Search News


Browse Archives

News

Academic Freedom, Christian Context

March 2, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Academic freedom at religious institutions has always been a vexed and complex subject. Many religious colleges assert that they have academic freedom, while also requiring professors to sign statements of faith in which they subscribe to a certain worldview -- and there is not necessarily a public attempt to reconcile these principles.

One evangelical Christian college has tried to change the conversation – reframing limitations on inquiry implied by signing a statement of faith, for instance, as opportunities.

“Christian colleges and universities offer the freedom to pursue spiritual and religious truths,” explained Vicky R. Bowden, a professor of nursing who chaired the academic freedom task force at Azusa Pacific University, an "interdenominational" institution in California. “We feel that this is a freedom and it’s not usually associated with or enjoyed officially in secular academic institutions and we wanted our document to be able to articulate that.

“Why are we perceiving that it’s limiting when, indeed, who we are is freeing both faculty and the university as a whole to pursue knowledge in light of who we are, in the Christ-centered perspective?” asked Bowden, who also directs Azusa Pacific’s Honors Program.

Azusa Pacific’s Board of Trustees approved a new statement on academic freedom in January, Bowden said, after a multi-year process to review and then revise the institution’s policy in light of its Christian mission. The Faculty Senate had already approved the new policy in late 2007, Bowden said (the senate's moderator did not respond to e-mail and phone messages Friday.)

Both statements, as well as some background information on "the path to a new policy" can be found here.

The old statement at Azusa Pacific was much more bare-bones, citing higher education's seminal "1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure," as well as that statement's “limitations clause." The clause allows for limitations on academic freedom “because of religious or other aims of the institution,” so long as they are clearly disclosed, in writing, upon hiring.

The revised statement is much more explicit about what those limitations are, although it doesn’t frame them as such, but instead as unique opportunities (in the revision, the word “limitations” does not appear, as it does in the first). The new statement reads, in part: "Azusa Pacific University seeks to maintain an academic community in which faculty are free to engage in rigorous scholarly inquiry and expression within an intellectual context shaped by the evangelical Christian tradition. In addition to this freedom, Azusa Pacific University seeks to pursue scholarly inquiry and expression in a way that extends and enriches the academic disciplines out of the unique resources provided by our institution’s identity.

“Thus, at Azusa Pacific University, academic freedom is defined both by the commonly accepted standards of the academy and by those commitments articulated in the documents that are central to the university’s identity as a Christian university. These documents articulate the central commitments which shape the academic community, and thus the practice of academic freedom, at Azusa Pacific University: a belief in God as the creator of all things, in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, in the Holy Spirit as teacher and guide, in Scripture as God’s authoritative and infallible revelation, and in the Christian community as an expression and vehicle of God’s redemptive work in this world.”

The statement then lists a number of principles that draw heavily from the 1940 statement, issued jointly by the American Association of University Professors and what's now the Association of American Colleges and Universities.

As for what would happen if a scholar’s inquiry led him or her to convert to a non-Christian religion, Bowden said academic freedom matters become moot. “Because they couldn’t sign the statement of faith and we have to sign a statement of faith when we sign the contract every year.

“Our document begins with this is who we are, and because this is who we are and you’ve agreed to be here because this is who we are – remember everyone at AZU has chosen to be here because of who we are – then these are your freedoms within the identity of the institution,” Bowden said.

Gregory F. Scholtz, associate secretary and director of the AAUP's Department of Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Governance, said that while the organization does “grudgingly accept” clearly delineated limitations on academic freedom imposed by religious institutions, “That is not something that we recommend or endorse, that is putting limits on academic freedom for religious purposes.

“In short, as long as there’s full disclosure, as long as everyone knows what the rules are from the beginning, we’re not typically going to object. The real question with academic freedom though is, if you’re going to place limitations on it, how far can you go in placing limitations on it before you end up in a place where you no longer have much academic freedom to speak of?”

