Search News


Browse Archives

News

He Didn't Worship the Market

August 17, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

When Colorado Christian University notified Andrew Paquin, an assistant professor of global studies, that his contract would not be renewed, he knew that not being sufficiently guided by Christ wasn't the problem. But it might have been that he wasn't sufficiently capitalist.

"Throughout the process it became evident that the issue of capitalism, the use of a couple of different books were at the core" of President William L. Armstrong's "discomfort" with him, Paquin said. Those included works by animal-rights ethicist Peter Singer and Jim Wallis, author of God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and The Left Doesn't Get It. Once Paquin was notified that he couldn't continue on as a professor, students, faculty and alumni started petitions and contacted The Rocky Mountain News, which broke the story this week and sparked a torrent of anger on the blogosphere.

Of course, Paquin knew that he was a full-time professor at a private, religious institution that does not award tenure; Colorado Christian's statement of faith says, "We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God." But he didn't think his views or his teachings would conflict with the university's mission -- and besides, he'd been voted Faculty Member of the Year for 2006.

All that apparently changed when Armstrong became president a year ago and helped unveil a new set of strategic objectives, including to "[i]mpact our culture in support of traditional family values, sanctity of life, compassion for the poor, Biblical view of human nature, limited government, personal freedom, free markets, natural law, original intent of constitution and Western civilization."

"It should be said that there are many on the campus … that might agree with some of those tenets but recognize that it reads very political and don't necessarily believe that it should be as part of the objective of our university. A university should be a place where things are kind of pulled apart and questioned and examined. So some of the things in that paragraph I might be inclined to agree with," Paquin said, but he doesn't "want to be held against the wall" and pressured to advance a certain agenda.

Armstrong, a former Republican senator from Colorado, vigorously defended the university's mission and says it is compatible with academic freedom. While he couldn't comment on the specifics of personnel issues, he said, "I certainly expect all members of our faculty to support" the strategic objectives.

"I guess I would say that all of us who are responsible for the leadership of the university have an interest in preserving academic freedom because it's our job to do so," he said, but he stressed that it must operate within certain constraints. Groups such as the American Association of University Professors maintain that tenure is necessary to preserve academic freedom.

Paquin, on the other hand, said that faculty members censor themselves to avoid a similar fate to his own. "The faculty at Colorado Christian are fairly powerless overall to the greater wishes and whims of the administration, and I think others if they could say so, they would say so," he said.

On issues like a commitment to free markets, Armstrong said, "We're very straightforward about our convictions." But he stressed that the commitment to capitalism doesn't necessarily come from the Bible. "We don't look to the Scriptures for justification for everything we teach," he said. "It's not that we are tying [Christianity and capitalism] together."

Paquin generated his own response in a blog entry, where he wrote, "My stance on capitalism is this ... it is obviously a very efficient and pragmatic economic system that has produced the largest and wealthiest country the world has ever seen. It also can be exploitative, lead to human greed, and leave vast populations behind in its wake. It can turn citizens into consumers. Adam Smith writes that the common good is served by the individual pursuit of self-interest. Excuse me if I believe that the pursuit of my own self-interest might be in contrast to the life of Christ that exemplifies the pursuit of the interest of others. This is my tension."

Other commentators have chimed in as well. Christianity Today's blog wondered, "Does Armstrong's support of a constitutional amendment banning ‘desecration' of the U.S. flag violate the school's commitment to ‘limited government,' for example? As one often wonders in these stories of lines in the sand, How far is too far?" And at a Beliefnet blog run by Jim Wallis and others, Randall Balmer, a professor of American religious history at Barnard College, quipped: "Capitalism, in fact, appears to be Jesus' preferred economic system."

At Episcopal Café, meanwhile, a blogger asked, "Let's put the shoe on the other foot. What if a professor at an Episcopal college or seminary deified the free enterprise system? Would she be fired?"

