Liberal Professor Targeted Me From Day One, Says Christian Student

(CNSNews.com) - A Christian social work student who took Missouri State University to court after a liberal professor targeted her for refusing to lobby for homosexual adoption said Thursday she and the teacher had clashed over her beliefs from day one.

Emily Brooker was vindicated when the university agreed to an out-of-court settlement, and the professor was disciplined.

In her suit, Brooker, who has since graduated, accused the university of violating her First Amendment right to free speech by exercising her Christian convictions.

Brooker brought the case after the professor, Dr. Frank G. Kauffman, filed a "level three" grievance against her - the most serious in the school's disciplinary system - after they clashed over an advocacy assignment.

She told Cybercast News Service that the class was required to write a letter to their senator advocating for homosexual adoption and foster care. Brooker said she opposes homosexual adoption because of her beliefs as a Methodist.

"We were willing to do all of the research and the other parts of the assignment, even writing a letter - we just didn't want to sign it and send it to our senator. We did not feel that advocating for this is in our personal beliefs," she said.

The other student, who was not held in violation or involved in the lawsuit, has not been named.

"The very first class I had with him, he introduced himself as Dr. Kauffman and [said] that he was a liberal professor - but to feel free to share any other opinions you might have," she recalled.

"There were several times during that first class that we disagreed on a few political issues, and he made it known to me that my opinions were not acceptable in the class."

After Kauffman filed the grievance, Brooker faced a lengthy session of questioning by an ethics committee, during which she was asked questions like: "Do you think gays and lesbians are sinners?" and "Do you think I'm a sinner?"

She was accused of violating the school's Standards of Essential Functioning in Social Work Education - a black mark on her record that she knew would affect her future career as a social worker.

Brooker sought help from the Alliance Defense Fund. The group, which defends religious liberty, agreed to represent her. She filed the lawsuit on Oct. 30, but the university last week signed an out-of-court agreement with her legal representatives.

The university said in a statement it had agreed to clear Brooker's record, pay her $9,000, and cover the costs of a two-year Masters degree course, plus living expenses, at any state university in Missouri.

It said Kauffman had voluntarily stepped down from his administrative duties as director of the Master of Social Work program. He would also not be teaching for the remainder of the semester.

"The matter's behind us, it's been resolved in a collegial fashion, and we wish Emily nothing but the best," John Black, general counsel at Missouri State University, said Friday.

"Nobody here has anything but the best hopes for Emily ... and are confident she will do very well."

"This was an event that when the university investigated it, we didn't confirm everything that was alleged, but we were concerned enough that we thought action needed to be taken and taken quickly."

Erik Stanley, chief counsel for the religious freedom organization Liberty Counsel, told Cybercast News Service it was "appalling" that Brooker had been required to sign a document that violated her religious beliefs.

"I don't think anyone should be required to do that, regardless of social workers' ethics. Those types of issues like homosexuality or abortion - things that are very divisive and that people hold very strong religious views on - should not be mandated by the government in order to engage in these kinds of professions, like social work," Stanley said.

"The end result of the homosexual movement is not same-sex marriage," he added. "It is silencing the opposition. The end goal of the same-sex movement cannot tolerate anybody that has an opposing view point. These kinds of cases are indicative of that."

"I only wish other administrations would respond as quickly to violations of students' rights," ADF senior legal counsel David French said.

"Being a Christian shouldn't make you a second-class citizen on a college campus," said French in a statement.

"Instead of being a marketplace of ideas, some professors try to silence or even punish students whose beliefs do not conform to their personal worldview. To its credit, the university launched an investigation immediately after Emily's case was filed and has taken appropriate action against the professor and to repair Emily's reputation and record.

"I would definitely do this again. It was very important to me to let my voice be heard. I was very afraid for other students that didn't want to stand up, didn't want to say anything or question the authority that the professors have in the classroom," she said.

"He is very knowledgeable in what he does. He knows the information, and he is a very good teacher in that aspect," she said.

"I was never setting out to get him fired - that was never my goal. I just wanted him, the department and the university to realize that the authority that professors perceive to have in the classroom has gone beyond what our policies allow them," Brooker added.

Kauffman did not respond to phone and email requests to comment for this article.

As a member of the Methodist church myself, it is rare to see a member of our church actually take a public stand against homosexuality like this.

Yeah... I was a Methodist for 35 years until the Jr. pastor at my church started lobbying for openly homosexual pastors. I am now at a nondenominational church that believes the Bible. It took a lot to leave that Methodist church where I had many friends, was in youth leadership, etc., but I couldn't support them (with my time or money) going directly against God's word.

