Dec. 2, 2005

E-Mails Kill a Course

Facing a flood of criticism over his comments on religion, a University of Kansas professor announced Thursday that he was withdrawing a new course for the spring semester on intelligent design.

Looking for a job?

See all 272 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 2,719
Administrative: 2,095
Executive: 157
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

The course — announced last month — was originally seen by many as a responsible way for the university to examine the controversies over intelligent design, which have been particularly intense in Kansas. But newspapers obtained a series of comments posted by Paul Mirecki, the chair of the religious studies department at Kansas and the creator of the new course, about the class and his feelings about religion.

In a statement released by the university, Mirecki apologized for the latest comments that have surfaced and said that they made it impossible for the course to proceed as planned.

“My concern is that students with a serious interest in this important subject matter would not be well served by the learning environment my e-mails and the public distribution of them have created. It would not be fair to the students,” Mirecki said. “It was not my intent when I wrote the e-mails, but I understand now that these words have offended many on this campus and beyond, and for that I take full responsibility. I made a mistake in not leading by example, in this student organization e-mail forum, the importance of discussing differing viewpoints in a civil and respectful manner.”

The most recent of Mirecki’s e-mail comments to become public mocked beliefs and traditions of Roman Catholics.

In one of the comments — first published in The Topeka Capital-Journal (free registration required) — Mirecki described his views on Catholicism as a reflection of his experience growing up in the church:

“I had my first Catholic ‘holy communion’ when I was a kid in Chicago, and when I took the bread-wafer the first time, it stuck to the roof of my mouth, and as I was secretly trying to pry it off with my tongue as I was walking back to my pew with white clothes and with my hands folded, all I could think was that it was Jesus’ skin, and I started to puke, but I sucked it in and drank my own puke. That’s a big part of the Catholic experience. I don’t think most Catholics really know what they are supposed to believe, they just go home and use condoms, and some of them beat their wives and husbands.”

Mirecki made that and other comments in a listserv of a student group, the Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics at the University of Kansas. In the last week, Mirecki had already apologized for comments on the listserv in which he described his new course as something “fundies” would see as “a nice slap in their big fat face.”

As the comments have leaked out, some religious leaders in Kansas have been calling for legislative investigations of the university, for firings, and for courses on intelligent design to be blocked.

Robert Hemenway, chancellor at Kansas, issued a statement Thursday in which he said that the course should still be taught — but that Mirecki had been correct to call it off for now.

“I personally find Professor Mirecki’s e-mail comments repugnant and vile. They do not represent my views nor the views of this university. People of all faiths are valued at KU, and campus ministries are an important part of life at the university,” he said. Mirecki, he added, “insulted both our students and the university’s public.”

But Hemenway went on to say of the course: “This unfortunate episode does not in any way diminish our belief that the course should be taught. It is the role of the university to take on such topics and to provide the civil, academic environment in which they can be honestly examined and discussed.”

The Faculty Senate at Kansas on Thursday afternoon adopted a resolution affirming the right of professors to teach and do research on controversial subjects, but also noting their responsibility to speak in respectful, civil ways.

“Our values are that we’re not going to flinch from examining controversial issues. That’s part of what you do,” said Joe Heppert, a chemistry professor who is chair of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee.

“But we also wanted to recognize that along with freedom comes responsibility to recognize that the way we speak, the attitudes we express, can result in the public reaching certain conclusions about ourselves as scholars and as an institution,” Heppert said. “We have the responsibility, even when we speak privately, to do so with respect for the attitudes of others.”

Heppert rejected criticism that some have leveled on the university this week as an institution intolerant of religion. “There are many people of faith on the faculty,” he said, and discussions of issues of faith — and issues such as intelligent design — “have been entirely respectful,” even when people disagree or don’t share all of the same values.

Several professors said privately that they feared that the controversy would damage the university’s support in the state, and that the comments would end up giving a boost to supporters of intelligent design, who can portray themselves as victims of elite intellectuals.

On the Kansas campus, students have expressed a range of views in comments in The Daily Kansan. Amy Leochner, a graduate student in religious studies, said that the controversy has “made me as a Christian feel very unwelcome here.”

“What religion is the department going to attack next? Will there be a class next semester titled ‘Why Hitler Was Right: Anti-Semitism for All’ or ‘Resurrecting the Crusades: Ridding the Middle East of Islam,’ ” she wrote in a letter to the editor.

One defender of Mirecki was Andrew Stangl, a junior who is president of the atheist group on whose listserv Mirecki made the controversial remarks.

In a column, Stangl wrote of the criticism of Mirecki: “It’s hypocritical, it’s wrong and it’s horribly unethical to focus on Mirecki’s statements and then call him a bigot. How many preachers will claim on Sunday that all secularists are immoral, terrible people? How many qualified, aspiring politicians will lose elections because they are secularists?”