As the executive director of a charitable organization, The 10/10 Project, Paquin takes advantage of markets to help Africans start their own businesses. He'll be able to give more time to that pursuit, as well as teach, write and travel -- as well as possibly study for a Ph.D. He currently holds a master's degree from the University of Denver.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on He Didn't Worship the Market

  • Adam Smith's Moral postion should be considered
  • Posted by Vernon Kays , Dean on August 17, 2007 at 9:00am EDT
  • I decided this summer that to understand capitalism I should read "The Wealth of Nations." Before I could start that text, I heard about the an earlier text, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments." I strongly suggest that the Christian right read both texts before 'judging' captialism as in line with christian belief. In fact, capitalists should be required to read both texts.

  • One wonders ...
  • Posted by jm on August 17, 2007 at 10:00am EDT
  • If Jesus loved markets so much, why'd he throw the moneychangers out of the temple?

  • Capitalism trumps freedoms
  • Posted by Michael Chiaradonna on August 17, 2007 at 10:50am EDT
  • As a nation -still quite young at 231- we're long overdue for a change in the language of:
    (1) Preamble
    Change "We the people" to "We the capitalists"

    (2) Bill of Rights:
    Amendment IV
    Change "The right of the people" to "The right of the capitalists"

    Amendment V
    Change "No person shall be held" to "No capitalist shall be held"

    This would be a great start to explain America by contemporary leadership. Look at the changes as a "Truth in advertising" adjustment.

    And oh, by the way Armstrong ought to be ashamed ... and then discarded ... kinda like a wornout commodity.

  • Posted by Steve on August 17, 2007 at 10:50am EDT
  • This is the reason why I won't apply for positions at "Christian" colleges any more. I was a finalist for a professor's job a few years ago at a college run by my own denomination, and got grilled twice on the question of whether "everybody will be saved." They cared about that more than my teaching ability or scholarship. These schools are just too narrow-minded.

  • The Capitalist Gospel and other fascist events
  • Posted by Diana Relke , Professor at Univ of Saskatchewan on August 17, 2007 at 10:50am EDT
  • I can't believe I'm reading this stuff.

    I've been subscribed to this site for almost two years as a way of keeping in touch with how American higher ed is bearing up under the strain of Bush's Christian fascism. Because -- as everyone here in the north knows -- whatever's happening in the US will sooner or later be happening in Canada. I think there must be a clause somewhere in the Free Trade deal . . .

    This article makes me very happy that I'm retiring in 3 years. There was a time when an incident like the Finkelstein or the Churchill travesty would have brought every academic out onto the street to protest. Now professors of global studies at holy colleges can be fired for teaching global studies. American academics must think they're living inside a Kafka novel.

  • "He Didn't Worship the Market."
  • Posted by Tony Williams , Professor on August 17, 2007 at 12:55pm EDT
  • This is another example of the right wing, Christian fundamentalist attack on Academic Freedom stimulated by the neo-conservatives in the White House and a Congress as spineless as their predecessors in the McCarthy era.

    As a Ph.D. in Theology, I see not only the rewriting of "We, the People" to mean, "We, the capitalists, but another attack on the Enlightenment tenets that motivated the Declaration of Independents as well as the Founding Father's desire to separate church from state. In view of the callous attitude towards Hurricane Katrina Survivors, I see a future edition of THE BIBLE eliminating all reference to attacks on the rich and compassion for the poor very much in line with Orwell's Dictionary in 1984. Obviously, this new neo-conservative Bible will be a reduced edition lacking not only the scene of Jesus chasing the moneylenders from the Temple but also virtually all the Prophetic Literature as well as the line about it being easier to go through a needle than a rich man entering Heaven. Another warning sign which we must all note and react against.

  • Posted by Steve , Associate Professor at University of Colorado-Boulder on August 17, 2007 at 1:55pm EDT
  • How disheartening to read about the recent nonrenewal of Prof. Paquin's teaching contract at Colorado Christian University. CCU apparently is not interested in providing an education, preferring instead a kind of indoctrination, many aspects of which Christ himself would neither recognize nor support.

