Search News


Browse Archives

News

Divinely Inspired Bias?

March 1, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Edwin H. Welch, president of the University of Charleston, is investigating the legal ramifications of an advertisement that states that applicants must believe in God -- an apparent violation of federal anti-bias laws.

The ad for the West Virginia institution, which first appeared Monday, lists a position called the Herchiel and Elizabeth Sims “In God We Trust” Chair in Ethics. The job would require a candidate to teach ethics-related courses, and “work with communities on and outside of campus to enhance the university’s reputation as a center for ethical and moral thought, and to encourage the use of ethical practices among members of the communities.”

The ad says that prospective candidates must have earned a doctorate and expertise in ethics, have had faculty development experience and “must embrace a belief in God and present moral and ethical values from a God-centered perspective.” The unusual job requirement was noted on Brian Leiter's blog.

The contact person listed in the ad, J. Wayne Jones, chair of the university’s Morris Harvey Division of Arts and Sciences, did not return repeated phone calls and e-mail messages on Tuesday and when reached Tuesday night said he would only talk during business hours. The person listed on the university’s Web site as currently holding the position, Harold H.S. Oh, also did not respond to calls and e-mail messages.

A university spokesman, Andy Spradling, said that Welch has contacted university counsel regarding the matter. Welch confirmed that a university official had posted the job ad.  

As a private, non-religious institution, the university must conform to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which says that an employer may not “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to legal scholars. Religious institutions, in contrast, have leeway to include religious tests for employment in many circumstances.

According to the university’s Web site, the institution “does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, handicap, age or national or ethnic origin in the administration of its educational policies, admission policies, scholarship and loan programs, athletic activities or other school-administered programs.”

Several legal experts say that the job posting would indicate that the university is not only breaking its own rules, but also the law.

“For a private, non-religious employer to require a belief in God would seem to violate the statute,” said Ian Ayres, a professor at Yale Law School and expert on civil rights.

“I think that this would violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights with regard to religious discrimination in employment,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at Duke University and expert on constitutional law. “The description is that ‘candidates must embrace a belief in God and present moral and ethical values from a God-centered perspective.’ I would say that this clearly violates Title VII as religious discrimination in employment.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Divinely Inspired Bias?

  • God and ethics
  • Posted by Arthur Ide, PhD on March 1, 2006 at 8:50am EST
  • A person does not have to believe in a god or any number of gods to be ethical. Organized religion has frequently shown itself and its adherents to be unethical.

    The field of ethics, also called moral philosophy, involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our individual emotions? Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves. Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others. Finally, applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide, animal rights, environmental concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment, or nuclear war.

    The problem is simple: ideas--and ethics--change, and thus remains in change. The issue of god(dess) design or interest has no value in a free society that values diversity and individual contributions regardless of externalities.

  • May I Present ...
  • Posted by RWH on March 1, 2006 at 9:50am EST
  • Truth be known, I am almost completely unconcerned about this issue. Frankly, if I lived in Southern West Virginia – beautiful as much of it is – I would be more than happy to have someone or something (I mean almost anything) in which to trust ... and God is as good as the next guy.

    But I am intrigued by the name of the endowed professorship ... the Herchiel and Elizabeth Sims “In God We Trust” Chair in Ethics. Damn, I’d almost apply for the position just to have that title ... and I would flaunt it everywhere. I can just imagine being introduced at a professional meeting, “Please join me in welcoming RWH, the Herchiel and Elizabeth Sims ‘In God We Trust’ Professor of Ethics.” Doesn’t that have a wonderful ring to it.

    Now for my secret desire of all desires, my goal of all goals in academe. For years I have thought about persuading the Lazyboy Furniture Corporation – and don’t you just love those chairs with the settings handle on the side? – to endow a chair (no pun intended) and honor me by making me the first recipient. Then I would be “the RWH Lazyboy Chair of Mathematics” It brings tears to my eyes just thinking about it.

  • not concerned?
  • Posted by Susan P on March 1, 2006 at 10:45am EST
  • Truth be known, RWH, a violation of the Civil Rights Act is illegal. While you may not be concerned, a judge may be.

  • Lighten up Susan P!
  • Posted by Scott on March 1, 2006 at 11:20am EST
  • For crying out loud, RWH was adding a light touch. Personally, I'm waiting for some indignant civil rights activist to jump onto the stage and demand equal treatment for male wasps. AA is the antithesis, but are there any prospects of this happening Susan?

