Poor Jennifer Keeton. She made the tragic error of thinking for herself and believing that such behavior would be welcomed, perhaps, even encouraged, in the modern American university setting. Poor benighted Jennifer made that politically incorrect mistake at Augusta State University and now faces expulsion from the graduate degree program in counseling. Free thought, free inquiry, and free speech are barely on life support, if alive at all, in American academia. To those of us who have spent considerable time in such circles, that news comes as no surprise. The last place you would look for free intellectual inquiry these days is in an American university. Jennifer's tragic mistake occurred in her holding to the traditional view that homosexual behavior is morally wrong and often psychologically unhealthy. In doing so, Keeton maintained the beliefs and moral convictions of her orthodox Christian faith as articulated by her churches, their scriptures, and by the vast majority of Christians around the globe. In rebuking Ms. Keeton and seeking to end her dream of becoming a school counselor, the administrators at Augusta State fell back on their desire to have a counseling program that follows the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics. One wonders if the administrators have ever even read that code. In particular, the code states, “Counselors are aware of their own values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors and avoid imposing values that are inconsistent with counseling goals.” That revered code of ethics also states later on, “Counselors do not discriminate against clients, students, employees, supervisees, or research participants in a manner that has a negative impact on these persons.” Clearly, Ms. Keeton is aware of her own values and beliefs. No one disputes that fact. What is less clear is who gets to define what “counseling goals” are and what constitutes a “negative impact” on a client. If Ms. Keeton gets to define the goals of counseling as the counselor, there appears to be no problem. She will help guide her clients to evaluate homosexuality in a critical light. End of question. However, if the client defines the goals (which appears to be the stance of the graduate program), then a number of questions arise. First and foremost among those questions: Should not the helper point the way toward healing rather than the helpee? After all, that is why we seek help in the first place. Something in our lives is not working as we would like. We ask for help from someone likely to be able to provide it. For example, if I go to a doctor with a headache, and ask that doctor to clean my teeth, is that what the doctor is supposed to do? Or should the doctor not do what he/she thinks is in the best interests of my well-being? Having never met Ms. Keeton, I will nevertheless assume that she would counsel students and clients with homosexual inclinations by first sharing that her own world view holds such inclinations to be one thing but actual behavior to be another. I would expect her to then share that she holds moral reservations and professional concerns about the appropriateness of homosexual behavior. Is that not what a good counselor would do? Share and disclose his/her own perspectives in a spirit of transparency? In doing so, the recipient can determine how far to go in accepting that counselor's wisdom or whether even to seek that person's services at all. When I go to a mechanic, I choose the one whom I know the most about and then I lean on his wisdom and expertise. I certainly do not tell him how to fix the problem. Likewise, with a counselor, I share the struggles I am having and lean on her wisdom and vantage point. It serves me best to know as much as possible about that counselor's perspective and experiences so that I can filter her wisdom and apply the best parts to my own life. Right? Why would I ask a counselor to park her values and beliefs at the door while talking to me? How I am well served by that? Evidently, in the view of Augusta State and other “counseling schools,” values and transparency are no longer welcome. In their view, a counselor must first erase who he or she is in order to fully enter the world of the counselee. How odd. Why would full self-disclosure to a client about one's own views and morals not be more helpful rather than less so? The answer lies in political correctness. The typical American college has long since abandoned the notion that any moral is absolute or that any behavior is unequivocally wrong. Ethics have been abandoned in the name of, “If it feels good, do it.” So rather than allowing a thoughtful, reasoned, and widely accepted Christian moral ethic to be a part of the process, counseling programs (not to mention many other academic disciplines) choose instead to censor or expel that with which they disagree. “We believe homosexual behavior is normal, healthy, and to be embraced at all times. You do not. Therefore, you must go.” And, to think, in some places this passes for actual thought! We tolerate all who agree with us. Group think. George Orwell was right. All of this begs the question: What if, by chance, Ms. Keeton is right? What if sometimes, or even always, homosexual behavior is unhealthy or is a lifestyle decision that clients are not benefiting from? For example, take the recent research at New Zealand's Otago University that concluded homosexual or bisexual individuals are more likely to have undergone traumas in childhood, including sexual assault, rape, violence, and witnessing violence in the home. In other words, people who either identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual tend to come from more disturbed backgrounds. Is this data not worth at least discussing in a counseling program or session? Should a counselor not be concerned at all that one's sexual behavior and decisions may well be shaped by previous traumas? Where group think prevails, such inquiry is not even welcome. As a result, the Otago researcher, Elisabeth Wells, was forced to apologize while releasing her results because they might offend the politically correct non-thinkers. Apologizing for the data because it offends the party line. Unbelievable. In other words, do not let facts get in the way of your world view. She stated, "I suspect there might be some gay and lesbian people who will be indignant, but it is not my intention to anger them. You could say that if someone was sexually abused as a child, chooses to live as a homosexual and lives life well, then that is not a bad thing. But if they are living a homosexual life and regretting it, that is another matter." Or take the example of the happily married comedienne, Jackie Clune, who has shared at length about abandoning her twelve year experiment as a “committed lesbian” in order to marry and become a mother. She says she craved the “emotional balance” of a heterosexual relationship and realized she had a choice (a truly dirty word to homosexualist activists). In Augusta State's program, pointing Clune toward a healthier lifestyle would not be an option. Even if Keeton is wrong about the morality and healthfulness of homosexual behavior, should we not still allow her to counsel and encourage her to use transparent self-disclosure as a normal operating practice? After all, we ask universities and colleges to encourage the free exchange of thought in a vigorous pursuit of truth and excellence. How does excluding all naysayers advance that cause? Are academicians so cocksure that their conviction that homosexual behavior is always wonderful and healthy that that view can be airtight and hermetically sealed, safe against any contrary inquiry? It would be nice to be able to have the conversation at least, but speech codes and group think prohibit that from happening in the American university setting. At Augusta State and other schools, such thoughts are not even welcome at the table. And that is a tragedy. Perhaps Dan Quayle was right after all. “What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is.”