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

not very intelligently designed

If the canceled course were on the merits of the Christian faith, all the chorus presently ballyhooing the cancellation would be trumpeting.

It is interesting too, that the course intended to debunk the existence of a creator, had a creator itself. It didn’t come into existence by itself and it didn’t go out of existence by itself.

B/ Carpenter, at 7:25 am EST on December 2, 2005

Remove or Resign

Why exactly is an avowed atheist who shows complete disregard for the beliefs of another the CHAIR OF THE RELIGIOUS STUDIES DEPARTMENT. Anyone who insults Catholics and proponents of intelligent design with such disdain does not belong in a university, let alone directing the religion department. U Kansas should remove him from the position if he does not resign first.

Colin, at 9:52 am EST on December 2, 2005

Startling, but not surprising

Professor Mirecki’s comments serve to underscore the contempt with which many of those in academia view people of faith and, in a larger sense, those outside the university gates. Most unfortunate is the fact that this contempt has, as evidenced by Mirecki’s comments above, engendered a profound ignorance.

There is no need to point out the irony here. It is abundantly clear—even to us dim bulbs in the shadow of the ivory tower.

Bryce Myers, at 11:26 am EST on December 2, 2005

In response to “Colin".... Perhaps the university believes that an atheist would make a good Religious Studies Chair simply because he would not biased to one religion in particular. However, Mirecki does seem to be intolerant, and his remarks about “fundies” and the “slap in the face” suggest that he is not unbiased. It is because of this intolerance and evidence of an agenda, and not for any religious reason, that the university should reconsider Mirecki’s position as chair of the department.

As for the class in particular, I think it should still be taught, but without the twists that Mirecki would have included. And I’m not sure a course on intelligent design belongs in the religion department. Although many see intelligent design as a Christian idea, there are many other religions that include a Creator and a Creation story. If taught in biology, this course would present the scientific observations that support intelligent design regardless of who you think the Designer is.

Tolana, English major, at 11:27 am EST on December 2, 2005

One has to wonder why someone as hostile to religion as Paul Mirecki would have decided to devote his career to studying and teaching about religion. With Mirecki at the helm, the University of Kansas should re-name its Department of Religion with something more accurate. Here are some suggestions I thought of:

Department of Anti-Religion

Department of Religious Bigotry

Larry Caldwell, Roseville, California

Larry Caldwell, President at Qualty Science Education for All, at 11:27 am EST on December 2, 2005

This course should never have been cancelled, although I understand why. The Bible Thumpers out there would have made it a nightmare to teach and learn. The course should definately be offered once the controversy blows over. I hope other schools decide to teach it.

Ryan, A sad day..., at 11:28 am EST on December 2, 2005

Hypocrisy

“Why exactly is an avowed atheist who shows complete disregard for the beliefs of another the CHAIR OF THE RELIGIOUS STUDIES DEPARTMENT. Anyone who insults Catholics and proponents of intelligent design with such disdain does not belong in a university, let alone directing the religion department. U Kansas should remove him from the position if he does not resign first.”

Colin,

Can you honestly not see the hypocrisy in your statement? You want to fire Professor Mirecki because he disregards the beliefs of another.

What is wrong with an atheist being Chair of the Department of Religious Studies? If it were otherwise, the department would have to be called the Department of Religious Indoctrination. That would make it unconstitutional. My King James says we should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. The University of Kansas belongs to Caesar.

JD, at 11:29 am EST on December 2, 2005

When will academics learn?

Interesting point indeed, Colin. This episode reminds me of a recent flap at the University of Michigan when a humanities professor created a course titled “How to be Gay.” Not surprisingly, the course attracted much attention from not only the right wing in the state, but plenty of others who questioned whether such a course was appropriate in a state-funded (sort of) university. Upon examining the syllabus for the course, one could see that it was not an “indocrination” attempt or strategy for promoting the “homosexual agenda,” but rather was an interdisciplinary examination of representations of homosexuality throughout history—a legitimate academic exercise. But the ill-chosen title of the course brought unnecessary controversy and significantly impeded any rational examination or discourse about the course content.

In both the Michigan and Kansas cases, the faculty members responsible seemed to be blind to how the manner in which they presented their seemingly appropriate and academically legitimate courses would play among the state’s population outside of Ann Arbor and Lawrence, respectively. A classic example of individuals lost within the ivory tower and either too arrogant, stubborn, or naive to recognize that they are mere bit players in a larger millieu of state culture and politics (add the dude from the University of Colorado to this list as well).

