Liberty University Denies it Censored LGBT Discussion

Veronica Neffinger | Editor, | Thursday, June 16, 2016
Liberty University Denies it Censored LGBT Discussion

Liberty University Denies it Censored LGBT Discussion

Liberty University has denied claims that it censored LGBTQ material in its psychology curriculum.


The allegation that the university had purposefully censored the material was made by two online students who contacted a reporter from the Richmond Times-Dispatch to report the alleged omission.


According to The Christian Examiner, the Times-Dispatch then published an article on the allegations which said that the university had omitted the chapters on “sexual motivation” and sexual orientation from the textbook used in the psychology class. The students claimed that the omission was especially significant due to the recent shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando.


Liberty, however, has denied that it omitted the chapters on sexuality because it wanted to censor a discussion of LGBTQ issues. Instead, the university says it decided to omit the material because its scope was too broad for the purposes of the lower level class.


"We didn't want the focus of this chapter to end up being sexual motivation, and to leave the content without adding discussion and videos would not do justice to the topic,” stated online faculty member Heather Elaine Medvedenko.


Jeffrey Nevid, the author of the Essentials in Psychology, the textbook used in the class in question, said universities often omit material based on the scope of their courses, and that he did not find Liberty’s omission of the chapters on sexuality to have any ulterior motive. 


"Instructors often customize text materials to meet their instructional needs," Nevid said. "This is common practice. My text is organized in modules so that instructors can select the modules they use in the classroom.”


In responding to the allegation, Liberty’s provost office also noted that the school offers higher level psychology courses which do address issues of sexuality, and although they support God’s design for sexuality, alternate viewpoints are nevertheless presented.



Publication date: June 16, 2016