Yesterday, I spent an hour with a group of high school students in a leadership class. They just finished reading "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell and invited several people to be guests in their class this week. I got Monday. They came prepared with great questions. My definition of success. Key moments of decision and when did I make the wrong call. What did I think of Gladwell's concept that it takes 10,000 hours to master a skill or craft. That kind of thing. The one question that surprised me. What three lessons have you learned since you graduated from high school that you would take back with you if you could step back to 1982 (my graduation date, yes!)? Took me a moment, but I said 1) Choose your spouse wisely. This is a crucial life-changing decision, and a lot of us get it wrong because we do not really think it through. Choose wisely and it impacts your life forever. Choose poorly and it impacts your life forever. 2) Take risks. Most older adults I have encountered all said that they wish they had taken more risks and not played life so safe. So take risks. It is OK to fail. 3) Have a lot of kids. Contrary to what our culture teaches right now, kids will likely be the best part of your life. Have a bunch of them. The Duggars are some of the most successful Americans.

I'd like your help for a special hour of the show this Sunday night (6:00-7:00 pm ET). My younger daughter leaves for college this week. So I am looking for the best 10 words of advice to give a young woman leaving for college. From a student's perspective - as a recent graduate or a current college student. Student to student----What's The Best Advice In Ten Words Or Less That You'd Share With An Incoming College Freshman? Share your thoughts by blogging here or at facebook.com/allenhuntshow or by calling the show live on Sunday night.

With the discovery of the 47MM year old monkey last week, people on both ends of the evolution spectrum went ape (pun intended I suppose). Some have posited that this fossil provides the primate who is the common ancestor of all monkeys, apes and humans. Others immediately leap to the conclusion that there is no God. At the same time, many young-earth Christians used the news to trumpet again that evolution and science cannot be trusted and must be expunged at any cost. Weird folks on both ends. Again, faith and science are compatible. One need not choose one or the other. As the recently deceased Richard John Neuhaus said, "It simply is not true that modern science built itself in opposition to religion." And Neuhaus, a Catholic priest of considerable intellect, asked, "Are there doctrines of Catholicism - authoritative, binding teachings - which are logically in conflict with well-established scientific facts and theories? I do not know of any..." Ironic that the news of the fossil discovery arrived just as I was finishing a book I have had on my stack of "To-Read" for some time: Francis Collins - The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Collins earned a degree in chemistry from the University of Virginia, a Ph.D. in physical chemistry at Yale, and an M.D. at the University of North Carolina. Among other achievements, he led the Human Genome Project, a project which mapped the DNA of our species, the hereditary code of life. All in all, a text 3 billion letters long. In the book, Collins provides a user-friendly account of the splendors of DNA and its significance in understanding life and its origins. Collins also outlines evolution and its ramifications for faith, science, and our understanding of existence. A very good read from one who fully embraces both faith and science. Along the way, Collins articulates the reasons why he is a Christian. After all, about 40% of mathematicians, physicists, and biologists believe in a God who actively communicates with humankind. Collins confidently shares why he is one of those. Faith played little or no role in Collins' childhood, and as an undergraduate scientist, he altogether rejected the idea of the existence of a God. While in medical school, Collins observed the faith impulse so active in many of his patients, and began to explore for himself the evidence for God. Key discoveries in Collins' investigation included the Moral Law (right and wrong as a clue to the meaning of the universe as C.S. Lewis called it). More specifically, the idea of agape love (selfless altruism, or sacrificial love) caused Collins to take pause since such an idea presents a major challenge for the pure evolutionist. As Collins wrestled with these questions, and the limitations of science's ability to answer all of our question, he finally concluded that faith in God is more rational than disbelief is. All in all, a very helpful book for scientists perplexed by faith and for believers perplexed by science. Again, faith and science are most compatible. I recommend the book if the discovery of a 47 MM year old monkey caused you either great rejoicing or great concern.