    President Armstrong's mission statement for CCU expresses the same sort of pernicious admixture of far right-wing ideology and supposedly Christian principles that we've witnessed for years in the Bush administration. Bravo to Prof. Paquin for introducing his students to Jim Wallis's "God's Politics," which is a balanced, carefully argued critique of the complex, often troubled relationship between current US politics and religion. In describing budgets as "moral documents," Wallis makes clear the many ways in which sanctimonious politicians (conservative and liberal) flatly contradict the teachings of Jesus, especially his repeated pleas to care for the poor, the sick, and the disenfranchised. Wallis also offers a devastating critique of the U.S.'s rush to invade Iraq, explaining why no objective observer could conclude that this is a "just war." I imagine that Paquin did not ask his students to accept Wallis's arguments without critically evaluating and debating them, which is what one ought to expect in any classroom, even one at a church-affiliated institution.

    I wish Prof. Paquin well as he departs CCU; clearly his students thought he had much to offer them. What a shame that the administration at CCU, and Armstrong in particular, could not see that as well.

  • Posted by John Marlin at The College of St. Elizabeth on August 17, 2007 at 2:50pm EDT
  • I took a look at CCU's full list of strategic objectives, and to its credit, one of them was to teach its students to think for themselves, and another was "to be seekers of truth" (Who? faculty? students? -- unfortunately, the list lacks grammatical parallelism).

    How can such objectives be consistent with an objective like "impact the culture in support of traditional family values" (whatever those are), "free markets, natural law, original intent of [the] constitution" and so on?

    Are these settled truths? If in seeking the truth and thinking for ourselves we discover that certain traditional ideas about the family are unjust, or that free markets seduce the human spirit into banal consumerism, or that what is taken as natural law is really a social construction, what then?

    If becoming a seeker of the truth is truly a strategic objective -- and it is a laudable one -- then we must banish political correctness, whether it is of the left or the right.

    I write this as a Christian teaching at a Catholic college that recognizes that genuinely seeking the truth demands a community that admits, respects and examines diverse and competing opinions, even about -- no, especially about -- foundational assumptions.

  • I'm a little surprised...
  • Posted by Clayton E. Cramer on August 17, 2007 at 3:15pm EDT
  • What confuses me about this--and makes me wonder if there's more to the story than is being told here--is that fundamentalist Christianity has never been completely comfortable with the materialism of capitalism. Even those of us who support capitalism recognize that it is not an entirely benign system--only less destructive of human rights than socialism. A legitimate study of capitalism from a Christian point of view would point to both its strengths and its weaknesses.

    Comparing this to the firing of Ward Churchill, however, is foolish. Churchill's firing was because of massive academic fraud, plagiarism, and dishonesty. It is true that if he hadn't given the "1000 little Himmlers" speech, he would not have been caught. But that's like saying that because a cop pulled over a car improperly for speeding and saw a dead body in the back seat that we should call it good and let the driver go.

  • missing the mark
  • Posted by Don Sprowl , Director of Institutional Research at Indiana Wesleyan University on August 17, 2007 at 4:20pm EDT
  • As a strong believer in the value of Christian higher education, I am discouraged by the news from CCU. The ministry of the Christian college to the academy, bringing the light of Christian truth to all topics of academic inquiry, is a common focus of evangelical Christian schools, and is presumably the motivation behind the list of CCU's strategic objectives. Too often ignored is the ministry of the Christian college to the Church, helping the Church separate scriptural from cultural convictions. This latter is a real need in the evangelical church in today's America. Accomplishing this ministry requires academic freedom and it requires great wisdom and courage from academic leaders as they walk the tight rope of encouraging unfettered inquiry while defending and preserving the foundational identity of the community. Thankfully there are number of schools that continue to navigate this narrow path successfully, but there are too many, like CCU, that minimize their impact by their own hands.

  • the need for diversity
  • Posted by Clayton E. Cramer on August 17, 2007 at 5:10pm EDT
  • "I write this as a Christian teaching at a Catholic college that recognizes that genuinely seeking the truth demands a community that admits, respects and examines diverse and competing opinions, even about — no, especially about — foundational assumptions."

    This is a fine sentiment. It doesn't excuse CCU's behavior, but it would be nice to see public universities take the same approach. Let me know when Harvard, Yale, or UC Berkeley faculty reach the 10% conservatives level.

