from ignorance, disease, and political oppression have invariably resulted wherever Christian faith and principles have been adopted. Why, then, would
some view the faith as repressive?

Perhaps part of the answer lies in the problem of legalism. Whenever Christianity is made into a list of do’s and don’ts, it becomes intolerant and restrictive. Instead of enjoying an intimate relationship with a loving God, the legalist is obsessed with rules and regulations, as if God were a celestial Policeman just waiting to catch us out of line.

To be sure, Christ does make demands on us that sometimes limit our autonomy. But true Christianity sees this as part of a relationship based on love and grace, not unlike a healthy marriage in which both partners sometimes sacrifice their own desires in order to serve the other. But even if there were no legalists, many people would still resist Christianity because they resist any standards that would place absolute claims on them. To them, freedom means pure autonomy–the right to do whatever they want, with no accountability to anyone else. But surely that leads to irresponsibility and license rather than freedom. Nor do people really live that way. Sooner or later they choose one course of action over another, based on some set of values. In other
words, they surrender their will to standards, whether good or bad, and act accordingly. So it is not just the values of Christianity that “stifle” personal freedom, but values in general.

The real question, of course, is what kind of people are we? What is our character? Christians try to mold their character after the pattern of Jesus. He was the most liberated man who ever lived. His ultimate standard of behavior was, what does My Father want Me to do (John 8:29)? Did that code stifle His freedom? Hardly: He was utterly free of covetousness, hypocrisy, fear of others, and every other vice. At the same time He was free to be Himself, free to love people with warmth and purity, and free to surrender His life for others.

True Christian freedom is Christlike freedom. There is no hint of legalism about it. It accepts absolute moral standards that are well known and well proven, and it takes its inspiration from the most liberated human being who ever lived, Jesus of Nazareth. What is stifling about that?

A Call To Unity

Ephesians 4:1-6: “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”

Within the realm of Christendom, there have always been and will continue to be factions. This is in some ways unfortunate, and thus it is in these same ways not entirely good. Perhaps this is simply due to the fallibility of human nature and the inevitable consequences of ideological clashes. From the Corinthian church in the first century to the debates between the early church fathers and Turtullian over the place of reason and the “Academy” in the church, to Martin Luther and the Archbishop of Mainz in the sixteenth century, to today’s divisions among Protestant denominations, we can usually understand the factions by juxtaposing each group’s ideology upon the canvas of general theology.

It is important to recognize the relationships between the factions, which can generally be observed at three levels: Broad, general and specific. “Broad” factions are those whose differences go to the most fundamental theological principles, or different “canvases of general theology” – i.e., Christianity versus Hinduism. “General” factions can be characterized as factions within the Broad factions – i.e., within Christianity, Lutheran versus Baptist. “Specific” factions are those within a General faction –
i.e., within the Baptist movement, those who adhere strictly to the local church structure versus those who do not.

Now, PCC observers and the issues generated generally fall into the Specific level, and occasionally the General. The intricacies of this are not necessarily relevant to this discussion, but understand it to the extent that virtually all of us are on the same canvas; we all have, or at least claim to have a belief in the same fundamental premise – the ultimate Scriptural authority and the importance of being a light in a dark world.

Perhaps one of the naive misconceptions of The Student Voice at its inception was that although there would understandably be strong differences of opinion among observers, there would at least be a minimal level of civility and maturity in discussing issues that are, regardless of a few assertions to the contrary, important to a lot of people. Since there was no alternative available, The Voice was created to provide a forum for “alternative” (alternative to PCC’s, that is) ideas, ideas that were, and are, quite relevant to PCC’s existence.

A major problem has developed in that attempts to “sabotage” both “sides” have been undertaken. Attempts have been made to destroy The Voice, not through superior ideas, but through base, destructive blows. However, that does not concern us as much as do recent attempts to sabotage those who oppose the ideas of The Voice. This is absolutely and completely uncalled for, and it demonstrates a real immaturity in a few rogues on each side.

It is vital to keep in mind that we are all, or at least we generally profess to be, Christians. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us all to act as such. The clash of ideas is not at all a bad thing – recognizing and discussing a diversity of opinions is healthy and should be encouraged. In other words, the SUBSTANCE of the debate should be mature, intelligent, and enlightening to all of us, regardless of where one falls along the spectrum of ideas. The methods and tactics of formulating and engaging in this
debate, however, should not sink beneath the threshold of decency and civility.

Now, some will profess that this debate and these ideas deserve no civility, but it is this type of approach that will do more to damage the cause of Christ than simply ignoring the debate all together. We simply ask that all involved observe the only two legitimate avenues for making one’s opinion known: leave the discussion or engage in it like an adult.