Chris, at 11:31 am EST on December 2, 2005

The Kansas Whirlwiind

Colin, I think the issue is not one of who the learned professor insulted, but rather that he obviously lacks the objectivity that one would expect of the faculty. Frankly, it is the nature of most religions to question the legitimacy of other forms, and Roman Catholics are no less guilty of maintaining exclusive ownership of “the truth” than atheists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, or Muslims. Teaching religious studies should not be a matter of embracing a specific faith or espousing a specific set of values, but being sufficiently intelligent to convey and discuss the complexities inherent to the discipline (if it qualifies as such), and in the process be genuinely respectful of the values and traditions that give meaning to various religious perspectives. The call for a resignation or termination, while perhaps appropriate, should not rest on the fact that atheistic beliefs are inherently in conflict with the study of religion — they are not. Rather, the question is should someone who cannot maintain a thoughtful respect for divergent views and beliefs be assigned the responsibility for promoting those very traits?

R. Scott, at 11:34 am EST on December 2, 2005

Let’s revisit the statement that the state of Kansas was going to look “dumb".

Charles Casteel, Doctor, at 11:50 am EST on December 2, 2005

“a responsible way for the university to examine the controversies over intelligent design”

“It is the role of the university to take on such topics and to provide the civil, academic environment in which they can be honestly examined and discussed”

Given the professor’s obvious bias and the title of the course ("Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and Other Religious Mythologies", as reported by CNN), the class was never intended to be reponsible, civil, or otherwise balanced or fair-minded — just a debunking exercise. So should it still be taught?

John C., at 1:07 pm EST on December 2, 2005

“open-minded atheists”

an oxymoron perhaps?

from a cheesehead, at 1:49 pm EST on December 2, 2005

Religious or Ireligious Freedom

Lets remember that the professor at KU wrote his e-mails in private, and his privacy has been violated. He did not present these attitudes to a class at KU. He presented them in a format that always has a tailing message that the info. belongs to him. The publication of it was probably a violation of copyright. True his attitude was showing, but he was reacting to a State Board of Ed. and others who have power over curricula in K-12 and seem to have an agenda not too well hidden.

kRoberta Eveslage, Johnson County Community College, at 2:25 pm EST on December 2, 2005

Did he copyright it? If not, is publication a violation of copyright laws?

Max, at 2:43 pm EST on December 2, 2005

Hypocrites

If faculty and others in a position of authority are to be held responsible for their private conversations and discussions outside of the classroom, then I have a feeling that the religious bigots out there will have more to worry about than the courses offered by atheists. Their own words will come back to bite them in ways that will make this scandal seem minor by comparison. Just tune in to Pat Robertson some night and see how “objective” and even-handed the Christian conservative fringe really is. They’ll complain about liberal, atheist, or secular teachers in the classroom, but it’s clear that their agenda is just indoctrination of another, more dangerous sort. ID advocates aren’t far off in their own dogma and evangelical agenda, so don’t be fooled by the howls of outrage. They wanted this course shut down long before the professor made his ill-advised remarks, and it had nothing to do with a desire for objectivity or unbiased teaching. What they want is mindless acceptance of a crackpot “science.” The course should be taught, exactly as it was conceived, placing ID where it properly belongs: with mythology and other works of religious imagination.

huntly, at 3:17 pm EST on December 2, 2005

The comments were not private. They were made on a public electronic group which did not require a password. his statements there are as public as if he had put them on bulletin board in the cafeteria.

Kevin Stockdale, Ohio State University, at 3:17 pm EST on December 2, 2005

Huntly’s prescience

Whoever was the target of Huntly’s tirade will no doubt thank her/him for making their case. Someone who proposes to have uncanny, authoritative insights into what others think, what they want, what they are going to do, and what moves their hearts is precisely one to whom the opposition holds up as evidence of idiosyncratic thinking. Unless the objective was to provide ammunition to the “enemy,” (s)he is in over her/his head.

R. Scott, at 5:03 pm EST on December 2, 2005

Colin and theology

Bigotry displayed by Colin is as inane as the hypocrisy of John. There is no one more suited to lead a Department of Religion than an atheist. An atheist owes no loyalty to any religion (or lack thereof) and therefore is the most open-minded, qualified candidate to sit in the chair. Kudoos to the University of Kansas for hiring such a brilliant and positive person.

Arthur Ide, PhD, at 8:52 pm EST on December 2, 2005

Huntly: Optional Information

Robertson and his comment are not a model for a university. Whining that what an individual is allowed to do on television should be accepted in the classroom is a rather weak position and utterly devoid of merit.

Also, anyone listening to Pat Robertson is doing so of their own free choosing and can cease without penalty or recourse at any time they choose. This is not the case for students who would have been in the class.

