Author Archive

Breaking: New Speak Up University Blog

April 26, 2010

We are proud to announce a new fully integrated, socially connected Speak Up University Blog.

The new Speak Up University blog can be found at

*We will no longer be posting or updating*

If you subscribed to the RSS feed – the new RSS feed is:

Screen shot of the new Speak Up University Blog

Be sure to bookmark or favorite the new blog site:

You can join the conversation on facebook and twitter.


You Can’t Say That – Free Speech at the University

April 6, 2010

Watch a Podcast of  Alliance Defense Fund attorney Kevin Theriot and KU Law Professor Richard Levy discuss  Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, a case that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear in a few weeks.

Right to Belong: Does the Christian Legal Society have the right to exist?

March 30, 2010

Reblogged from Supreme Court Report: By David L. Hudson, Jr

Right to Belong: Christian Group says it does; California law school says it doesn’t.

“Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky is monitoring the case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez with a keen eye. One reason is substantive: The case features a clash between the rights of schools to enforce their nondiscrimination policies and student religious groups’ rights of freedom of association. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments April 19.”

Click to read the rest of the article.


February 19, 2010

Video: David French 2010 SFLA Conference: Knowing Your Rights on Campus

Click to watch: 2010 SFLA Conference: Knowing Your Rights on Campus

David French spoke at the 2010 Students for Life National Conference on January 23, 2010, in Washington, D.C. With a touch of humor and motivational thought,  he inspired more than 1,000 pro-life students to Speak Up for Life on their public university campus. He encouraged them with the knowledge that when they Speak Up and Stand Up, they are not alone. Behind them stands the strength of an Alliance.

A Righteous Stand

February 11, 2010

                I was president of Maranatha Christian Fellowship student group at the University of Minnesota when we teamed up with the Alliance Defense Fund  to successfully challenge the University’s non-discrimination policy that, ironically, discriminated against religious student groups. The policy basically stated that in order to be considered a legitimate student group, we had to sign a form stating that we would allow any student to become voting members and be eligible for leadership positions within the group, regardless of (among other things) their religion.
                Our student group decided to challenge this policy because it undermined the very purpose and goal of our organization. Allowing voting members and leaders into our organization when they do not agree with our Christian core values defeats the purpose of having a Christian student group at all, just as it would defeat the PETA student group’s purpose to allow recreational hunters as voting members of their group!
                The University did not challenge our lawsuit, and the policy was changed so that religious student organizations would no longer be required to sign the non-discrimination statement in order to receive full recognition.
                As Christians, we believe it is important for people of faith to take a stand on these issues, because all across the nation, our religious freedom is being squashed and trampled in the name of “tolerance.” As our nation’s universities lean ever farther to the left,  we are falling victim to discrimination and intolerance. In fact, it seems every belief is to be accepted and tolerated except the beliefs held by most Christians.
                We thank ADF for their tireless work to defend religious freedom, and we pray the Supreme Court will recognize their case as valid, pressing, and justified.

Submitted by Grant Buse

An Unjust Choice

February 10, 2010

As more and more campuses enforce discriminatory ‘nondiscrimination policies’, campus faith communities like Chi Alpha are forced to make an unjust choice:  either compromise our mission, values, and identity or lose the ability to meaningfully engage in campus life. This Supreme Court case will have lasting repercussions on students’ Constitutional rights.  Generations of university students will be impacted.

Joe Gavin- Chi Alpha Vermont

Chi Alpha National Ministries has been a force for the Gospel on universities throughout the United States and around the world since 1953. Its members are college-age men and women earnestly following Jesus. The name “Chi Alpha” is inspired by II Corinthians 5:20. “We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making His appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.” Inspired by this verse, the ministry chose the designation “christou apostoloi,” meaning “Christ’s sent ones,” to represent its membership. The Greek letters Chi (X) and Alpha (A) are the initials of this phrase which should remind us that we should live to accomplish the commission Jesus gave us.

Chi Alpha campus leaders aspire to embody the mission of the organization.  Because of their uncompromising faith, they have dealt with the non-discrimination statement issue on campuses across America over and over again. Most recently at the University of Vermont.

The Vermont Chi Alpha chapter was denied recognition by the Student Government Association (SGA) for the second time last year. The student chairperson denied Chi Alpha recognition because its constitution requires student leaders to be Christians and live according to Biblical ethics. The committee decided that the group was therefore “discriminating” on the basis of religion, a violation of the school’s nondiscrimination policy.

Failure to obtain official recognition constitutes a heavy penalty for this student campus group. Without recognition, the student members are unable to reserve space on campus for their weekly worship gatherings, information tables, or outreach events. They are also denied access to the student activities funds they themselves contribute to each semester.

While Chi Alpha Vermont continues to work toward recognition, it has its eye on the Court.

If your Christian campus group has faced this kind of injustice on campus, tell us about it.

Who is Defending Liberty?

February 3, 2010

One of the more irritating assumptions in modern cultural/political life is the common theme one encounters on campus (and elsewhere) that the cultural Right restricts liberty while the Left defends it. And no one (allegedly) restricts liberty more than those tyrannical members of the “Religious Right,” with their repressive moral code and puritanical sensibilities.

If this is the case, then why is it — as a card-carrying member of the “Religious Right” — I have never in my career been involved in a case that limited or constricted pre-existing legal rights? Why is it that every successful case has resulted in greater liberty, not just for my clients but for the entire campus community?

Click here to read the rest of the story.

David French, Senior Counsel writing for NRO Phi Beta Cons

The Next Great Pro-Life Advocate – Tim Tebow

January 29, 2010

Reblogged from NRO – Written by David French

Given the decisive move of young people toward life, it is hardly surprising that a pro-life advocate emerges from college. And it should be less surprising that it’s Tim Tebow. After all, if you look up “unashamed of the Gospel” in the dictionary, you’ll find Tim Tebow’s picture. He’s the guy with the scripture verses under his eyes, who’s tireless in his community service, and who reaches out to those in distress. And now he’s spending some of that public goodwill to speak for those who can’t speak at all.

Photo credit: (AP Photo/Bill Haber)

Click to read the rest of the article

Is Liberty a ‘Zero-Sum Game’?

January 21, 2010

Reblogged from NRO – Written by David French

“Today a friend sent me an article from CNSNews regarding Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor and President Obama’s nominee to head the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. The piece focuses on a journal article Professor Feldblum wrote in 2006, particularly on this argument:”

Click to read the whole article.

That’s Not A Speech Code; It’s a Code of Ethics!

January 11, 2010

Reblogged from NRO – Written by David French

“Eugene Volokh highlighted what could be an ominous development for the legal profession: monitoring law-student speech to see if students meet the “character and fitness requirements” for the legal profession. The articulated concern stretches from “cyber-harassment” and “cyber-stalking” to “outrageous gender- or race-specific comments.” Professor Volokh points to this AALS (American Association of Law Schools) panel, put together by the AALS Section on Women in Legal Education:”

Click to read the whole article.