In return, Christians and others who believe that homosexuality is immoral and unhealthy need to realize that most of the medical community and much of society no longer believes this

What country are you living in?!? So in the past few years we have had twenty-something states pass constitutional amendments AGAINST gay marriage by OVERWHELMING margins. That doesn't say the homosexual behavior is normal.

Homosexuality is no different than any other sin - alcoholism, addicted to porn, bestiality, etc. It has NEVER been proved to be genetic. It kills the person 20 years early. One might as well advocate for smoking - it only takes a few years off of one's life.

The liberal media has doe a great job of promoting homosexuality as "normal." That doesn't make it normal. Bestiality is now being promoted - who are we to judge?

My point was merely that much of the ambient society disagrees with Christians about the morality of homosexuality. Not 'most' of the society but 'much' of the society (and the 'much' of the society is found at universities a lot). And when I assert that most of the medical community believes homosexuality to be natural and normal, I am being precise -- I'm not asserting that homosexuality is normal and healthy, I'm merely saying that the medical community believes this, as reflected by the statements of position issued by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, etc.

You should be aware that the statistics about smoking and homosexuality are rather similar. Research done prior to the advent of protease inhibitors (the antivirals that have extended the lives of people with HIV), showed that homosexual men live between 8 and 20 years less than normal on average. (The uncertainty was mainly due to an uncertainty as to what percent of the male population is homosexual.) But cigarettes reduce the lives of smokers by an average of fourteen years (see http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/economics/mm5425_highlights.htm.)

You are correct that homosexuality has not been proven to be genetic. However, there is evidence that genetics plays a role. (Up to 50%, according to research involving identical twins.) But the truth is that no one knows the cause of homosexuality. Most likely environment and genetics both play a role. None of the usual theories seem to work very well at predicting sexuality. For example, some say that a distant father, or sexual abuse at the hands of a male, etc, cause homosexuality -- but the rub with such theories is that there are plenty of heterosexual men with similar unfortunate experiences.

You should be aware that the statistics about smoking and homosexuality are rather similar.

Great! So we should promote smoking along with homosexuality in public schools. The dangers are roughly the same (depending on which study you want to bring up). We should have "Be tolerant of smokers days." "My Daddy smokes like a chimney and drinks like a fish (and it's cool) day." Kids write letters to congress telling them that chain smokers should be allowed to adopt, etc.

You are correct that homosexuality has not been proven to be genetic. However, there is evidence that genetics plays a role.

And the same can be said for crime. Should we promote crime due to this? The same logic is being applied in order to promote homosexuality. He/she can't help it - they were born that way."

"After Kauffman filed the grievance, Brooker faced a lengthy session of questioning by an ethics committee, during which she was asked questions like: "Do you think gays and lesbians are sinners?" and "Do you think I'm a sinner?"

That sounds like a civil rights violation - of targeting a Christian prejudicially specifically on religious beliefs which are protected by the free exercise clause. Educational institutions are not supposed to discriminate based on religion.

"I see you have a fanatical bent for individual rights, despite the fact that we have shown this semester of how damaging they can be to the community and the individual themselves. Oh well, at least you do write well and present your point of view in a logical, concise manner, with good factual support for your conclusions and opinions."

Was this a class on national socialism?

Glad she stood up and won. Praise the Lord! I have a great fear for the future of our nation if the populace is so easily intimidated into silence by those who would abuse their authority--using the smokescreen of education.

If we were to argue that the evil of a "victimless" behavior is a function of how dangerous and unhealthy it is, then we would have to conclude that homosexuality and smoking are of a similar level of evil, since they both cause something like 14 years of loss of life on average. So, naturally, I would accept that neither should be promoted in schools.

You jest, "My Daddy smokes like a chimney .. and it's cool." I should mention: My own father died of lung cancer late last year. He was a former heavy smoker. These dangers are not abstract or theoretical. There are 120,000 lung cancer deaths a year attributable to smoking; this is several times the annual death toll from AIDS. (I should also mention that I have lost a good friend to AIDS, about a dozen years ago.)

There is a difference between homosexuality and crime. Other than the obvious one that homosexuality is no longer a crime in this country, it is possible to be a homosexual and harm no other person. Indeed many homosexuals are highly productive members of society (professors, engineers, lawyers, etc.). This realization is one of the reasons why homosexuality was taken off the list of mental illnesses three decades ago.

There is a difference between homosexuality and crime.

No, but having AIDs, knowing that you have it, then passing to someone is murder.

Other than the obvious one that homosexuality is no longer a crime in this country, it is possible to be a homosexual and harm no other person.