  • Non-Divinely Inspired Bias?
  • Posted by ClioSmith , Associate Professor at Trinity Bible College on March 1, 2006 at 11:50am EST
  • Invoking the Civil Rights Act and the U. of Charleston's nondiscrimination policy to banish religious belief to the category of an "externality" that can never be considered when crafting an academic program would raise insurmountable contradictions for practices at modern public universities. As quoted in the article, the CRA applies to "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The inescapable corollary is that if a public institution can in no case take religion into account, then neither can it take race or gender into account.

    When Rob and the legal experts he cites are willing to stand up and be counted either for or against the Ward Connerlization of public higher education, their arguments will deserve a careful hearing.

  • Clio! Scott!
  • Posted by Susan P on March 1, 2006 at 12:40pm EST
  • The experts cited are some of the top legal authorities in the country. I'm going to take their word for it over Clio's, thanks. And to Scott who is "waiting for some indignant civil rights activist to jump onto the stage and demand equal treatment for male wasps," keep on waiting. This case isn't about white men getting what they want. It's about religion.

  • Sense and Sensibility?
  • Posted by Christopher Heard , Religion Professor at Pepperdine University on March 1, 2006 at 1:20pm EST
  • Does it really make any sense to have a "Herchiel and Elizabeth Sims 'In God We Trust' Chair in Ethics" occupied by someone who does not in fact trust in God? Or does the "we" refer only to the Sims? It raises the question whether the chair itself, not just the job description, poses a legal problem for the University of Charleston.

  • BFOQ?
  • Posted by James Mahan , Grad Student at small midwest on March 1, 2006 at 4:05pm EST
  • I'm sure I'm setting myself up to be hammered, but doesn't the concept of a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification apply?

    The courts have upheld the rights of organizations to discriminate in certain positions. Forgive the base example, but "Hooters" is allowed to hire only attractive females to be waitresses. I don't mean to imply it is a good thing in that case, but it should also allow for something like a posting for an African American Studies prof who must be African American, or an "In God We Trust" chair to actually believe in God.

    I'm not an expert, just asking.

  • The Necessity of Belief?
  • Posted by Christine Sistare on March 1, 2006 at 4:35pm EST
  • While it might be odd to select - intentionally or knowingly - someone who does not have any kind of relgious faith for a chair with the [ridiculous] title noted, that is not quite the point. After all, as someone observed, it would be rather odd for anyone not having any religious faith to apply for the position in the first place.

    The problem is that the ad cites such faith as a criterion for candidacy. In this, it does imply discrimination based on religious faith. Furthermore, if it is permissible to list faith as a criterion, it must also be permissible to demand proof of such faith, just as the selection committee could demand proof that candidates meet other criteria.

    An institution could perfectly well have a chair in 'Christian Ethics,' or 'Jewish Ethics,' etc., but it should not insist that applicants either 'have' a certain religious belief or [somehow]demonstrate it.

  • RE: BFOQ
  • Posted by Lawyer on March 1, 2006 at 4:35pm EST
  • No, "to establish the defense of bona fide occupational qualification the defendant has the burden of proving that a definable group/class of employees would be unable to perform the job safely and efficiently or that it was impossible or highly impractical to consider the qualifications of each such employee and that the bona fide occupational qualification is reasonably necessary to the operation of the business."

    The university would be able to do business even if a person who doesn't believe in God were the chair.

  • Clio! Scott!
  • Posted by ClioSmith , Associate Professor at Trinity Bible College on March 1, 2006 at 8:30pm EST
  • Susan P. notes that "the experts cited are some of the top legal authorities in the country." Yes. Attorneys appear regularly before the Supreme Court to argue positions advocated by the nation's "top legal authorities." Half of the time those positions are fully or partially vindicated. Half of the time they are not. My sense is that the court is currently moving in a direction that will tend to undercut the double standard to which I referred in my previous post.

    To recapitulate what I said before, invoking the Civil Rights Act and the University of Charleston's nondiscrimination policy to banish religious belief to the category of an "externality" that can never be considered when crafting an academic program would raise insurmountable contradictions for practices at modern public universities. Ignoring those contradictions doesn't make them go away.

