The question’s not just theoretical at Catholic University. There, the university bookstore (Follett) had scheduled an appearance by Eleanor Holmes Norton — Washington, D.C.’s non-voting delegate to Congress — who was promoting a biography of herself. Norton, however, is a prominent activist for “abortion rights,” and several students objected to hosting her on those grounds. “Giving someone with those viewpoints a forum on this campus would not be in keeping with the principles for which we stand,” 21-year-old senior Sean McConeghy told The Washington Post. After getting a reported 25 complaints, Follett’s managers decided to cancel Norton’s visit.

No one in official positions was all that eager to talk about the whole incident when the Post asked. Follett’s staffers didn’t want to comment; a Catholic University spokesman said it was the bookstore’s decision, and wouldn’t speculate on whether Norton would’ve been invited if the store had been under university management.

That’s understandable, since any answer they gave would be bound to make someone mad. But it’s too bad, because there are some important issues to talk about here.

Throughout academia, pretty much everyone pays homage to “dialogue,” “the free exchange of ideas,” and so forth: All ideas are welcome and the worst sin anyone could commit is “censorship.” Not everyone really believes it, of course; as any Boundless reader knows, conservatives often find themselves on the receiving end of sanctions (official and unofficial) for violating some point of politically correct orthodoxy. Still, everyone knows what the rule’s supposed to be, and if you buy it, this issue’s a slam-dunk: Norton’s invitation should’ve stood.

Only it’s not quite that simple.

Once upon a time, for a very long time that ended not so long ago, academics accepted that some ideas were true and others false. The point of “the free exchange of ideas” was to have an ongoing debate in order to find out which ideas were true (or closer to the truth than others, anyway). It was assumed that when conflicting ideas were advanced by their most thoughtful advocates, some ideas would actually win — that is, intelligent and moral people would be continually persuaded that those ideas were true. While this philosophy may’ve been idealistic, at least it aimed at the right goal.

That’s not how academia works any more. Now the reason we’re supposed to tolerate all ideas is that none of them is true — or all of them are true, take your pick. (You know, “whatever you believe is true for you.”) The bottom line is that you can’t tell anyone they’re wrong about anything. So long as they observe this one rule, all worldviews are equally valid. No ideas should win out over any others; they’re all supposed to just peacefully coexist in perpetuity.

This is nonsense, easily refuted. And religious schools should know that better than anyone. Their whole reason for existing is to advance their conviction that some things are true and others false. If they don’t, they’re lying to students, parents and donors to whom they’re promising (say) a Catholic or Baptist education.

All of which puts the situation at Catholic U in a different light. After all, abortion is no minor issue: Catholic and (most) Protestant churches alike understand it to be the violent destruction of human life. For such a school to bring in a fervently pro-abortion public speaker (even if she’s not coming to speak about abortion) is to treat abortion as a minor issue—just one of those things where everyone gets to have their own opinion, all equally valid.

This isn’t to say religious schools shouldn’t expose students to dissenting views. Far from it; as I learned growing up (I was a conservative in a liberal campus town), you learn best how to think through and articulate your beliefs when you’re faced with opposition. A Christian college might well do its students a favor by hosting a debate over abortion or evolution, featuring skilled debaters from both sides making the best cases they can. An effective, educated Christian should know how to deal with opposing views at their strongest, and he won’t learn how to do it if he either ignores the other side or caricatures it. (Simply blasting “those Godless liberals” doesn’t cut it.)

But Christian colleges also shouldn’t adopt a neutral stance, as if to say to students “anything you want to think about this issue is fine with us.” In a way, the problem with having Eleanor Holmes Norton at Catholic U is that she wasn’t there to talk about abortion. It would’ve been one thing if she’d come to take part in a debate intended to help students flesh out a pro-life position. Instead, she was invited as if her ongoing campaign for “abortion rights” were an irrelevancy — no big deal, just a reflection of the glorious diversity of pluralism and multiculturalism, or something like that.

This is a perennial temptation for Christian universities, many of which suffer from a major-league inferiority complex. If we were a legitimate academic institution, they think, we wouldn’t be saddled with all this doctrinal baggage; we’d have total academic freedom and each of us would take any positions we choose. Some bend over backwards to show they’re just as progressive as the secular boys. A while back Methodist-founded Duke University opened its chapel to same-sex “commitment ceremonies.”(I wrote about it here.) A couple of weeks ago Boston College, a Jesuit school, announced support for a “gay-straight alliance,” while making the pro forma (and decidedly unconvincing) claim that the group won’t violate Catholic teaching against homosexuality. Last year Valparaiso University, a Lutheran school, held an interfaith service in its chapel, where a Muslim imam — speaking from the altar—declared “there is no god apart from Allah” and that “Muhammad is Allah’s messenger.” (Read about it here.)

This isn’t tolerance. It’s institutional endorsement. It’s Christian schools de facto declaring that they don’t really believe Christian teachings — and worshipping the false gods of political correctness and worldly approval.

Jesus didn’t come and die to be a valid religious option, taking His place along side Muhammad, Buddha and the rest. He came to be the one and only Savior, without Whom no one is saved. Christians don’t seek to coerce belief in Him, because they know that human coercion is contrary to the very nature of God-given faith. But we must insist on the truth of Christianity, especially in our own institutions. Anything less is a betrayal of the truth by which we stand.