This arrived today in the e-mail box from a reader who is an outraged Baylor University alumnus:

The Greeks have broken out of the wooden horse and are opening the gates:

Here is the set of recommendations that Baylor has agreed to adopt to reform its Title IX procedures:

Page 107 recommends creating an “equity office” out of the recognition of intersectionality of all harassment and discrimination issues. Intersectionality is not up for debate within the governing structure of the university and the university apparently is supposed to establish a political commissary so that the DoE effectively has its own political officer at the right hand of the President to ensure compliance with correct political doctrine–see the organizational flow chart and how high the Ministry of Love is placed.

Page 150 Recommends training people (presumably faculty, staff, and students) using a multi-disciplinary approach to intersectionality to create the proper culture. In other words, tenured Christian faculty will be forced into political re-education from the nutjobs from the most disreputable and contemptible pseudo-disciplines in the academy.

Page 156 brags that 97% of faculty and staff have completed their political re-education on intersectionality.

There is so much here I do not know where to begin. In summary, this is an absolute hijacking of the moral and spiritual vision of the university. The administrators have ceded moral governance to the Federal Government in the person of the DoE and as far as I can tell, DoE has apparently turned the job over to Buzzfeed, delegating the task to SJWs from all the worst academic disciplines. What a complete and utter embarrassment.

The new Intersections training just recently went online. Check out the ominous email from President Livingstone:

Baylor Colleagues,

Baylor University continues to promote a campus culture where each individual is valued and respected. Every faculty and staff member plays an integral role as together we foster safety, integrity and dignity among our colleagues and our students. To support a healthy campus climate, all faculty and staff will continue to participate in online Title IX training on an annual basis. We very much appreciate the faculty and staff commitment to this effort that is so important to the university. We both look forward to this refresher of the valuable information provided in the online course.

Your participation is vital to Baylor and completion of the course is an expectation of all of us. All faculty and staff are required to annually complete the online Title IX training.  Completing the course will be an important factor included in both the faculty and staff performance review processes. Because the training is required of all faculty and staff and considered part of your duties, those who do not complete the online training will have the incompletion noted as an area of concern on their annual performance review.

The course outlines our responsibility under Title IX and other federal regulations in reporting and aiding those who experience harassment, discrimination and sexual violence.  It also provides you an opportunity to learn more about Baylor’s Title IX policy and procedures. Our Campus Climate survey from last spring indicated that we have room for improvements in these areas.

This course, titled “Intersections: Preventing Harassment, Discrimination & Sexual Violence”, is an updated version of the course delivered last year. In the next few days, you will be auto-enrolled in the course and receive notification by email from BaylorCompass that you have a task to complete before March 15, 2018. To login to BaylorCompass and complete this mandatory course before the March 15, 2018 deadline and for additional instructions, visit the Intersections section of the Human Resources website. If you have questions or comments, feel free to contact Chief Compliance Officer Doug Welch at [email address deleted].

Based on the number of incident reports received from Baylor faculty and staff in the past year, we have seen tangible benefits from this effort. Not only does it help to promote campus safety and assists students in need of valuable resources and support, but it also demonstrates the caring community that makes Baylor so special.  We are grateful for your continued commitment to our students and to the University’s mission.

With gratitude,

Linda A. Livingstone
Linda A. Livingstone, Ph.D.

In other words, Big Sister is watching you.


Now it is worth remembering why Baylor has a law firm making these recommendations. There were highly publicized incidents of students raping other students and the university administration hiding it. The media reports have predictably focused on the football players, but this was a campus-wide issue and the real damage to the university’s reputation came from the administrative handling of the situation. (In any institution this large, there will be wicked people who do wicked things. It only damages your honor when you do not properly deal with them and the Baylor administration by all accounts failed.) So the problem was mishandling of student rape.

What is the solution offered? Sell your soul to radical leftist feminism and LGBT activists, and implement the ideology of intersectionality as the new rule of life.

Look at some of these slides! [The alumnus provided screenshots; I’m not going to post them all — RD.] There is a slide that invokes GLAAD, a radical LGBT activist group to shape the moral culture of Baylor University–you know them, their motto is Pro Ecclesia Pro Texana.

Some of the precepts are common sense like having the decency not to use slurs or perhaps not to pry too deeply into medical issues–though we can imagine situations where this could be appropriate. But ‘support gender neutral bathrooms’? Allow someone to police your use of 3rd person pronouns? Don’t ever describe people by their sex? Recognizing/mentioning someone’s biological sex is a thoughtcrime? Get out!