  • yes, and . . .
  • Posted by interbreeding on March 1, 2006 at 9:20pm EST
  • While I'd like to see this position opened up to non-believers, it does seem to me that many if not most academic posts are only available to individuals with the correct set of beliefs (from within those extant in a given field), but that this bias is unadvertised. In short, I think this is merely a rare example of incredibly blatant bias, which, because it is based on religion and not on methogological stance, may be illegal.

  • When Was This Established
  • Posted by Stu Gittelman on March 1, 2006 at 10:10pm EST
  • I'd like to know when this chair was established. If this position has been around since before extensive church/state litigation developed in this area, that's one thing.

    If this is a newer position, the University has some explaining to do about how it could accept such a gift in good faith.

  • Posted by RWH on March 2, 2006 at 4:35am EST
  • Man, that Susan P. keeps picking on me ... however inconsequential my input may be. While I appreciate Scott coming to my rescue, S.P. is not to be dissuaded. She continues to resist “white men trying to get what they want.”

    Personally, I’m thankful (1) Arthur Ide, the Godless Professor of Applied Ethics, (2) Scott (my dear friend), the Professor of Indignant Civil Rights Activists, (3) Clio Smith, the Professor of Insurmountable Contradictions, (4) James Mahan, the Endowed Chair of Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications, (5) Christine Sistare, the Chair of Really Insiteful Commentary, and Stu Gittelman, Professor of Extensive Church/State Litigation are on my side.

    I suppose we should be concerned that the University of Charleston has stipulated that the Herchiel and Elizabeth Sims “In God We Trust” Chair in Ethics must be a God-fearing Christian, but what about those endowed scholarships the University of Southern California reserves for football players. Can you possibly imagine filling the John McKay Endowed Wide Receiver or the Pat Haden Endowed Middle Linebacker positions with girly men? ... to quote their governor?

  • RE:RWH
  • Posted by Christine S. on March 2, 2006 at 1:20pm EST
  • At the risk of endangering my title as Chair of Really Insightful Commentary, I think the case of endowed scholarships is distinguishable from [endowed] positions.

    Many scholarships are quite narrowly targeted by race, religion, parent's work association, etc. This permits private donors to give scholarships - gifts - to students of a specific identity. The institution is - privately endowed position or not - required to meet normal constitutional standards in hiring. Hiring decisions are supposed to be free of bias on religious and other grounds, absent a very clear justification in terms of qualifications.

    By the way, I think 'Lawyer' has cast the occupational suitability test too widely in this case. The question is whether a person without religious faith can do the job of acting as the 'In God We Trust' Professor of Ethics. (Or, whatever silly name it is.)

  • Posted by Marvinlee on March 2, 2006 at 9:30pm EST
  • Evidently trust in God doesn't extend to Herchiel and Elizabeth Sims who wish to impose their personal dictat on who can advance community ethics. Far from enhancing the university's good reputation, the overt religious test for consideration of appointment to an educational position seems likely to exact a heavy penalty.

    I do support "the use of ethical practices...." A good place to start is by removing the religious test from the ethics chair. It may prove easier to "encourage the use of ethical practices among members of the communities” when the ethics chair first practices that which it wishes to promote.

  • across the board
  • Posted by Wes on March 3, 2006 at 8:25pm EST
  • Only one question.
    Would all of the above comments and positions hold true for a conversely titled Charles H. Darwin Humanism Chair in Evolutionary Education that did not require the applicant to be an evolutionist? What kind of squawking would be heard if that was opened up to an Intelligent Design proponent?
    What room is there for common sense in the legal mumbo-jumbo of anti-discrimination.

  • legal mumbo jumbo
  • Posted by Larry on March 5, 2006 at 4:40am EST
  • Wes, I am curious to know what “common sense in the legal mumbo-jumbo of anti-discrimination.” You are referring to. Now, because we are fighting a war on terror, I know you read the applicable statutes and caselaw. Anyway, as you know, people are protected from discrimination in most circumstances based on their religious beliefs. But, one need not “believe” anything to “teach” anything. In fact, it is fairly common for people to teach things that they are skeptical of.

    (Finally, I should not that people that profess belief in “intelligent design” insist that it is not a religion. Therefore, it would seem that Title VII is not implicated. I mean, come on, 42 U.S.C. § 2000ee-j defines religion as “all aspects of religious observance and
    practice, as well as belief.” )

    So, in the interests of keeping America great, Wes, can you provide specifics.