While we may be properly disposed to our each and individual “factions,” let us not permit our philosophical quest to revert into a moral vacuum that resembles Golding’s island in LORD OF THE FLIES more than it does a search for truth among God’s people. There is plenty of room within Christianity for a debate of this sort, but there is no room for un-Christian-like behavior. Let us recognize that we do have differences of opinion, but let us also recognize that we are on the same “canvas.” Unity and diversity are not irreconcilable differences.

We recognize the difficulties The Student Voice presents, but if The Voice is ever going to see its own demise, let us not see it come about as a result of Christians who are incapable of common civility.

Standardless Standards: PCC’s Ultimate ‘Law’

Imagine living in a society where the posted speed limits were not set out in definable numbers; rather, they were posted in terms like “Do Not Drive Too Fast” or “It Is Illegal To Drive Faster Than What Is Safe To Drive On This Road.” If you were to be driving along the highway, and these were the types of signs you saw, how would you determine how fast or how slow to drive? (Some of us would continue as we always have, but this is beside the point. . . .) What is “too fast”? What is “safe”? Or more importantly,
what does the highway patrolman think? These are questions that could not be answered until you had broken someone else’s subjective interpretation of these posted “speed limits.” In our society, however, this has been determined to be unacceptable public policy. Why? Because for an act to be punishable by the proper authorities, people need to know precisely what that act is.

Imagine a plan of salvation that required us to live “good” lives in order to obtain redemption, a plan that did not set out any other requirements than that we must do what is “right.” How would we know what was “good” or what was “right”? What sort of life would we have to live? How would we ever enjoy life knowing that maybe our life was not “good enough. This would be left to each of our own finite and certainly less than divine subjective interpretation. This would be left to speculation and determination at a time when “life” would no longer be capable of redemption. Fortunately for our eternal souls, God has given us exact standards by which we can know we are saved (see the book of Romans).

This sounds quite far-fetched, and most of us can easily discern the problems and difficulties it would be to maintain such systems of vague and undefinable “standards,” yet these are precisely the principles that are used to govern the “community” at PCC. The PCC system contains few real “standards” for students to be able to rely upon. There are few actual “rules” at PCC, and leave it to The Student Voice to be the only one willing to maintain such a statement.

A “standard” is a “means of DETERMINING what a thing should be; a DEFINITE rule, MEASURE or principle established by authority; something set up as AN EXAMPLE TO FOLLOW.” (emphasis added) A “rule” is a “prescribed GUIDE for conduct or action.” (emphasis added) Inherent in these two concepts are (1) a definiteness by which one knows what the bounds of that required or prohibited conduct are and (2) something that remains fairly constant and predictable.

PCC, of course, prides itself on its “standards” and its “rules,” but those same guidelines which the school often incorrectly describes as “standards” and “rules” are often nothing more than open-ended, undefined “values” that no student can be reasonably expected to understand, predict and measure his or her actions by. Yet these same nebulous “values” are what is often used to sanction students and even to expel them from school. This, folks, is unjust.

One of the more specific goals of The Voice is to see PCC get rid of its current Student Handbook (although that is somewhat of a misnomer), and to replace it with a comprehensive Handbook that contains every single rule defined and proscribed as such, so that each student, parent, faculty member and staff member will know exactly what behavior is and what is not required. This essay is one in a series of essays that will go through the current Student Handbook and point out the problems and difficulties that need to be dealt with, and we will offer solutions to these problems so that no more students will be expelled on only the whims and unsubstantiated notions of the administration.

In our society, there is a concept known as the Principle of Legality (also sometimes referred to as the Rule of Lenity). This principle stands for the proposition that no person will be convicted of a crime and punished for something that is not specifically laid out in statutory form. In other words, if conduct is not prohibited by a written law that is clear and specific, no citizen can be punished for it, regardless of how “bad” it is.

“The same point may be put in terms of the relation of law to morals. That the criminal law derives from moral values cannot be doubted; some notion of right and wrong necessarily underlies the decision of what to punish. The principle of legality, however, does not identify which values the penal law should seek to enforce; it merely specifies the appropriate way to make that decision. In other words, the principle of legality asserts that certain constraints on the process of crime definition are essential to the ethical integrity of the criminal law as a system of rules, and it seeks to maintain those constraints without regard to the content of the rules chosen. Today, few would dispute the desirability in principle of advance legislative specification of criminal conduct.” [CRIMINAL LAW, 2nd edition. Low, Peter W.; Jeffries, John Calvin; & Bonnie, Richard J. Foundation Press, p. 34].

The rest of our society has recognized the principle that it is not good to have restricted conduct that is unknown, and “standards” which are vague and thereby difficult to follow. Why cannot PCC understand this? Well, it is true that someone who is able to maintain a society with this type of
vague authority will have much more control, because the general population will always be in fear of violating the authority’s view of its own vague values, particularly those whose minds are willing to intellectually challenge conventional thinking and are thus unwilling to simply follow the pack as if beckoned by the mere thought of more green grass beyond the next stream. Control, of course, is very important to those in charge at PCC, no one would deny that, and the best way to keep the most control over its subjects is to stay away from precisely defined standards of conduct.