Any other leftist boxes to check? Trigger warning, check. Oh, the useless notion of unconscious bias, the application of which has been thoroughly discredited is on there. Why? How did contentious political pseudoscience make it in here when the original problem was a failure to report rape?

Once you open the doors to the leftist activists, they can’t help themselves. It’s like a Bacchic frenzy, they are cramming as much of their ideology into the re-education curriculum as they can get away with. It need not have anything to do with the actual wording of Title IX, the actual caselaw, or the actual problem Baylor had. All that was just a Trojan Horse for the radicals to gain the coercive power to indoctrinate.

I also notice that an example of an unhealthy relationship situation makes use of a same-sex couple. This is a poor example because same-sex sexual activity is against Baylor’s student code of conduct.

Now we must give credit to Baylor, they have done a great job hiding this fact in recent years. You must start here Student Misconduct Defined only to be redirected here for Sexual Conduct Policy which says literally nothing, but directs you here: This tells you almost nothing but at least tells you sex is only allowed in marriage–but these days, who knows that means? The Baylor website basically says they understand marriage according to the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message but tough shit, we aren’t going to give you a link; you’re are on your own. I found it: And it turns out that according to the Baptist Faith and Message, marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Whew! I’m tired already! Lots of link-chasing and more than a few logical inferences from different webpages are necessary to conclude that in fact, homosexual contact is prohibited by Baylor policy.

Baylor’s credibility as a Christian university hangs by a thread. It may already be gone, there are plenty of Christians who cannot take Baylor seriously. It is not that they do not wish to take Baylor’s Christian commitment seriously, they cannot take Baylor seriously as a Christian institution. Baylor did not come into this situation spotless, and enlisting GLAAD as an ally in casting the moral vision of the university might better be seen as near to the end of a process of degeneration rather than the beginning.

Most of the wounds to Baylor’s reputation (like this debacle) have been self-inflicted from a variety of internal sources. For example, Baylor deserves at least much of the recent shame for the failure to honorably deal with rapes. But failure there does not justify throwing Christian moral teaching out the window and completely selling out to the sexual revolution. Baylor is now conceding the moral domain of sexuality to the categories, concepts, grammar, and interpretation of radical leftism and this is incompatible with Christian moral order.


I think the people who deny Baylor is a Christian university have judged too soon. There are thousands of wonderful and faithful Christians at Baylor who have not bowed down, but they are under siege. Baylor is still a Christian university, but it is hard to see because is is battling for its soul. The embattled faculty and staff cannot count on the administration to help, they have completely rolled over to the feds and political correctness. Remember, they are bringing in GLAAD to teach morality!

Just last Thursday, Baylor celebrated its Founders Day. What would the Founders say about all this? Would Rev Huckins support gender neutral bathrooms? Would Rufus Burleson refuse to describe someone by their sex? Would Judge Baylor, a man who fought the Creek Indians, be bullied by the department of education into this sort of humiliation? Whatever his faults, he at least had some fight in him. The Old Fite seems scarce among the Baylor leadership today. Why didn’t anyone say ‘no’ to the ideology in the recommendations? Dare the feds to take them to court? As my old coach would say, “they have a lot of quit in them.” The faculty and staff are understandably afraid. If anything is going to be done, it will need to come from alumni–especially donors. Baylor’s admins are selling the university’s soul for federal dollars. That good ‘ol Baylor line is apparently the bottom line.

President Livingstone should be summoned to publicly and explicitly clarify the university’s position on sexual identity and expression. Fortunately, it is in the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message:

“God has ordained the family as the foundational institution of human society. It is composed of persons related to one another by marriage, blood or adoption.Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. It is Gods unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church, and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel for sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race.”

Sexual expression is limited to marriage between a man and a woman for procreation. Period

God, not the white-cis-hetero-patriarchy, has ordained the family by marriage between Man and Woman. Looking at the statement and the supporting biblical passages it cites, there can be no argument but that God determines male and female, not the individual subject. The point about procreation leaves no doubt but that we are talking about biological sex.

If Baylor cannot affirm basic biblical truth about God’s ordering of creation into male and female for procreation and that human sexual activity must be expressed in a marriage that reflects this ordering, it needs to shut its doors. The idea that Baylor has some Christian witness is a joke if it lets MTV, Buzzfeed, and Jezebel paralyze it into sudden uncertainty about the basic facts of creation. I am sure Burleson, Baylor, Huckins and others would rather see it die than continue on in such condition.

I have a number of friends at Baylor who were outraged by the way the previous administration handled the sexual assaults, and who have been worried for a while about what’s coming in response from the new administration. I suppose this is it. I’m eager to hear from readers at Baylor, or in Baylor circles. What do you think? How is this going down? Is this alumnus overreacting?