Had a great time filling in for Michael Savage on NewsTalk 750 WSB several nights this past week. On Wednesday, I shared the reasons why Notre Dame is actually doing the right thing in inviting President Obama to speak at its graduation. In spite of the fact that he is the most anti-life President yet in American history. Some emailers liked my approach of trying to love Obama into a change in perspective. Most emailers did not. Here are two good ones - enjoy! Hi, Allen, I love your show, but I'm afraid I think you are WAY off base with the ND issue. You don't REWARD a man first with a prestigious honorary law degree and guest speaking appearance, and then dialogue with him about his horrible infractions...imagine if that's how we disciplined our children! Should we have honored and rewarded Hitler for his Holocost in order to open dialogue with him? Did Jesus reward the sinners for continuing in their sin, or did he say "Your faith has healed you, go and sin no more?" Reward the president after he shows his faith in action. In Christ, Marcia Allen, I rarely get to listen to your show, but love it when I do. Props to WSB for airing a show with a distinct moral/spiritual stance. I caught the beginning of the show about Notre Dame and completely agree with your stance. As a conscientious human being (and as a Catholic) I am very adamant about the life issue. I feel that I am made to be involuntarily complicit in the unmitigated murder of fellow human beings and I abhor that fact. But I believe that the issue is a corporate one(in the general sense), and we should not address our opponents personally. But whenever we shake hands with our fellow parishioners, we are asked to give Christ's peace to our brother AND to our enemy. So I agree that we should engage our opponents with peace and grace whenever we are able to do so - and the Notre Dame visit is a perfect opportunity. That said we are also called to "go to war" for the innocent, but only within the limits of proper civil behavior. And perhaps an even more important calling would be to comfort the victims and survivors of violence. Regards, Billy

Have done some excellent reading of late. Nearly caught up on the pile of books stacked on my desk. So I will share a few highlights in the blog this week and next week. Climate Confusion - How Global Warming Hysteria leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor. By Roy Spencer A respected scientist offers an accessible summary and analysis of the science that goes into the various theories on global warming. He presents the evidence for some climate change, the existence of some human role in that change, and how the projections so popular in the media and government today hold little resemblance to the reality of the actual evidence. Spencer excels at several things. First, he writes clearly and with a sense of humor. Secondly, he presents in layman's terms the science of weather, warming and meteorology. Third, he urges caution in pursuing radical agendas to combat global warming since we really do not have sufficient evidence to know how to do so or even if we need to try. Finally, as a Christian, I appreciated very much how he demonstrates that many of the proposals of the mega-green crowd to fight the elusive enemy of global warming, actually harm poor nations and persons in poverty. So, in the end, Spencer presents a helpful overview of the global warming hysteria. And injects the important question - how far do we go to fight something as vague as the human role in global warming when doing so may actually hurt people and do nothing for the environment?

Here we go again. The assault on free speech, free inquiry, and intellectual pursuits continues at Emory University in Atlanta. In the same week that Emory hosted the Dalai Lama and several speeches and events in which he shared a message emphasizing grace, compassion, and tolerance, Emory also hosted David Horowitz. Horowitz was scheduled to speak on Islamo-fascism awareness week topics. I.e., Horowitz wants to expose the truth about Islam, violence, and terror. At Emory, he never had a chance. He was shouted down and had to be escorted from the room for safety purposes. A short video can be seen at www.incorrectu.com. Shameful may not be a strong enough word. Emory preaches tolerance and free intellectual inquiry. Emory practices oppression and suppression. I graduated from Emory's Candler School of Theology in 1991, and my experience included speech codes, closed discourse, and shout-downs of opposing views. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The virus of political correctness continues to infect.

My older daughter and I have been visiting colleges this summer, looking for the places that fit her best to apply to for next year. One school that will not be on our list is Emory University here in Atlanta. The extremism of that campus continues unabated. The latest example comes in their seminary, the Candler School of Theology. Remarkably, Emory has now hired a woman, who has no theology training or education, to lead a seminary to train pastors. Dr. Jan Love holds no theology degrees, has never attended seminary, and is not even an ordained pastor. In other words, the person hired to be ultimately responsible for leading a seminary to train pastors is completely unqualified to do so. Perhaps she is an able administrator or fund-raiser, you ask? Not quite. In her last role, Dr. Love led an organization to approximately an $8MM operating deficit on a budget of about $30MM while membership in her organization continued to decline. Hardly stellar leadership skills. Why would Emory hire someone like this? She holds exceptionally impeccable credentials in the area of political correctness. Her extreme views on abortion and homosexuality fall far out of the bounds of traditional Christian faith. And that is exactly why Emory has hired her. The extremism of that campus continues unabated. And sadly, as a United Methodist pastor, I am required by Church law to continue to help fund such extremism.