While Azusa Pacific's revised policy on academic freedom drops the language of limitations, "If you look at the revision," Scholtz said, "there are a couple of things that indicate that they are invoking this limitations clause." The most obvious is the articulation of the five central commitments of the university (stated above).

Scholtz, who previously taught at Wartburg College, a Lutheran institution in Iowa, said he's familiar with the argument that religious colleges offer unique freedoms to explore religious truths. “There’s some truth to it, in a way, but I’m not sure it has anything to do with academic freedom per se. It has to do with who’s the majority, who’s the minority.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Academic Freedom, Christian Context

  • Posted by Adjunct George on March 2, 2009 at 10:00am EST
  • Good for Azuza Pacific. They are defending their faith and giving their faculty the ability to question.

  • Freedom? Not really
  • Posted by Leaving the Tenure Track on March 2, 2009 at 10:15am EST
  • It sounds as if Azusa Pacific is acting within the boundaries of the law and the AAUP guidelines; the implication of the article is that all faculty are renewed year to year and must sign a statement of faith each year, and therefore know the limitations that they have to work under and can leave if that does not suit them.

    Nevertheless this is NOT academic freedom, which allows faculty to explore in any direction, not merely those directions that conform to a specific religious tradition. Personally I do not think that any institution of higher education which sets such restrictions should be considered a true college or university or accredited as such. It does students a disservice to think that they are receiving a real education from such a place.

  • "Freedom"
  • Posted by Dr. Gary Fitsimmons on March 2, 2009 at 10:45am EST
  • Secular institutions claim academic freedom, but just try to express Christian truths there, and you find out how little freedom is really there. I now work at a Christian institution and find it extremely liberating to be able to express my faith openly without being subject to the limitations of someone else's politcal correctness. This IS freedom. Those who argue otherwise are so bound by their own ideas of what is correct that they simply do not know what freedom is. It is only by exercising freedom within a specific context that freedom means anything.

  • Yes....Yes...Gary......
  • Posted by Utahprof on March 2, 2009 at 11:30am EST
  • We all know how horribly the majority faith in this country is-believers meet in caves underground-of course you find your current posting liberating-everyone agrees with you and no one questions your faith. Don't you realize that being a teacher means being a learner and having your own faith questioned?

  • Oh please...
  • Posted by Catonian on March 2, 2009 at 11:45am EST
  • Dr. Fitzsimmons, you are full of it. Talking about Christianity or religion and faith occurs quite frequently on "secular" campuses. I can't think of a campus that does not have a Campus Crusade for Christ chapter (with a staff/faculty advisor) or the like, active there. I can't think of one that does not have classes that teach Milton, Dante, Tolstoy, etc., and in doing so necessarily cover issues of religion and faith, or that do not have a religious studies department that covers these topics all the time. I never met a professor who told a student to shut up if they mentioned religion, or their faith.

    What does occur at "secular" institutions is that these messages do not get special sanction, promotion or push from the institution, and other often non or anti-religious thinkers and messages are just as welcome. What many religious folks seem to think is that they cannot maintain their religion or religious nature if they are exposed to scary and harfmul criticisms or wild eyed athiests on the faculty. A place that forces a faculty member or student to sign a statement of faith simply does not have academic freedom. The person is forced to declare a belief in a controversial position or leave the school. Some freedom that.

    Why not just say "we are not terrified of hearing viewpoints that do not conform with our positions, we do not need our hands held or our student's minds to be protected from differing views, we will acknowledge our religious tradition, we will foster it in ways that do not stifle academic freedom (by holding religious services and activities of the particular tradition, by inviting speakers from that tradition, from courting students and faculty from that tradition, etc.) and keep our faith in a brave and not cowardly fashion by not censoring any community member whose honest intellectual inquiry has led them to a different position." Then you would have academic freedom. It strikes me that what some of these folks want is the "freedom" to not be around or hear from folks that differ with their views. And that's not only sad, it's miles away from any sane concept of academic freedom...