  • Posted by Michael on August 17, 2007 at 5:50pm EDT
  • What does the dismissal of an assistant professor from a private religious school that does not offer tenure have to do with President Bush, the Republican Party or the United States? CCU may be run by an idiot or by a genius, but it is not run by the government or a political party.

  • Wha?
  • Posted by Assistant Professor , Assistant Professor on August 17, 2007 at 5:55pm EDT
  • "This is another example of the right wing, Christian fundamentalist attack on Academic Freedom stimulated by the neo-conservatives in the White House and a Congress as spineless as their predecessors in the McCarthy era."

    So a private Christian institution dismissing a single professor for his classroom remarks is part of some large-scale fundamentalist attack on Academic Freedom? Are we even on the same planet? Does a 'sense of scale' even factor into your belief system?

    Count me not-too-worried. When some Christian pressure groups start forcing academic presses to destroy every copy of a book they consider libelous, or when semi-violent Christian groups start to stifle legitimate debate on campus by using thug tactics, or demanding special religious accommodations in bathrooms, then I'll be worried about Christians. Until then, I'll just consider these kind of replies as hysteria at best.

  • Termination at a Christian U
  • Posted by Fred Flener , Retired on August 17, 2007 at 8:00pm EDT
  • Maybe I am missing something, but a university education should be about understanding issues, analyzing arguments, etc., not inculcating values, whether Christian, atheist, Marxist or mine. However, that said, it seems the university laid its tenets out front, so anyone willing to work there knows what is expected of him/her.

    I remember interviewing at a couple of campuses some 35 years ago, where I was told they did not "allow" the faculty to smoke or drink (I didn't smoke, but needed my pint of Guiness every while), so I had no interest in that school. At another, I was told the community was a good place to teach because they had no trouble with "their colored." Not my cup of tea, (or my pint), so another school off my radar. If I had accepted employment at either institution, I don't believe I should then challenge their values.

  • http://gradstudentmadness.blogspot.com/
  • Posted by rufus on August 17, 2007 at 9:30pm EDT
  • I think you might be missing something too- it's not that they laid out their tenets upfront. The "strategic objectives" came in with the new President last year. So they weren't an issue when Paquin came aboard. It sounds like the rules he violated are relatively new and more than a little vague. But I definitely agree with you that people should be selective about where they work.

  • Posted by Ken on August 18, 2007 at 8:35am EDT
  • Time and time again on this website I have seen conservative voices, individuals and organizations, sometimes correctly, go into quite a frenzy at the curtailment of academic freedom of conservative professors and promotion of ideologcal indoctrination. I often point out though that these organizations (FIRE, NAS, ACTA, Accuracy in Academia) and many of the individuals seem strangely mute on the topic of conservative christian schools and their regular and systematic curtailment of academic freedom and engagement in ideological indoctrination. Now, I don't know if these organizations will ignore this case as they have others since the institution is conservative and the prof is being "liberal" and that does not fit in with the usual narrative used to whip up outrage and raise funds, but I notice the absence of many of the regular conservative voices that weigh in when the situation is reversed.
    If you want liberals and moderates in academe to take seriously your charges of liberal bias endangering academic freedom and of political correctness run rampant, then please show a little consistency here!

  • Accreditation
  • Posted by Bill on August 18, 2007 at 2:10pm EDT
  • This is a matter for accrediting agencies. Such a place as CCU is simply not an institution of higher education if it behaves in such a way. Let these crackpot institutions be exposed for the asylums they are, and set apart from real universities. And let the academic world abandon its customary cowardice and speak the obvious truth about these institutions.

  • All about money
  • Posted by Jeff on August 18, 2007 at 2:10pm EDT
  • Based on a bit of experience, my viewpoint is that when a Christian institution like this one changes leadership and agenda, money is the issue--I suggest that, behind the scenes, the school perceives a need to develop financial support, and only Christians who agree with the 'new' agenda have the kind of money available to be asked for.

    Christian 'higher' institutions have always had to deal with a duality involving reliance on private donors who will base their giving primarily on their perception of the institution's philosophy regarding the issues addressed in this report versus the authentic Christian ethic that is clearly more socialistic than entrepreneurail. I find the new president's position to be disingenuous--he has to know that he is catering to a support base that craves patronization of "Western civilization" as a form of authentification. Why else would he dismiss a fine instructor?