This class served no clear educational purpose — ID proponents have not given us a fast hard theory to debate or attempt to verifty. Instead, this is apparently a tirade against those who do not share his views (I happen to share the view that religion is false and ID is not science, but that doesn’t make his class educational).

Lastly, the comment by Dr. Ides that an atheist would be best suited to lead a Religion department seems rather weak — the area of religion is based on faith — a person lacking said faith has little hope of relating in the manner of those that do their religion in a manner fit for constructive dialog. Also, the purpose of a Religion department is presumably not to prove religion wrong (or more accurately lead a credit-granting rant about it).

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 6:37 am EST on December 3, 2005

Kill a Course

All this kind of stuff is going to end up in the Supreme Court in front of some fascist appointers of King George. I can’t scream filibuster loud enough.

For the good of real America — chip in any way you can to save us.

Greg Petrich, Flat Earth & Snake Bit Preachers, at 4:11 pm EST on December 3, 2005

ARE CHRISTIANS CRAZY???

Are some of you saying that atheism is an illegitimate religious position? Are you saying it is less legitimate position than Chatholicism or Islam or whatever, whatever? Does a Chair have to be a Christian to legitimately be in Religious Studies? Let’s bow our heads and thank the Lord right now that these Christian Crazies aren’t running higher ed, and that King George is on his way out.

Who’s Kidding Whom?, at 12:02 pm EST on December 5, 2005

Atheist

Some people find it ironic that an atheist is in charge of a religious studies program, myself among them. It is also rather unsuprising that he has chosen to push his belief (which, actually, I share) on his students.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 1:01 pm EST on December 5, 2005

Objectivity?

A significant amount of the discussion has centered on the professor’s suitability or lack thereof as a department chair and instructor for the course under discussion. What his defenders seem to be forgetting is the mandate for the professor to be OBJECTIVE in his presentation. His comments on the forum (not simply private emails) demonstrate a definite antipathy regarding the historic Christian faith, which further clarify his understanding of “myth” (his word choice as used in the course description). Clearly, he has disqualified himself as an objective academic in relationship to this course.

Walt, at 10:19 pm EST on December 7, 2005

Tenure and Academic Freedom

Anonymous, do you honestly think that the threat to academic freedom in today’s higher education comes from the right? The tenure review process is controlled by faculty, who are overwhelmingly to the left. If you have any doubts about this, you can check the voter registration records for the faculty at your institution, but I would be surprised if you were to even find that necessary.

As for external political pressure, that comes from both ends of the spectrum. If this guy had promised a course on gay marriage that would be “a slap in the face to faggots,” don’t you think it would have caused an uproar? The only difference is that he probably would have lost his job, because the overwhelming majority of his colleagues (rightfully) would not have supported him. The only reason he got away with just a course cancellation is that his abusive comments were targeted at an unpopular group.

I’m not trying to launch some kind of crusade here. I don’t think that candidates for faculty positions should be asked about their political views, and in general, I don’t think that they are. I think the academy tilts left because liberals are drawn to academic life in greater numbers than conservatives are. If that’s the case, so be it, but let’s be honest about how things are. The demographics of the academy militate against any threat to academic freedom from the right and give us ample reason to be on our guard for threats from the left.

Joe Murray, at 3:44 am EST on December 12, 2005

Jobs Related to E-Mails Kill a Course

or search for jobs directly.

CLA 2215 Assistant Professor Industrial/Organizational Psychology
Towson University

The Psychology Department of Towson University invites applicants for a full-time tenure-track position in ... see job

Equal Opportunity and Diversity Officer
San Diego Community College District

The San Diego Community College District is accepting applications to fill the position of Equal Opportunity and Diversity ... see job

Senior Research Professor and Associate Director of the Bureau of Business and Economic Research
University of Montana

“Defined by a prestigious faculty, red-brick architecture and expansive lawns, the century-old school is often referred to as ... see job

Admission File Manager
Roger Williams University

Roger Williams University is one of the top ranked liberal arts universities in the Northeast and is an Equal Opportunity ... see job

Specialist Series, Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior
University of California, Irvine

SPECIALIST SERIES positions are periodically available in the Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior at the University ... see job

Java / J2EE Developer
Yale University

General Purpose
Oversee the software development and maintenance of Yale’s uPortal-based institutional ... see job

Reference Instructional Services Librarian
Wiley College

Join our dynamic team at Wiley College — “Home of the Great Debaters". see job

International Law — Assistant or Associate Professor
University of California, Santa Cruz

The Politics Department at the University of California, Santa Cruz, seeks applications for a tenure-track or tenured ... see job

Assistant Professor
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Ethical Theory
Carleton College

The Department of Philosophy invites applications for a full-time tenure-track position in Ethical Theory beginning September ... see job