  • Who's Kidding Whom Here?
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on March 2, 2009 at 12:00pm EST
  • Not that I am inclined to worry about so-called “academic freedom” at so-called “Christian” colleges, but the requirement that their faculty sign statements of faith renders those promises of “academic freedom” laughable.

     

    There is a reason the vast majority of colleges and universities no longer have government loyalty oaths ... and, yes, the comparison is completely appropriate. Requiring faculty to sign a list of “intellectually” limiting pledges as a condition of employment automatically precludes the possibility of “academic freedom.” I encourage you to imagine what will take precedence at any of these “Christian” colleges when a case involving the academic freedom of a faculty member taking issue with one of the statements of faith occurs.

     

    I have read the Azusa Pacific Statement of Faith (and the Daily Living Expectations), and I’m guessing that if I argued that analysis of the Book of Revelations and other historical records fix the year of the Apocalypse at 2012, my analysis or philosophizing – call it what you may – (1) is not inconsistent with their Statement of Faith and would be protected under APU’s principles of academic freedom.

     

    http://www.apu.edu/about/faith/

     

    But I’m also guessing that stating in my AZU Spiritual Formation and Decision-making course that my beloved best friend, who is a thoughtful non-believer and who lives a good life will not suffer throughout eternity in the putrid Lake of Fire will not stand the test of academic freedom. I’ll be asked to recant ... or, absent of that, I’ll be canned.

     

    And if I were overheard, while having lunch with students and colleagues at the Cougar Walk Café, stating that it’s difficult for me to accept or see the importance of the Holy Spirit inseminating the Virgin Mary, thus assuring the birth of the sinless Jesus Christ ... well let’s face it, I might as well walk right back to my house and start packing ... academic freedom or not.

     

    In the scheme if things, I don’t really care. I’m happy for these schools to discriminate to their heart’s content ... just as long as (1) they do it up front so no one is fooled and (2) they don’t make any pretences about applying the principles of academic freedom.

     

    P.S. AZU has posted a full-time position vacancy in Mathematics. In its post there are two requirements for the position; to wit ...

     

    1. All candidates must have a religious commitment compatible with the mission of this evangelical Christian university.

     

    2. Candidates should possess a Ph.D. in Mathematics or in Mathematics Education.

     

    Their Nondiscrimination Clause is ...

     

    “Azusa Pacific University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, age, disability, or status as a veteran in any of its policies, practices, or procedures. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply.”

     

    Hmmm ... what important area of discrimination seems to be missing there?

     

     

  • Truth v. Skepticism
  • Posted by Dr. Rob on March 2, 2009 at 12:00pm EST
  • First, Dr. Fitsimmons has hit the nail on the head. The hypocrisy of those who claim to hold to the idea of academic freedom as an absolute privilege is simply brazen. Sadly, this attitude is often not limited to matters of religion. There is an obvious double-standard between those holding a more secular worldview and those who holding a worldview that is based in some kind of religious faith. Put another way, what you have here are two conflicting views of academic freedom. One, I will call the skeptic's perspective, in general rejects the idea that there are knowable absolute truths. These claim to hold the view that academic freedom is an almost absolute right. However, as Dr. Fitsimmons points out, their theoretical rhetoric does not always reflect practice. The second perspective, I will call faith-based, accepts unashamedly that there are certain knowable absolute truths like those identified in the Asuza document. Academic freedom grants each individual the intellectual liberty to accept one or the other (or somewhere in the middle) of either perspective.

    So, here is the deal. If you hold to the first perspective, don't take a position in a faith-based position of higher learning. If you hold to the second, you'll probably be happier in a faith-based institution, though you might find the challenges of working in a secular institution (if you can get such a position) intellectually stimulating. Both kinds of institutions offer unique, legitimate, accreditable, quality educations. And, as it relates to the issue at hand, both institutions provide for some form of academic freedom. Therefore, it is up to each individual to decide where they can best do their research and teaching.

