Freedom: Law or Principle?

I've come across two interesting stories lately, both of which have received similar responses from me:

• A 19-year-old student at Duquesne University, a private Catholic institution, faces the possibility of expulsion for referring to homosexuality as "subhuman" on his weblog. (Hat tip to Damien Scott from Damien's Spot).



• A drama teacher at Loretto High School, a private Catholic institution in Sacramento, CA, has been fired for her work as a Planned Parenthood escort. (Hat tip to Eric Williams from Ales Rarus).

The argument used in both of these cases, by two very different groups of people, is that these schools as private institutions have the right to suppress students' and employees' liberties because they are exempt from the constitutional requirements imposed upon public institutions. It's interesting to see conservatives and liberals so united in belief on this but also so opposed. I doubt you'll meet a liberal who thinks that the drama teacher should have been fired; on the other hand, I suspect there are very few conservatives who believe that the student from Duquesne University should be expelled. And yet both groups are using the same argument: that private institutions have the right to suppress liberty, because they are exempt from our civilly libertarian laws.

My response to both of these cases is the same: "'Everything is lawful,' but not everything is beneficial. 'Everything is lawful,' but not everything builds up" (1 Corinthians 10:23). Is it legal for a private university to expel a student for expressing his views in a non-institutional forum? Is it legal for a private school to fire a teacher for behaving in a way inconsistent with the institution's code of conduct in a non-institutional setting? I don't know. I suspect that there will be lawsuits and that the courts will eventually tell us. And who knows what they'll say? One can never predict what the courts will say these days, since they are so ruled by society's cultural norms and so divorced from constitutional law. But is it beneficial? That's a different question.

"Everything is lawful," but not everything is beneficial. In a sense, this begs the question: Are the liberties guaranteed by our Constitution mere laws, or are they also fundamental principles? Is this mere legality that we're talking about, or are we talking about something that is at the very core of who we are as a nation? Are private institutions in this country legally exempt from constitutional laws? Maybe they are, and maybe they're not. But are they exempt in principle from that which makes us American? I don't think so.

Freedom of speech is not just a law. It is a fundamental principle, an invaluable element at the core of who we are as a nation. Similarly, freedom of expression, freedom of association, these also are invaluable elements at the core of who we are as a nation. Ryan Miner has the right to refer to a group of people as suhuman, no matter how much we may disagree with him -- so says the very core of our democracy. Marie Bain has the right to associate with Planned Parenthood, to express her freedom by escorting women to engage in a legal activity, no matter how much we don't want her to do it -- so says the very core of our democracy. We may find these actions morally repugnant, personally revolting. And we have that right. But we do not have the right to suppress other people's freedom because we disagree with them. Is it legal in these cases? Maybe it is, but everything is lawful. The better questions are these: Is it beneficial? Does it build up? Clearly, it doesn't. In the former case, we are on our way to students at private institutions being completely unable to express their views, completely unable to separate themselves from the predetermined ideology of the institution. In the latter case, we are on our way to employees being completely unable to behave as they see fit outside of the workplace, being forced to conform to the behavioral expectations of their employers both inside and outside of the workplace.

In other words, we are on our way to a new form of institutional slavery. Our liberties are being taken away.

It's my view that a society is in big trouble when its core principles become mere laws to be followed, and a society is in even bigger trouble when its citizens and institutions start trying to look for any paths possible to exemption from those laws. Is this really what we've come to? Have we really come to a place where we no longer respect the principles that many of our ancestors fought and died for, a place where we no longer respect the principles that many of our ancestors left home country and family to work for and achieve? Is it legal to expel Ryan Miner or fire Marie Bain? I don't know. But let's ask ourselves: What would our ancestors think of it, those who left homeland to fight and die for their freedom and ours? It is popularly said in the Catholic Church that tradition is the democracy of the dead. Let us now look to our own national tradition, our own democracy of the dead, to see what our ancestors would think of these new developments. Maybe they would say, with St. Paul: "'Everything is lawful,' but not everything is beneficial."

(Cross-posted at Sacramentum Minimum).