Indeed many homosexuals are highly productive members of society (professors, engineers, lawyers, etc.).

Indeed, many criminals are very productive members of society as well. Just look at the impeached president Clinton. Here he was found guilty of obstruction of justice, had to forfeit his law license for five years, and had to pay a $90,000 fine. Some would say that he is productive in society. We shouldn't promote obstruction of justice because of it.

This realization is one of the reasons why homosexuality was taken off the list of mental illnesses three decades ago.

Yes, the exact same organization that took homosexuality off of the mental illness list also said (officially) that sex with children doesn't harm children. The psychology profession is full of left-wing liberals. Should we agree with everything that liberals tell us?

Obviously, not the kind of Methodist who runs the show in that denomination.

Two things:

1. She didn't say what kind of Methodist. The Free Methodists are among those other "Methodist" denominations that are about as conservative as it is possible to be.

2. Despite what the press reports, even the United Methodists have not changed their historic moral position on homosexuality and same sex marriage. Instead, they have MADE IT MORE CONSERVATIVE. The same with abortion. The UM's position on abortion is actually little different than rape, incest, life of the mother. This, too, has definitely gone in a MORE CONSERVATIVE direction. Additionally, the denomination has voiced total opposition to partial birth abortion. In sum, the woman was more than correct in saying that this professor was forcing her to violate her Methodist religious beliefs.

No. Close though! LOL

It was a class called "Our Global Future - Values for Survival". The most simple way to describe the class would be a "interdisciplinary study"; i.e., whole bunch of eco-wacko, hyper-greenies spending 6 weeks telling you "we're doomed!". The next six weeks telling you how the "Western Worldview" makes it inevetible that we're doomed. The final six weeks telling us how wonderful it will be when we are living like pre-industrial age orientals or native - americans --at one with our envirnonment.

You can get an idea of what these freaks are all about here:

http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/classes/iscor310/syllabus.htm

Obviously, not the kind of Methodist who runs the show in that denomination.

Free Methodist position

A/331.2 Abortion. The intentional destruction of human life is murder when any degree of malice or selfishness accompanies the decision and act. Therefore, induced abortion is morally unjustifiable except when the act has been decided upon by responsible and competent persons, including Christian and professional counsel, for the purpose of saving the life of a pregnant woman.

Abortion, when it serves the ends of population or birth control, personal preference of convenience, and social or economic security, must be considered as selfish and malicious. Therefore, the intentional abortion of nascent life from conception on, except when extreme circumstances requires termination of a pregnancy to save the life of the pregnant woman, must be judged to be a violation of God's command, "You shall not commit murder."

We recommend that Free Methodists offer compassionate alternatives and long-term care to women considering abortion. We recommend similar long-term care for all persons impacted by previous abortions. We also urge continuing support for those involved in parenting and in the adoption and fostering of children. While firmly opposed to abortion, we recognize that those whose views contrary to ours should be treated with respect and dignity and that God's forgiveness is offered to all.

you may wish to recharacterize your comments

"statements of position issued by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, etc."

You are aware that these position statements didn't come about until these organizations were "infiltrated" by homosexuals. I know in the case of the Psychiatric association they bowed to pressure by homonsexuals to change the definition of homosexuality.

""hostile environment" against "people of faith" at MSU."

It was that way when it was still just Southwest Missouri State University.

It's interesting to note that the CNN version doesn't include the fact that the professor claim that the social worker's association mandated an acceptance of homosexuality when in fact a spokesman vehemently denied it and it appears nowhere in their statement of membership.

They bowed to pressure to conduct a review of the scientific literature, which in turn led to the decision to remove homosexuality from the diagnostic manual of mental illnesses. The long-term strategy of homosexuals was simple and effective: by "coming out," by telling people about their sexuality, they force a fundamental shift in the public's perception of homosexuality. It is much more difficult to believe that homosexuals are mentally ill if you become aware that neighbors, co-workers, friends or relatives are in this category. This happened big time in the psychiatric profession: until a certain point in time, a psychiatrist typically only encountered homosexuals in his practice. These patients were miserable, lonely, and felt deep shame at their condition and behavior; frequently homosexuals were also alcoholic or suffered from other conditions. But the activists in the early 1970s forced the psychiatric profession to confront the reality of homosexuals who were not deeply disturbed, but instead had successful careers in the arts, medicine, in the universities, etc--and who appeared to have healthy social lives (i.e., who had close friends, long-term relationships, etc). At any rate, this is my understanding of what happened--the decision was influenced by politics but based on science.

Well, enough of this. Happy Thanksgiving!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.