  • Question Us Please?
  • Posted by Dr. Rob on March 2, 2009 at 12:30pm EST
  • To Utahprof:

    I hope Gary will respond to you. But I had to respond. The sarcastic tone of intolerance in your comment is the thing that frustrates those of us in academe who a faith-based worldview. We have no problem with anyone who wants to question our faith; we are happy to talk with and respond to their questions. In fact, we are instructed to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you." So we are not afraid to have our faith question. What is interesting, however, is the unwillingness of those holding a secularist perspective to have their faith questioned (i.e. Guillermo Gonzalez and Iowa St. Univ.).

  • Academic freedom and pursuing the truth wherever it leads
  • Posted by rfrank on March 2, 2009 at 1:15pm EST
  • Reality is, public, secular universities are more in need of taking an equivalent step -- endorsing an official statement providing "academic freedom," including the "opportunity" to pursue scientific, spiritual and religious truths.

    I work at a state university and if you tried even proposing that here, or on most any secular campus, Lord help you, you better take cover. "Open-minded" academians would assault you on every front.

    Academic research no longer endorses or embraces the concept of "go where the evidence leads." Instead it's a case of searching out evidence that will support your own beliefs -- especially when it comes to the topic of evolution.

    Scientific evidence over the past 20-40 has been stacking up in enormous quantities providing proof that Darwin's "theory" is virtually laughable -- with evidence in nearly every realm from astrophysics, to anthropology, to microscopic biology. But academia continues to promulgate the known falsehoods of evolutionary teaching.

    Just last month I talked with a student whose teacher told the class that if they expressed a view supporting creationism or intelligent design, he would fail them, period. Now that's academic freedom and open mindedness.

    May the secular universities awaken and return to an era of searching for the truth and going where the evidence leads ... even if it points to "spiritual and religious truths." Take a look at the "founding" statements and philosophies upon which Harvard, Princeton and many universities were built and "used to" adhere.

  • Academic Freedom vs. Free Speech
  • Posted by Dan Kline , Assoc Prof of English on March 2, 2009 at 7:45pm EST
  • Two comments. First, the big difference here is that a secular job-seeker, or an applicant who will not sign a statement of faith, is categorically excluded from taking a job at institutions like Asuza--something I have personally experienced even though I am a person of faith. Persons of faith are not institutionally prevented from taking a job at public institutions. A major difference, no? Second, it's important not to confuse academic freedom as well as freedom of speech with the erroneous idea that one can speak freely without personal consequence. Christians (or any religious person or any faculty member in fact) can and should speek freely about their faith (or lack of faith), but they should not believe that they can and should do so without criticism or response from others. That is as it should be. The problem occurs shen an institution intervenes to stop or restrict that free and often conflictual dialogue. Express your faith but don't expect that other individuals shouldn't respond in whatever way they choose. The simple fact is that I couldn't take a job at Biola or Cal Baptist because I would not sign their statements of faith, and so I didn't even get the chance to engage in that dialogue.

  • Apples and Oranges
  • Posted by James on March 3, 2009 at 5:15am EST
  • The issue here is one pitting state-funded colleges/universities....along with secular private institutions....versus consciously Christian or other religiously-based institutions of higher education. Up to the present time, accreditation of all of these schools has not hinged upon whether or not any one of them is "free" or "open" in the sense of allowing any and all academic or philosophical or theological perspectives to be promoted by faculty. Even in secular institutions (such as U. of Colorado), witness the Ward Churchill controversy and how his views on 9/11 were deemed beyond te pale. Even secular institutions draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable academic views. Religiously-base institutions by definition are in existence because they are committed to a mission that explicitly supports and promotes a religious worldview. To expect them to accept teaching from faculty that completely contradicts this mission would be absurd. And even though one previous writer says that religiously-based institutions should not receive accreditation, so far, the USA has not openly discriminated in favor of purely secularist institutions when it comes to gaining accreditation. So this argument here is a classic case of "apples and oranges."