Man. Even Baylor University, deep in the heart of Baptist Texas, is mainstreaming gender ideology. See, this is why I keep talking about the Benedict Option. There are very few places to hide. Defend what can be defended, certainly, and fight for as long and as hard as you can. But don’t be self-deceived: the cultural left has captured, or is in the process of capturing, the institutions. We really are in a Dunkirk moment, we orthodox Christians. We can vote for Republican politicians until our fingers are bloody stumps, but none of that will compensate for the loss of formative institutions like Baylor to the cultural left.

UPDATE: A reader points out that after the football team rape scandal, there wasn’t much of a moral or spiritual reputation left to defend. From the Dallas Morning News:

This month, a seventh Title IX lawsuit was filed against Baylor.

A volleyball player referred to as Jane Doe says she was attending a party in February 2012 at an apartment where several football players lived. She said she became intoxicated and cannot recall portions of the night, but she remembers one football player picking her up and putting her in his vehicle. She was taken to another location where she says at least four football players raped her. Later, other people told her at least twice that as many as eight football players were involved.

Her mother later met with a Baylor assistant football coach at a Waco restaurant, providing names of players involved. And according to the filing, the players “admitted to ‘fooling around,’ calling it ‘just a little bit of playtime.'” They said the coach determined that the accusation was in a “gray area.”

Also from the suit, the victim says gang rapes “were considered a ‘bonding’ experience for team members,” and players shared video footage and pictures of rape victims – including one 21-second video of two women being gang-raped.

These are allegations in a lawsuit, not facts established at trial. And it is not the case that the catastrophic moral and criminal failure at Baylor justifies the school formally abandoning its moral and religious heritage. Still, this is what nemesis looks like.

Posted in , , , , , . Tagged , , .

Hide 72 comments

72 Responses to The Title IX Transformation Of Baylor

← Older Comments
  1. David J White says:

    “Seriously? You have to defend early American anti-Indian policies just because? Because what, again? I’m as conservative as they come, but really. . . why do you admire Baylor for fighting the Creek, exactly?”

    Because he presumably fought bravely for a cause for which he believed. I also admire the brave soldiers of the Confederate army, including my great-great-grandfather, for much the same reason.

  2. tmatt says: here, with my two Baylor degrees and decades of blood ties to the school.

    In the mid-1970s, I got in trouble for writing a letter to the editor protesting BU administration decision to cancel some on-campus workshops on rape prevention. It would have been bad publicity, it seems.

    I wrote that I was struggling to find a biblical case for not opposing rape and working to prevent rape.

    In reality, it appeared that the goal was to simply wish things would go away. There’s a thin line between public relations and silence.

    What we need here, once again, is:

    * Repentance of sins. The lives, bodies and souls of young women are more important than football.

    * A strong statement that Baylor will advocate and defend basic Christian doctrines on sexuality and marriage.

    * Statements affirming government requirements that support the school’s beliefs (if there are any articulated anywhere in print) and a rejection of those that do not.

    In other words, affirm, defend and teach small-o orthodox Christianity. Do what can be done to live by it.

    Stand tall. Finally.

  3. Mike says:

    Re: the MST3K Option, and the diversity program “so bad, it was homophobic”:

    My brother was once made to attend a diversity training program that said, apparently seriously, that one way to be culturally sensitive to Native Americans is to recognize that they have a different conception of time than “we” do. For example, where “we” might say, “last Wednesday”, a Native American might say, “when the moon was high over the cornfield”. There was more in the same vein, which I don’t remember offhand, but it was as though it had been written by someone trying to make fun of diversity training.

  4. Ben H says:

    From a previous Baylor lawsuit:

    “Former assistant coach Kendal Briles — the son of the head coach — once told a Dallas-area student athlete, “Do you like white women? Because we have a lot of them at Baylor and they love football players,” according to the suit. …”

    Spectator sports at all levels has become an incredibly destructive force to men. Every sort of behavior becomes acceptable when aimed at the greater purpose of winning.

  5. David J White says:

    So is this an admission that a good crisis shall not go to waste? That if a flaw is found it will be used to force unwarranted change in a completely unrelated area? How totalitarian of you, comrade.

    Smoking (actually all tobacco use) was banned on Baylor’s campus a few years ago when one department or school received a big grant, and one of the strings of the grant was that the campus had to be tobacco-free. The grant itself had nothing to do with tobacco or smoking.

    BTW, I tried to log onto the course this morning and get it out of the way, but evidently it hasn’t been loaded into the system yet. I’ll let you know what it’s like after I complete it.

