Lots of religious sites have picked up the news that evangelical Christian and Ark-Park magnate Ken Ham has been deplatformed at the University of Central Oklahoma (UCO), but what they report is pretty similar to what more mainstream media say (for the latter, go here, here, and here; for Answer in Genesis‘s take, go here). The report below was taken from the three “secular” sources:

The upshot: Ham was scheduled to speak at the University on March 5; the topic was “Genesis and the State of the Culture,” and you can imagine what the content would be.  Answers in Genesis, however, says that “Ken Ham would have discussed the two different worldviews and their starting points when interpreting scientific evidence, as he did in his classic evolution/creation debate with Bill Nye ‘the Science Guy’ four years ago.” That sounds more like a creation/evolution debate than a discussion of how anti-Christian our culture is, but who knows? I suspect that, given the title, Ham would have discussed more than creationism!

But that’s irrelevant to the issue of free speech.

At any rate, Ham apparently was invited to speak by both the student government at UCO and a religious group called “Valid World Views”, so the invitation had the student government’s imprimatur.  There’s some dispute about whether a contract was signed with Ham (he says there was, UCO student body president Stockton Duvall says the negotiations for a contract were underway) and whether there was an initial vote by student government approving the invitation.

Then, the UCO Women’s Research Center and the BGLTQ+ Center objected to Ham’s visit because of his views on gay marriage (which, of course, are that it’s immoral, since marriage should be between one man and one woman). Duvall claims that these groups got wind of the contract negotiations and then ten students and two faculty members met with Duvall and, he says, “bullied” him into rescinding the invitation to Ham (they deny any bullying). There’s some difference in reporting here, as two sources says that student government voted to disinvite ham.

Nevertheless, Ham was disinvited. He’ll still speak on March 5, but at the Fairview Baptist Church near the University, which is in the city of Edmond.

Then UCO not only issued a statement favoring free speech, but said it “had encouraged the event before the student association voted to cancel under unspecified pressure”.  Here’s the President’s statement (my emphases):

Statement from University President Don Betz on Freedom of Expression

“Recent statements on social media and in the press have reported on the decision by the University of Central Oklahoma Student Association (UCOSA) to withdraw from negotiating a contract with Mr. Ken Ham of the organization Answers in Genesis. While we understand and appreciate the many points of view being provided on this topic, we wish to clarify for the community our view and practice of speech.

“The University of Central Oklahoma supports the democratic processes guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution by ensuring that all groups have the right to access a venue for free speech on our campus. We are a marketplace for the exchange of free ideas and we embrace the opportunity to do so. That’s what makes us free.

“As a public institution whose campus is public property, our doors are open to any who wish to express their ideas so long as student and public safety is preserved. A variety of groups representing a full spectrum of ideas and opinions regularly come to our campus and speak freely, and we have public spaces for them to do so. That includes demonstrators that support a variety of sometimes controversial positions.

“Our campus community is composed of many people and organizations that offer various viewpoints on many topics. A diverse group of students posed questions about the decision to invite Mr. Ham to campus. While any reports of bullying will be and are being investigated, it is important to state that reports that the LGBTQ community prevented Mr. Ham from being invited to campus are inaccurate and unfair to members of our campus community.

“As we reflect on the conversation that has emerged during the past two days, we expect the outcome of that discussion to only strengthen our resolve to remain the inclusive and diverse community we have become, and will remain, at UCO.

“No one has the ability, nor has UCO ever attempted, to limit speech on our campus. All who wish to freely express their ideas in a peaceful and civil manner, including Mr. Ham, are welcome to do so at the University of Central Oklahoma.”

This is a weaselly statement trying to appease everyone (sometimes “inclusivity” is at odds with free speech), but the penultimate sentence is wrong, for the student government, who first invited Ham, did indeed try to limit speech on the campus. It’s not clear whether the invitation was extended by vote of the student government and then rescinded by another vote, or whether the invitation was issued without their approval, and, if so, whether that constitutes a valid invitation. (Ham says that the university gave permission for Ham to speak.) This is relevant to the issue of whether Ham was really “deplatformed,” and whether that is indeed a violation of the First Amendment (UCO is a public university).

My view is that even if the invitation was done on the sly, if it had some kind of student and university approval, students should still have voted to allow Ham to speak, even given his odious views on gay rights and same-sex marriage, not to mention evolution. If only speakers who approve of the Women’s Research Center and BGLTQ+’s views were allowed to speak, that amounts to limiting what students can hear to a set of ideologically approved positions. Why not let the students hear not only the arguments against evolution, but the religious arguments against gay marriage? What’s to lose? Are they afraid that Ham will actually change students’ minds, making them oppose gay marriage and reject evolution? If so, then they don’t value open discussion of controversial issues. The fact is that evolution, though opposed by many Americans, will become more widely accepted as American becomes more secular, and gay marriage is already a settled issue in law.

These days it’s hard to imagine students who find Ham reprehensible nevertheless voting to invite him, but that’s the traditional Leftist view, and I support it.

The limitation of what one is allowed to hear is one downside of such deplatforming. The other downside is that Ham now gets to trumpet that his views, and Christianity in general, are being persecuted, making him look like a victim of the Left. And he’s already doing that. This is Ham’s reaction as published on the Answer in Genesis website:

[R]eligious liberty in America is under increasing attack by some very intolerant people. In this case of discrimination, I find it highly ironic that after being scheduled to speak in the school’s Constitution Hall, our constitutional right to free speech and the free exercise of religion, guaranteed under the First Amendment, have been denied with the school’s cancellation. Small but vocal groups on campus put up a fuss about my talk, and the university caved in, tearing up the contract and contradicting its own policies of promoting “free inquiry” and “inclusiveness” on campus. Apparently, free speech at UCO is protected only if it is the “right kind” of speech.

And I think he’s right about freedom of religion being trampled on here, much as I despise Ham and what he stands for.  But progressives shouldn’t try to censor those with “offensive” views. I suppose being against gay marriage counts as “hate speech.”

Now I won’t in general debate creationists, as I think the best way to fight them is to write and speak on one’s own, let the other side do the same, and let people judge on their own. (The courts will also weigh in if this becomes a constitutional issue.) Too often debates are an exercise in rhetoric and tactics, and things like the “Gish gallop” aren’t easy to handle in front of an audience that’s sympathetic to creationists. But one must let the other side speak, at least on its own.

That said, I wouldn’t allow a creationist to speak in my classroom.  The courts have decided that “free speech” does not include the promotion of religious views in the classroom, and the courts have further ruled that both creationism and its sophisticated version “Intelligent Design” are not science but religion. It’s also a waste of time to teach students lies when you have limited classroom time, and I’d rather omit creationism than teach it in detail and then show why it’s wrong. (That’s like teaching alchemy in chemistry class and then debunking it.)

Doubtless Michael Egnor, who reads this site obsessively, will call me out for hypocrisy for arguing that Ham should be allowed to speak publicly at UCO but not in my evolution class. But that’s because Egnor, who lacks the neurons to understand nuance (and this isn’t rocket science) can’t conceive of the difference between free speech in public and the right to say anything in a public school classroom. Fortunately, the courts have already decided that one.