Liberty
The flames of hate.
Madness is upon us once more — beginning this Sunday, the 15th of March. That’s Selection Sunday, when the field of sixty-eight teams is drawn for the 2020 NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Tournament — better known as March Madness. People will be drawn to television, computer, and phone screens the world over, trying to keep up with their favorites — or their picks in bracket pools. What started as an amateur competition is now one of the largest sporting events in the world, bringing fame to schools and allowing anyone who can make the greatest dance a chance at the national spotlight.
It is this power to display the underdogs and the little fish when they manage to accomplish the improbable that attracts many to the tournament, myself included. Watching tiny schools overcome the disadvantages inherently present in the system of collegiate athletics, even if only for a short while, is a time-honored tradition and easily my favorite part of any season. Managing to do the nigh-impossible is something that thrusts a university into the national eye, particularly as the tournament has ballooned into a multibillion-dollar enterprise.
How many people knew about the University of Maryland — Baltimore County? Can’t imagine many did, until the Retrievers knocked off the University of Virginia in the 2018 tournament to accomplish the first 16 over 1 upset in the men’s bracket. Sure, UMBC lost in the next round to Kansas State, and these days has largely disappeared from national relevance once more, but for a short while, they were the talk of the world. Many a study has been done on the impact of tournament appearances on applications and the wellbeing of a university — even more have been done proving the link between tournament wins and increased profile for a given school (the Flutie Effect).
Think about what tournament runs meant for schools like UMBC — who won that one game, but a monumental win it was. Loyola-Chicago that same year, with a historic Final Four run. Sister Jean, the Ramblers’ figurehead, became a national icon for a short while. Take a moment to recall Dunk City — the Florida Gulf Coast Eagles, a team that made a Sweet Sixteen run in 2013 as a 15 seed. The high-flying showboaters made a name for a university that otherwise likely would have never received half the press they did.
My point to all this is that, particularly as the industry and hype surrounding this tournament has grown, schools have increasingly looked to it as a vehicle by which to gain legitimacy and promote the institution as a whole. Athletics have always been used to this end in some manner, but very few events provide the national notoriety that the madness does.
As with almost anything athletics related, college basketball is, in theory, about entertaining. It should be about fun, about celebrating the ridiculousness of randomness, allowing the joy of the little guy getting one over on the big man to sweep us away.
Regrettably, this is not always the case.
Sports are inherently political. There is no denying this, not when the anthem is often stood for before every event — “please rise and remove your hats for the playing of our national anthem” is a terribly common refrain. We cannot pretend any longer, nor should we have ever pretended, that sports are not deeply intertwined with messages of all kinds, regarding race, gender, politics, religion… there is hardly an area of life untouched by sport in our modern culture.
It is this deep connection between sport and politics, between sport and religion, sport and race, sport and gender… these are the ties that we must consider in our analysis and appreciation of sport. Every time a team takes a field, they promote that which they are tied to — in the case of collegiate sports, the university the team represents. To paraphrase the great Herb Brooks, the name on the front of the jersey is a hell of a lot more important than the one on the back — particularly in contests such as this.
It is this representation and promotion that has given me pause in recent years — for, even as we celebrate the achievements of places like UMBC and Loyola, we have to step back and consider what it means to acknowledge and herald these institutions — when we promote them and celebrate what they have done, what is the message we spread? -
What do we say through our unsaid actions?
There is one particular institution that has in recent years found itself with an increasingly large spotlight, despite promoting messages actively contradictory to policies of tolerance and support. You are likely familiar with them — as they were the darling of many an article last spring and continue to receive coverage unwilling to acknowledge the vast baggage carried by this name.
Liberty University.
Founded in 1971 as Lynchburg Bible College, Libery has long been noted as a bastion of the Christian right — with decent reason. Jerry Falwell Sr., the founder of Liberty University, also founded Moral Majority, an organization dedicated to mobilizing the Christian right in Republican politics in the 70s and 80s. Falwell had plenty of additional opinions that he was not shy in sharing nor promoting — including the assertion that the next antichrist would be a Jewish man, as he said in 1999. He also said that the scourge of AIDS was deserved by the gay community in 1983. That gay people deserved AIDS for no other reason than being gay.
Falwell Sr. passed in 2007, leaving behind an extensive profile of promoting horrific policies and a lifetime of shameful acts. His son, Jerry Falwell Jr., assumed the mantle of university president upon his father’s death, and promptly began continuing the legacy his father had built — with one added twist.
Falwell Jr. has snuggled up to organizations like the Liberty Counsel, known for being disturbingly anti-LGBT. He has crafted policies and designed structures to implement and carry forth his father’s standards, continuing the university’s path of moving towards the Christian right that Falwell the elder was so very comfortable getting close to — by speaking at CPAC and various conservative gatherings, Falwell Jr. has been quick to establish that nothing would be changing at Liberty — the path was clear, the way laid with gold.
Liberty’s policies — known as “The Liberty Way” — often extend well beyond any biblical notion, including such gems as prohibition of “sexual relations outside of a biblically ordained marriage between a natural-born man and a natural-born woman”, as well as dress codes for men and women on campus — including specifications on what is permitted when in class, and what is permitted when not in class.