  • For Clayton
  • Posted by John Marlin at The College of St. Elizabeth on August 18, 2007 at 2:10pm EDT
  • Clayton:

    You wrote, "Let me know when Harvard, Yale, or UC Berkeley faculty reach the 10% conservatives level."

    I understand your desire for balance here, and there's no arguing that the political left has a large purchase on most university faculties -- but I think in my scheme of things (which is probably too Utopian) I'd like to see academia transcend the rather stale "liberal-conservative" binary. I'd rather have colleagues who look beyond that than colleagues who pledge allegiance to one side or another. I think it's our only hope for real progress.

    That's why I rather like the position Paquin presents in the quote in the article and in his blog: it's a considered, nuanced position that wouldn't much please an ideologue of either stripe.

    Should we have an opening, I'd welcome him on our faculty.

  • Golly
  • Posted by rwsx on August 18, 2007 at 6:05pm EDT
  • Where is FIRE now?

  • Posted by Maurice Isserman at Hamilton College on August 18, 2007 at 7:35pm EDT
  • Where is David Horowitz now?

  • Posted by Assistant Professor on August 18, 2007 at 9:15pm EDT
  • "Now, I don’t know if these organizations will ignore this case as they have others since the institution is conservative (...) but I notice the absence of many of the regular conservative voices that weigh in when the situation is reversed."

    I'm typically one to cry foul when a voice is silenced; and I will go so far as to say that the firing is wrong-headed given what I know of it. This man was no Ward Churchill.

    I do, however, admit to a bias in my outrage. What prickles me especially is when certain ideas get shouted down and/or legally attacked by on-campus groups because of hyped up 'cultural sensitivity offenses'. If freedom of speech is to mean anything, then the freedom to offend another's religion and cultural norms should be protected.

  • Apples and Oranges
  • Posted by Al on August 19, 2007 at 5:45am EDT
  • While some commenters obviously resent the role that FIRE and others have played in exposing egregious cases of the suppression of free speech and other violations of individual rights in academia, the charge that they are hypocritical unless they publicly condemn CCU with the same vigor that they would condemn, say, a public university seems to be a very weak one. FIRE, for example, appears to focus upon cases where public or private institutions violate the law or breach their own policies, procedures, or other obligations to faculty, students, or staff. The actions of CCU may be very stupid and counter-productive, and I certainly would not want my kids to go to school there (or to a lot of other small religious-affiliated schools for that matter), but there is no evidence presented in the article that CCU violated any laws, any agreements that it had with Professor Paquin, or its own policies or procedures. Comparing the CCU case to a case involving a public university violating the constitutional rights of its faculty or a private university violating its own policies and procedures is simply comparing apples and oranges. By the same token, if some small, religious-affiliated school had as its mission the promotion of pacifism, liberation theology, or some other "leftist" ideology, I would argue that the school was well within its rights to take action to ensure that their faculty supports that mission, as long as they did not violate any constitutional, statutory, contractual, or other rights of their faculty.

    Additionally, in response to Ken's question about where conservatives are when a "liberal" has their speech suppressed or is the target of the thought police, I have twice volunteered to represent pro bono faculty members who felt threatened for exercising their free speech rights. BOTH cases involved "liberal" professors who had made statements that I profoundly disagreed with and both cases came to me from a "conservative" public interest organization that sought to assist them. It is my understanding that FIRE has similarly been very receptive to assisting faculty members from across the ideological spectrum.

    Similarly, if you have ANY examples of liberal speakers being physically assaulted or shouted down on college campuses, or of liberal campus publications being trashed by the campus Young Republicans, please let me know and I (and I imagine a lot of other "conservatives") will be more than happy to join you in both publicly condemning such behavior and calling for the offenders to be severely disciplined.

