The Book Club Test: Discrimination, Hypocrisy, and the Ethics of Public Institutions

We live in a voluntary society. One of our foundational freedoms, guaranteed by the First Amendment, is the right to assemble. This means you are free to gather with others—say, to start a book club—on nearly any subject of your choosing. You don’t need government permission. You don’t need state approval. If others are willing to join you, you are free to meet, discuss, and pursue ideas together.

Of course, this freedom has boundaries—especially in the context of employment. Private corporations operate differently than governments. If your employer is paying you to work, they have every right to set standards for your conduct during that time. They can prohibit you from holding a book club during work hours. They can require adherence to codes of conduct, ethics policies, and time management expectations. What they cannot do is tell you what to read, think, or say on your own time. Your personal life is not theirs to manage.

State agencies, such as public universities, are yet another category. Like private employers, they can regulate behavior during work hours. But unlike private corporations, they are bound not just by workplace policies but also by constitutional constraints. A public university cannot interfere with your right to hold a book club on your own time. More importantly, it cannot privilege one kind of club over another—especially not on the basis of race, sex, or religion. That would be discrimination.

This is where things get interesting—and troubling.

Private corporations answer to shareholders who may object to the company’s endorsement of certain viewpoints or causes. Public universities, however, are accountable to the public, and they are constitutionally prohibited from showing favoritism to one group or ideology over another. When a public institution like a state university promotes certain book clubs while ignoring others, it crosses the line into discrimination.

This is precisely the kind of systemic “privilege” and ideological “homogeneity” that “social justice warriors” claim to oppose. And yet, many of the same voices that call for inclusion and diversity are quick to exclude when it comes to certain beliefs—especially religious or conservative ones.

Ask yourself: Would Arizona State University’s Humanities Institute publicly sponsor and promote a conservative Christian book club reading the Gospel of John and Augustine’s City of God? You won’t find it. Maybe if it were titled “transing Augustine.” But you will find support for book clubs centered on contemporary sex philosophies and their ideologically approved narratives.

When I’ve raised this question, I get a level 1 response, “we’d also support a conservative Christian book club,” but that quickly gives way to their real thinking. When I point out that they haven’t done so, that I held a great books reading club for three years that was never promoted, their true answer comes out, “It’s the Christians’ turn to feel what it is like to be persecuted.” Yes, I’ve been told that.

This isn’t just an oversight. It’s a pattern.

Do you who say, “do not discriminate,” discriminate? That is hypocrisy. And when institutions meant to serve the public adopt discriminatory policies in the name of equity, it reveals the shallow foundations of their ethical reasoning.

But this is more than a political or cultural observation. At its core, it’s a question about the very meaning of life and human flourishing. What do our book clubs say about our beliefs—our ultimate values?

One path encourages us to amputate healthy body parts to deal with gender dysphoria. Another path invites us to seek wisdom, to contemplate what is eternal, and to know our Creator, who is holy, just, and good. These are not just academic differences; they are competing religions, offering radically different visions of the good life.

So here is the test: Who gets to hold the book club on government time? Who gets institutional support? And what does that say about the kind of society we’re becoming?