  6. At Baylor’s website there is this, the “Baylor University Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion”:

    “As a leading Christian institution with a strong Baptist identity and heritage that embraces both its global and Texan roots, Baylor University seeks to “educate men and women for worldwide leadership and service by integrating academic excellence and Christian commitment within a caring community.” In line with this mission, we seek to embody Christ’s teachings of love and inclusivity across boundaries of racial, ethnic, gender, socio-economic, religious, and other expressions of human difference. Because, at Baylor, “Love thy neighbor” are not just words…they are a way of life.”

    It us my understanding that Baylor enrolls students and employs faculty of any religious faith (or lack thereof). If this was a private school that did not receive any public funding and employed and enrolled only Christians, the Baylor alumnus who wrote to you might have a better point. But that’s not the case.

  7. Joe M says:

    “You do know that Title IX is generally popular, right? Even the most conservative parents want little Jenny to have a chance to play women’s basketball for Big State U.”‘

    That’s the bottom line. Parents want their girls to be able to play as much as the boys get to play. We cry about a world in fiscal need while our colleges fund plush student unions and elaborate play grounds on which adult children get to chase balls for four years while. enjoying scholarships. For everything from gold to lacrosse. The trannies aren’t the problem.

  8. MikeCA says:

    Will,that’s how leverage works. Look at what transpires in government and the making of policy & law. For that matter look at your local PTA or your workplace- people are always looking at how they can advance their particular cause and are prepared to act when possible. Political persuasion doesn’t enter into it. Fortune favours the prepared.

  9. Beowulf says:

    Do people on here actually believe that the faculty who are subjected to this training approved of sexual assault?

    I almost get the impression that some readers are reasoning that the faculty must submit to the political correctness indoctrination because they would otherwise be hypocrites. “After all, look at the rape scandal!” That is the sort of clever-sounding nonsense I associate with comments from the studio audience on a day-time talk show.

    Ask yourself, would you really confront an embattled Christian at Baylor and shame them into compliance with political correctness because of a rape scandal (located entirely in the athletics department and administration) the faculty had nothing to do with?

  10. JohnE_o says:

    Until a few years ago, Baylor was football-wise closer in tradition and stature to the Rice Owls than the Texas Longhorns.

    Back in the late 80’s Baylor was the one SWC team Rice stood a chance of beating

  11. bob says:

    It should be noticed that football programs everywhere are awfully generous to allow university classes to be offered on their campuses. Also interesting to keep seeing the refrain that Baylor is “nevertheless still Christian”. Really? What would it look like if it weren’t?

  12. redbrick says:

    “Back in the late 80’s Baylor was the one SWC team Rice stood a chance of beating”

    Not to get into a football talk but: The Bears in the 80s were actually pretty decent under Grant Teaff.










  13. John Balog says:

    Baptists when gang rape is normalized and covered up in the name of footbaw: “Huh, that’s not ideal. Someone should probably do something to rein that in a little. But not too much.”

    Baptists when college profs have to take some silly mandatory training: “OH MY GOD IT’S THE END OF THE WORLD COLLEGES ARE JUST CONCENTRATION CAMPS NOW WE HAVE TO STOP THIS!!!!!!!!!!!”

    I can’t imagine why anyone thinks that mainstream evangelicism in America is a morally bankrupt and hypocritical institution.

  14. redbrick says:

    Also to push back a little.

    Most here seem to think Baylor “sold its soul for football wins”

    That’s a convenient talking point for the national Media and other rival schools (TCU, Texas, a&m, OU)

    But never forget basic incompetence is far more at fault than a grand “Make Football Great Again” conspiracy.

    The law firm that investigated the situation found 10% of mishandled assault cases involved athletes….even less if just football.

    Baylor had a whole incompetent administration who had no idea what they were doing.

    Women complained to a professor, friend, or coach….they referred them to the police or some other random figure.

    Police referred them to on campus judicial affairs.

    Campus Judicial affairs told them “we can’t do anything about off campus ‘he said she said situations’….also since you admitted to drinking beer and dancing now we will punish you”

    And the whole time Baylor had no title IX office or anything like a decent policy or training in place.

    Total systematic failure on the part of the school leaders and Regents.

    But not a “We gotta win them foozbal games” conspiracy.

  15. John Balrog makes a decent point about hypocrisy, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to roll over and play dead when something really stupid is being introduced as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

    It us my understanding that Baylor enrolls students and employs faculty of any religious faith (or lack thereof).