Prohibitions on media consumption also exist, with the guidelines stating that “Media or entertainment that is offensive to Liberty’s standards and traditions (i.e., lewd lyrics, anti-Christian message, sexual content, nudity, pornography, etc.) is not permitted.” It is suggested that movies and games rated X, NC-17, and A/AO are not permitted, while caution must be exercised with regard to R and PG-13 content.
This is a college environment. In 2020.
One of Falwell Jr’s few shifts from his father’s agenda has been with regard to athletics, as he has consistently advocated for building the brand that is the Liberty Flames — from moving from the Big South Conference to the slightly more impressive Atlantic Sun, and moving the football team up to the Football Bowl Subdivision — he has played his cards in an attempt to give himself (and by extension, Liberty) a winning hand.
After all, for a school searching for the spotlight in every possible scenario, particularly a school with such a vicious agenda… what better path to find that light than through sport? No other activity captivates the American public the way sports do, and at the collegiate level, any opportunity to bolster the name of your schools is an opportunity to gain students, gain money, gain traction. It puts you on the map.
What do we say through our words?
What do we say with what is unspoken?
Last year, in the NCAA Tournament, Liberty upset Mississippi State. In a tournament largely devoid of the same chaos that had gripped the field in the year prior, it was latched onto by many media types. Major heads in the world of college basketball lauded the Flames for their work in getting the win.
This is not particularly unusual. Every time an upset occurs, something is written celebrating the underdog, acknowledging the accomplishment at hand. I am not calling for the cessation of articles of this type. However, I think it raises questions of how we approach universities like Liberty — in our writing, in our words, in our assessment.
When a university advocates so strongly for discriminatory policy, I think it unacceptable that we treat them identically to any other school. To do so is to accept their advocacy, to promote their agenda, to act as though they are any other school — and in doing so, give them a voice they do not deserve to possess.
Liberty has once again qualified for the NCAA Tournament. With a record of 30–4, they’ll likely slot in as a strong candidate for another upset this year.
Once again, people are likely going to be writing fluffy pieces about the plucky underdogs from Lynchburg. What a sweet story, those Flames! Look at them, fighting so hard!
It is up to us to advocate for an alteration of that position. It is necessary that we ensure that the national media is aware of the shameful connotations that accompany supporting Liberty University.
People will defend the basketball team, saying that they should not be punished for the name on the front of the jersey — but that’s who they play for. When it comes to the tournament, that’s the name that matters. Rarely does a player ever transcend the team in the case of March Madness — and as such, it cannot be ignored that, regardless of the individual beliefs of the players, what they play for is giving Liberty University legitimacy.
They play for legitimizing a platform of hatred, quite simply. They play for the acknowledgement and support of policies directly harmful to minorities in the manner of race, of sexual orientation, of religion.
If we fail to note what Liberty University and every person associated with that program stands for, then we fail to advocate as we should for those among us who are affected by said policies. Those of us who have the luxury of privilege in the Falwellian hierarchy must not stand aside as those who do not are degraded and put down.
Though we may be afforded the opportunity to blissfully ignore what is happening around us, we must not. We cannot. Doing so affirms Liberty, offering it what it craves the most. It affords Liberty a platform and legitimacy on that platform, a place where their messages of hate and backwards thought can be spread relentlessly.
What do we say through our words?
What do we say with what is unspoken?
The easy answer is that our words have power. Should we choose to use them, we have the ability to affirm that intolerance has no place in our game, nor in any sport in the modern era. Should we choose to speak out, we have the ability to acknowledge and raise awareness towards the horrific policies that Liberty stands for. Should those people in national media roles begin to take note of what Liberty advocates for and speak against it, therein lies great opportunity to afford actual change. So, too, do our unspoken actions have power. Refusing to bow to an institution that so directly pushes hate-filled policy towards people who have committed no sin is the easy part — it is a refusal to bend when bent that is more difficult.
The difficult answer is that we can only do so much. That, until we see a concerted effort to hold Liberty accountable for their actions and their policy, we cannot force change. We cannot bring light to a subject if the power is cut and the matches are stolen. Creating change is impossibly difficult, at times, and thinking that we have the ability to alter Liberty University is a fool’s folly.
Those who elect to be intolerant are owed no tolerance. Make no mistake. We do not and should not cater to people who actively disenfranchise members of the general public based on their sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion, race, or gender. We should never permit intolerance because of a feel-good story about a basketball team, a football team, or any sort of athletic prowess.
If we fail to call out reprehensible behavior, then we are supporting it. If we fail to acknowledge the disgusting opinions perpetuated by the institutions like Liberty, particularly as we afford them a national stage by which to spread those opinions, then we are failing the members of our community we should be supporting the most — those of us disenfranchised and targeted by these policies.
Call out failure to accurately portray what the Flames stand for. Douse the fire they attempt to light by refusing to buy in to their campaigns of intolerance and hate. Speak up about what they advocate, and do not back down when they rise to spread their messages. Advocate for those who cannot advocate for themselves, those among us who are most directly affected and targeted by these policies. Support each other and stand tall against hatred.
After all, it’s what Jesus would have wanted.
