Top of page

Wait Chapel, WFDD, Institutional Freedom, and Journalistic Independence

In August 1999, two members of Wake Forest Baptist Church, an independent congregation that rented office space in what is now the Divinity and Religious Studies Building and held worship services in Wait Chapel, asked to have their union blessed in a Chapel ceremony. Following the practice for weddings, the scheduling request was sent to the University Chaplain, Ed Christman, who noted the lack of a University policy for such ceremonies and referred the question to President Thomas K. Hearn. President Hearn, in part because of a potential conflict as a member of the Church himself, referred the matter to the Board of Trustees.1

On September 7, 1999, a special committee of the Board of Trustees issued their report, noting that the University was being asked a primarily theological question by an independent Baptist Church. The Board said that while Wake Forest no longer had a “governance relationship” with the Baptist denomination, “the University honors and respects its Baptist heritage” and took note of “the prevailing collective wisdom of the Christian church regarding this question.” The Board instructed the administration to “ask the Wake Forest Baptist Church to refrain from using the University facilities for” a same-sex union ceremony, but stopped short of a prohibition.2

Wake Forest Baptist Church decided to exercise its prerogative as an independent organization and hosted the same-sex union ceremony on September 9, 2000.3

If the story ended here, it would be an example of free expression between institutions and an illustration of the changing relationship to religious heritage at a key point in Wake Forest’s history. Instead, the controversy broadened into a debate about journalistic independence for the University’s national public radio station, WFDD.4

When the press release was shared with the University communications team, they were asked to limit their statements to the University’s news release. It is unclear whether the WFDD station manager was present at the group meeting or received similar instructions later. When the station manager conveyed the press release and reporting instructions to the WFDD staff, the staff understood tighter restrictions than had been described in the initial meeting.5 WFDD staff spoke to reporters at the Winston-Salem Journal, which reported on the restricted coverage at WFDD on September 11, 1999, and also shared the University’s initial position that WFDD staff, who are University employees, might be seen as representing the University if they attempted to interpret or further explore the Trustee statement.6

The Journal noted that John G. Medlin, Jr., chair of the Wake Forest University Board of Trustees (and chairman emeritus of Wachovia Corporation, a large national bank then headquartered in Winston-Salem), said “whatever an official of Wake Forest might have said, I would be very surprised if there was any intention to restrict the freedom of the university media in reporting on this issue.”7 Indeed, in an open letter to the University on September 16, the University official who supervised WFDD explained, “I regret the confusion that grew from good intent to ensure the station’s neutrality… I do not condone censorship.”8

The episode became an opportunity to build on the University’s cultural commitment to freedom of expression and journalistic independence in concrete ways through structural changes. In response to the work of an “Interim Faculty Advisory Committee” that President Hearn appointed to support the supervision of WFDD, President Hearn moved supervision of the station to the Office of the Provost, initiated a review of the agreement between the University and the station, and established a Community Advisory Board for the station.9

In an addendum to the Faculty Senate’s report on the issue, one committee member noted:

“The importance of these principles of freedom of expression and of the defense of them that occurred at Wake Forest does not depend on seeing the departure from them as intentional or motivated by a sinister design. Instead, as the University’s response so far indicates, I think the principles of freedom of expression on campus are principles which all involved share.”10

Matthew T. Phillips | 11 June 2025

  1. Art Toalston, Same-Sex Ceremony to Be Permitted in Wake Forest University’s Chapel, Baptist Press (Oct. 11, 1999), https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/same-sex-ceremony-to-be-permitted-in-wake-forest-universitys-chapel/. ↩︎
  2. Kevin Cox, Church Asked Not to Perform Ceremonies, Wake Forest News (Sep. 8, 1999), https://news.wfu.edu/1999/09/08/church-asked-not-to-perform-ceremonies/; cf. Ad Hoc Committee on WFDD, Report to the University Senate on the WFDD Matter (2000), https://current.org/2000/02/wake-forest-university-faculty-senate-report-on-wfdd-conflict-2000/#events listing the Trustee report date as Sept. 7 (not Sept 8). ↩︎
  3. Todd Starnes, Conservative, Moderate Baptists Speak out on Wake Forest Homosexual Union, Baptist Press (Sep. 12, 2000), https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/conservative-moderate-baptists-speak-out-on-wake-forest-homosexual-union/. ↩︎
  4. WFDD was started as the campus radio station of Wake Forest College in the fall 0f 1946. It became a charter member of National Public Radio in 1970 and is an independent broadcast service of Wake Forest University. See https://www.wfdd.org/about-wfdd/. ↩︎
  5. Ad Hoc Committee on WFDD, supra note 2 at Part I. ↩︎
  6. John Railey, WFDD Gets Caught in the Middle of Church Issue, Winston-Salem Journal, Sep. 11, 1999, at 1. ↩︎
  7. Id. ↩︎
  8. Ad Hoc Committee on WFDD, supra note 2 at Part I. ↩︎
  9. Id.; see Community Advisory Board, 88.5 WFDD, https://www.wfdd.org/community-advisory-board (last visited Jun. 3, 2025). ↩︎
  10. Ad Hoc Committee on WFDD, supra note 2 (Curtis, concurring). ↩︎