    So what? That doesn’t change its status as a private school. It doesn’t have to limit the type of Christian it will enroll, or limit its enrollment to Christians. Rod has highlighted before that some American Muslim women choose Catholic universities because the moral atmosphere is closer to what they want for themselves. A private institution doesn’t have to “prove” that it is private by jumping through hoops. It just has to clearly state to all comers, “This is how we operate, if its not what you’re looking for, feel free to apply elsewhere.”

    Now, public funding. To the extent that accepting student financial aid from public sources comes with strings, they are specific to the financial aid program(s). Accepting financial aid does not ipso facto bring an institution under laws that don’t otherwise apply. The Supreme Court has given mixed rulings on the extent to which a student’s individual choice of institution can be conditioned on the institution complying with various government requirements. We all know about Bob Jones, and the court allowed Washington State to bar use of certain financial aid funds for ministerial training. But there is also a lot of leeway for an individual students to apply their financial aid to any college they choose.

    There is nothing wrong with Title IX. But it was written with the understanding that men are men and women are women, and everyone knows the difference, so precise definitions of each sex are not required. Courts upheld the ill-considered trans-sexual regulations on the grounds that the Department of Education has “special expertise” to which the courts owe “deference.” I can easily make a good case that the D of E has ZERO “special expertise” in what constitutes a male and what constitutes a female, and therefore it had no business writing such regs at all, and courts owe them no deference whatsoever.

    Lee in KY may well be correct that the infantile disorders promulgating this stuff stand in the same relation to ancient Israel and Judah as the Assyrians and King Nebbuchadnezzar did. Which doesn’t bode well for their future. Mene mene tekel upharsin, and all that.

    It’s really odd to me that partnering with a gay organisation is seen as threatening Christian witness while tolerating a huge rape scandal is not.

    Do any of us, of any opinion or loyalty or ideology, theist, polytheist, pagan or other, really have to limit our choices to those two austere options?

    Jefferson Smith… stick around, we’ll be exchanging high praise again on something or other. There is hardly anyone here I haven’t agreed with now and then. I think most of us can say that after a while. Its what keeps democracy interesting.

  16. Hector_St_Clare says:

    And in that moment, I’m reminded of why the left exists in the first place: because the right believes we should celebrate the theft and dispossession of people from their land and homes, and treat it as a model for leadership today.

    +1000 to this, Jefferson Smith.

    I, too, was nodding my head in mild approbation of Rod’s letter writer, rolling my eyes at the latest SJW excess, and then I got to the bit about the Creek and had a “WTF?” moment.

    And in its overreach, the left now calls forth the anger and maybe ultimately the blood lust of those who, back then, did the dispossessing.

    On the contrary. A lot of the “justification” for dispossessing Native Americans invoked the exact same kind of language of “historical progress” that liberals love to use in defense of their causes (and that Rod, with much justice, is so concerned about) today.

  17. David J. White says:

    It us my understanding that Baylor enrolls students and employs faculty of any religious faith (or lack thereof). If this was a private school that did not receive any public funding and employed and enrolled only Christians, the Baylor alumnus who wrote to you might have a better point. But that’s not the case.

    Students, yes; faculty, no. All of have to pass what we call the “Pat Neff interview” when we are hired (Pat Neff Hall is the administration building). We meet with people from the Provost’s office and talk about our religious background, spiritual life, faith journey, etc. You don’t have to be a Baptist to teach at Baylor — Catholics form the second largest group among both faculty and students — but you’re supposed to be a practicing something. Now, how often this is honored more in the breach than in the observance I couldn’t say. But in my department we’re all pretty serious churchgoers. We have two Orthodox, three Catholics, two or three Anglicans (yes, they call themselves that), several Baptists, and other Protestants of various flavors.

  18. John Balog says:

    Siarlys: two points.

    1. It’s “Balog” not “Balrog.”

    2. Your response is a fine illustration of my point, thank you.

  19. John… the mis-spelling was intentional satire, thank you. Apparently our points are mutually antithetical. See you at the barricades. I’m actually not evangelical at all, and quite heterodox in theology. I just don’t see that being heterodox requires me to endorse thoughtless emoting.

    A lot of the “justification” for dispossessing Native Americans invoked the exact same kind of language of “historical progress” that liberals love to use in defense of their causes

    Frontier liberals wanted the savages removed from the path of progress. Liberals whose ancestors had removed the Native American population from the regions in which they now dwelt, a good three to five generations earlier, plaintively asked why we couldn’t all get along.

  20. Polichinello says:

    1. It’s “Balog” not “Balrog.”

    Then you SHALL pass!

  21. Sheila says:


    You expect Baylor, after tolerating multiple rapes for years, to care enough about women’s comfort to keep trans people out of their ladies’ rooms??

  22. Sheila summed it all up very nicely.

← Older Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *