OPINION: PROSPER act shakes up left side of Congress

What bill is currently working its way through Congress and could influence the fate of Liberty University students’ unsubsidized loans and Pell Grants and the university’s ability to operate according to its religious convictions?

The answer is the proposed PROSPER Act, formally titled the “Promoting Real Opportunity, Success, and Prosperity Through Education Reform Act.” This bill, often referred to as the new Higher Education Act, is a reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, originally signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965. This reauthorization of the bill is currently being reviewed and will soon be presented to the House of Representatives for approval.

On his podcast “The Briefing,” Dr. Albert Mohler noted on Feb. 5 that sometimes, critical legislation appears innocuous and garners little attention, despite its widespread significance.

The PROSPER Act is indeed a critical piece of legislation, most obviously in regard to the distribution of government-subsidized financial aid, upon which the majority of college students attending universities in the U.S depend. But along with providing most young adults with the financial means necessary to attend college, the reauthorization of the act also provides protections for the freedom of assembly and religious liberty.

Liberty administration, faculty and students should recognize the critical importance of these protections.

Eligibility for government-subsidized and unsubsidized loans and grants under the reauthorized bill depends upon universities’ compliance with the requirements established in the act. The proposed PROSPER Act is a good and necessary safeguard for religious universities like Liberty.

And yet, the bill has been met with significant criticism from left-leaning political and social advocates.

This education bill is a cause of concern for LGBTQ advocates, who fear that the bill ensures that religiously-affiliated universities have the freedom to discriminate against the LGBTQ community. One section of the proposed bill bars government entities from “penalizing the institution for acts or omissions by the institution that are in furtherance of its religious mission or are related to the religious affiliation of the institution.”

On Feb. 1, Anemona Hartocollis wrote in The New York Times that, “Religious colleges would be able to bar openly same-sex relationships without fear of repercussions.”

Most religious universities, Christian and otherwise, do forbid same-sex relationships on campus. Marriage, as defined by the Bible and affirmed by thousands of years of Christian history, is a covenant between one man and one woman — to indicate otherwise would trespass the boundaries of scripture.

Should the believers who comprise the administration, faculty and student body of a Christian university be required to embrace lifestyles and practices that directly oppose their religious beliefs, in order to preserve the financial accessibility of their institution?

The bill makes it clear that religious institutions are able to exercise their First Amendment rights without the fear of being destroyed by their opposition.

Hartocollis continues her analysis of the bill with another pointed concern, writing, “Religious student groups could block people who do not share their faith from becoming members.”

The idea that a club might require that members be of a certain gender or profess a certain faith is another major concern for some.  It seems ridiculous to suggest that there is no measure of exclusivity involved in club membership.

In July 2017, the highly exclusive Harvard University proposed a ban on fraternities, sororities and single-gender organizations, prompting Brendan Clarey of the New York Post to ask the question, “Would Harvard University ban Harvard University, if given the chance?”

Harvard University is one of the nation’s most prestigious and highly selective universities, a fact which negates their argument that exclusivity is an unacceptable evil. A club, by definition, generally requires that either a personal qualification is met or a specific expectation is fulfilled — be it money, commitment or skill.

The protections provided in the proposed PROSPER Act ensure that religious clubs — or any clubs at all, for that matter — will not be shut down simply because someone feels left out.

Finally, Hortocollis expresses concern over the bill’s protections for what could be deemed by some inclusivity advocates as “hate speech.” The provisions made in the section of the bill titled Free Speech Protections declare, “No public institution of higher education directly or indirectly receiving financial assistance under this Act should limit religious expression, free expression, or any other rights provided under the First Amendment.”

“(As a result of this bill), controversial speakers would have more leverage when they want to appear at colleges,” Hortocollis wrote.

According to NBC News, David Stacy, director of government affairs at the Human Rights Campaign, said that “(the bill) clearly favors religious speech over other types of speech.”

Liberty is known for hosting Convocation speakers considered by secular campuses to be highly controversial. Tomi Lahren and Ray Rice, who both spoke fall 2017, and Ben Shapiro, speaking April 25, would not be well received on most college campuses.

Although Liberty students might not be a fan of every speaker that comes to Convocation, the administration still has a right to select guest speakers, and those speakers have the right to voice even unpopular — whether for political, religious or other reasons — opinions. This section of the bill assures universities that the rights provided to them by the First Amendment are indeed secure.

Despite what Mohler described as the “entire clash of worldviews” demonstrated throughout the reauthorization process of the Higher Education Act, these provisions in the PROSPER Act are put in place to uphold First Amendment rights as they pertain to universities in the U.S.

Liberty students can expect that both their access to federal student loans and Liberty’s controversial Convocation speakers are not going away anytime soon. And ultimately, that’s a very good thing.

 

 

Stiner is a news writer.