  • Posted by Michael Pugliese on August 19, 2007 at 4:10pm EDT
  • More on the support FIRE gave to the sds chapter at UCF.
    http://www.thefire.org/index.php/search/results/?cx=000961233129980584517%3Ailyoribxziu&cof=FORID%3A11&q=sds&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&sa=Search#1160
    http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/731.html
    FIRE - FIRE Condemns UCF’s Shrinking Speech Zones
    The UCF chapter of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) had appealed to FIRE for help last fall after an SDS protest was forced off campus for taking ...
    www.thefire.org/index.php/article/7673.html?PHPSESSID=

  • Posted by Ken on August 19, 2007 at 8:05pm EDT
  • Al
    First of all, let me say I appreciate your efforts to cross ideological boundaries and offer to defend speech rights on campus and your sentiment to do so in the future. I'm sure there are conservatives out there that feel that way, in fact I'm to the "right" of nearly all my colleagues on most issues (death penalty, affirmative action, immigration). My point is that there are many well funded, organized and vocal "right" groups that act in ways that make most sense if we assume that for them they care about something other than defending abstract free speech and fighting indoctrination on campus (i.e., fundraising or getting more conservatives jobs or spots, or ideally creating a right-wing leaning institution a la Foxnews).
    I appreciate your point, made by FIRE quite a bit, that they will only bring cases and action against schools that are public or violate their private charter (of course this is easy for them as private schools with restrictive policies and are open about them are nearly always conservative religious schools). Of course this does not exactly demonstrate a committment to free speech and against indoctrination, just a committment to consistency, right? It seems they dislike hypocrites at best while they are lukewarm about actual free speech on campus. Otherwise why not decry the actions of schools like BYU (recently fired someone for arguing for same sex marriage), Liberty (which makes faculty sign a pledge that they will never contradict young-earth theories) or the school in question here? After all, FIRE has never held that its mission is solely restricted to legal action but that it aims to "educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them."
    http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/4851.html?PHPSESSID=9adb7722d3cef94f11414a4ee1d54e6b
    So why the silence with these more conservative schools? If they, and you, think these actions are "very stupid and counter-productive" (your words) then why not some public approbation for these schools from folks like yourself and FIRE? After all, free speech is at stake here.
    In addition I wonder if you'd agree with me that Horowitz's organization and Accuracy in Academic do not have even the pretensions that FIRE does about defending speech across the board? Let's seperate the goats quickly here.

  • Posted by Ken on August 19, 2007 at 9:45pm EDT
  • Al-futher I imagine FIRE gives religious schools a pass because founder Kors speaks highly of their programs of intentional squelching of philosophical and ideological freedom and balance. He seems to feel that as long as we have many different institutions each indoctrinating its students in a different closed and administratively enforced dogma it will give us a wonderful pluralism in society overall, or as he puts it "American pluralism not only profits incalculably from vital centers of non-pluralistic education, but, indeed, ultimately depends upon them for its cultural vitality." {from an rticle in First Things {not exactly a bastion of intellectual balance itself}) That students from such "non-pluralistic" centers will have spent their intellectually formative years steeped in dogma and indoctrination only hearing how excellent their tradition is and poor all others are will then suddenly realize the value of other traditions when they get into "real world" is dubious enough (if Kors values differing theistic and intellectual traditions, then why ban them from any campus?), but that this defender of "non-pluralistic" education is seen as a valiant defender of academic balance and free speech speaks volume for his organization...

  • Laudable but Unrealistic
  • Posted by William Watson , Professor of History at Colorado Christian University on August 20, 2007 at 10:00am EDT
  • As a friend and colleague of Andrew Paquin's (my office was next to his) we have had a friendly exchange on economics since he joined the faculty two years ago. Both Andrew and President Armstrong are right in their assessments of capitalism. One may ask how can you reconcile these disparate views? Augustine, Luther and many other respected Christian theologians (even Christ) have spoken of two kingdoms, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man. God has called us to put his kingdom first, and Andrew does that, but capitalism works in the kingdom of man. It conforms to our fallen state. Christian idealists tend to ignore the pragmatic, the real world, our fallen state. The Holy Spirit allows Christians to transcend these shortcomings, but to expect the vast majority of humanity to trancend it is naive. Most are motivated by Adam Smith's 'self-interest'. To desire a world where everyone lives like Mother Teresa or Andrew Paquin is laudable but unrealistic.
    William Watson, Professor of Modern History, CCU