Religiously-affiliated schools and their policies have found themselves in the media spotlight in recent months. While it may be their policies that initially draw the attention of the broader public, how those policies are carried out and communicated to the general public can be crucial to avoiding misconceptions and a damaged reputation.
Last week, Harding University found itself embroiled in a controversy after a group of GLBTQ – gay, lesbian, bisexual, transexual or queer – students, who used to attend Harding, published an online magazine describing their experiences on campus.
The online publication was promoted to various news outlets, describing Harding as “an explicitly conservative, religious, anti-gay institution” and was quickly picked up by the New Yorker Blog, Jezebel and The Huffington Post, among many others.
Harding initially responded by blocking the website and then provided a statement in the university’s chapel the next day. After Harding was approached by The Arkansas Times – not the other way around – Harding administration released a brief two-paragraph explanation for blocking the website.
Private institutions, especially those with a religious affiliation, have every right to construct policies regarding Internet use and to outline what behaviors are not in line with the universities’ overall mission. The regrettable aspect of Harding’s situation was the universities’ slow response to the issue, which was mostly reactionary and allowed the discussion of Harding, its policies and the larger Christian college community, to be dictated by the publishers of the online magazine.
The school’s blocking of the site with little explanation to the outside public only gave credence to the picture that was being painted of Harding as bigoted, ignorant and anti-homosexual. The general public does not have to agree with the decisions or the policy, but the lack of public relations work by Harding allowed those outside the university to absorb a one-sided view. This not only taints Harding’s reputation, but also the reputation of the larger Christian college community at large.
Brigham-Young University also found itself defending its policies regarding student conduct after its star basketball player, Brandon Davies, admitted to having a sexual relationship with his girlfriend – a violation of the school’s honor code.
The school admirably stuck to its policy, even though it meant the dismissal of the team’s third-leading scorer, who would have greatly assisted the team in a bid for the NCAA tournament. The policy may seem old fashioned to outsiders, but the Mormon-affiliated school decided the morals of its students were more important than its basketball season.
Religiously-affiliated schools must realize that their policies may sometimes seem backwards to outsiders and should be prepared to clarify them when these counter-cultural policies conflict with societal norms. By engaging the discussion on their policies rather than merely responding to attack, these institutions can ensure that the outside world better understands their values and beliefs, even if the world doesn’t always agree.