Let us first start out this series by examining the ultimate “standard,” a standard which is, oddly enough, not even printed in the Student Handbook. So, while the administration will tell the students to read the Handbook carefully as it lays out the “rules” and “guidelines” for the students to follow, they will nevertheless expel students based on the “ultimate” law which is not even in the Student Handbook!

This “rule” is stated in the front of the college catalog, and it states, in part:

“Attendance at Pensacola Christian College is a privilege and not a right. Students forfeit this privilege if they do not CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS AND IDEALS of work and life of the College, and the College may insist on the withdrawal of a student at any time that the student, IN THE OPINION OF THE
COLLEGE, does not CONFORM TO THE SPIRIT OF THE MINISTRY.” (emphasis added)

This should be an insult to the intelligence, integrity and common sense of every student who has ever walked through the doors of PCC. What this is saying is that PCC is willing to take your hard-earned money, your time, and your efforts expended in working towards a degree, but regardless of all that, they can and will let you go FOR NO REASON AT ALL. This is the fine print.

1. This needs to be put in the Student Handbook.

For the administration to keep this out of the Handbook and still use it as the sole basis for expelling a student is highly unethical, for PCC holds the Student Handbook as being that which contains the rules and regulations to follow. Dr. Horton even sets this out in his opening remarks: “This student handbook contains the regulations and procedures that govern student life. . . .” WHY, THEN, IS THE “NON-CONFORMING POLICY” NOT LAID OUT IN THIS HANDBOOK? A student looks to the catalogue for academic information and to the Student Handbook for the regulations. Therefore, this very important regulation should be in the Student Handbook, and to keep it out has the appearance of trying to be less than up-front with students.

2. Define the “spirit of the ministry”

Is this a terribly unreasonable request to ask? Do not the students (and parents) have a right – yes, a right, to know what the “spirit” is that they must conform to? If anyone knows the answer to this question, please let us know (and then how about letting the students know)? The fact is that this is about as vague as one can get. The “spirit of the ministry”? Who
are they trying to fool? If it is possible to figure out what this means from a practical living standpoint, it would take several years to figure it out, and for a brand new student to begin immediately living under this “rule” and yet still have a sense of freedom is, I submit to you, virtually impossible.

The fact of the matter is that every one of us would have a different view of the “spirit.” I would wager that not even the individual faculty members could come up with the same definition. In fact, when different administration members were asked what it means, they REFUSED TO GIVE AN ANSWER!! This is being up-front? This is being honest? Or is there really, and intentionally, no definition? How, in the name of common sense, can the administration expect students to know what this means if they are not even willing to tell a student what it means? And how can they expect students to know how to follow it?

The sanction for not “conforming” to this spirit is expulsion. That is what the above-quoted paragraph states very clearly. Think about that. A “standard” that will not and has not been defined, a “standard” that has no recognizable definition and measurability, and yet a “standard” that is the ultimate “law of the land” will be, and has been, used to expel students.
Why? Because they did not “conform.” Conform to what? And how, then, does one “conform”? To conform, one must know of that which he or she is to conform TO. I cannot conform to something I cannot define, this is ridiculous! And yet when asked this specific question directly, Dr. Goddard, Mr. Ohman, and Dr. Horton refuse to answer the question. And some of you still think you can justify this?

3. The “opinion of the College.”

Let me just explain what the “opinion of the College” means. It means whatever the administration wants it to mean, and this is ALWAYS at the student’s expense. Not to mention the fact that this wording is very imprecise, it is also as vague as the “spirit of the ministry” clause. It is imprecise because it is not the opinion of the “college” that matters. The “college” is the entire community – faculty, staff, AND STUDENTS. This makes it sound as if there were some sort of body that represents the “college” that makes this determination, and I assure you, as I am sure you need no assurance, that this is NOT the case. The “opinion of the College” is NOT the opinion of the college; rather, it is the OPINION OF A FEW ADMINISTRATORS, or perhaps the Hortons alone.

If PCC were, in fact, a “community” or a “city” as it often likes to characterize itself, this “law” would not stand up for a second. It would be ruled unconstitutional for vagueness very quickly and very easily, because the rest of American civilization has come to recognize the principle of legality, the principle that in a community, defining the standards of conduct must be clearly spelled out so that those who are expected to abide by the standards know what is required of them. This is hardly an unreasonable request. Define what it means, and put it in the Student
Handbook.

Call me crazy, but if PCC is going to brag about its “Christian standards,” don’t you think it ought to, at the very least, let those who are subject to these “standards” know what they are?