  • And so
  • Posted by SWNID , VPAA at Cincinnati Christian University on March 3, 2009 at 1:45pm EST
  • Comments on this article have shaped up as anyone would expect. There's not much that's new about a faith-based institution trying to define the boundaries of its faith tradition, or of people outside of that faith tradition criticizing them for it.

    What still surprises me, though, is the harshness of the disdain. Yes, there's a difference in the way that religious institutions define academic freedom. Yes, that definition constrains faculty members from certain areas of inquiry. But since those constraints are announced publicly and entered into freely, why should anyone outside those institutions care that they exist?

    I have to ask what is the practical difference in the outcomes between the de jure constraints of a faith-based institution and the de facto constraints on faith-related inquiry in the academic mainstream. Religious institutions generally reflect the research interests of people of faith. Mainstream institutions generally don't. In the former, the focus of interest is explicit. In the latter, there are no explicit constraints, just the normal social pressures to conform that tend to squelch perspectives to which members of that social group are hostile. Neither works absolutely, but only one is covert.

    Perhaps that's why the hostility toward faith-based higher education is often so bitter. The mainstream doesn't have creeds, so for those who seek conformity, there remains only social pressure.

  • Intellectual Honesty
  • Posted by A Prof on March 5, 2009 at 11:30am EST
  • At a Christian college here is something else at stake in addition to academic freedom.  Someone who no longer supports the mission of a Christian college should have the intellectual honest to leave.  If a Democratic senator suddenly supports Republican ideals, the party has every right to expect that person to change parties.  This doesn't restrict one's freedom to believe what they want.  It just means that one shouldn't undermine the ideals of an organization.

  • Response To rfrank And SWNID
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on March 5, 2009 at 1:00pm EST
  • I keep telling myself - and God knows my friends keep telling me - to quit responding to remarks like rfrank’s, even if the remarks are made in blogs frequented by educated individuals. rfrank wrote ...

    “Scientific evidence over the past 20-40 [years?] has been stacking up in enormous quantities providing proof that Darwin's "theory" is virtually laughable - with evidence in nearly every realm from astrophysics, to anthropology, to microscopic biology. But academia continues to promulgate the known falsehoods of evolutionary teaching.”

    If it is rfrank’s argument that Darwin’s theory is generally true, but there are yet-to-be-known details to be worked out as we learn more, then I have no argument with him. But I get the impression from “enormous quantities [of evidence]” and “Darwin's ‘theory’ is virtually laughable” and “known falsehoods of evolutionary teaching” that he thinks the theory is basically incorrect.

    I will resist the temptation of calling someone who could write rfrank’s paragraph, and do so with a straight face, a complete idiot; but I do congratulate InsideHigherEd for practicing academic freedom ... in this case allowing someone who disagrees with 99,85% of earth and life scientists to have his fifteen minutes of fame.

    Obviously, there is nothing I could say to inspire rfrank to challenge his perspective, so forgive me while I provide you with nothing more than the descriptions of the articles in the January 2009 issue of Scientific American, to wit ...

    “Darwin’s Living Legacy” (Gary Stix)
    This Victorian scientist constructed his revolutionary theory of evolution through natural selection over a lifetime of meticulous observation and thought. As perhaps the most powerful idea in science, it still drives the contemporary research agenda.

    “Testing Natural Selection” (H. Allen Orr)
    Biologists working with the most sophisticated genetic tools are demonstrating that natural selection plays a far greater role in shaping DNA than even most evolutionists had thought.

    “From Atoms to Traits” (David M. Kingsley)
    Random variations in organisms provide fodder for evolution. Modern scientists are revealing how that diversity arises and how even simple DNA changes can add up to complex creatures and cultures.

    “The Human Pedigree” (Kate Wong)
    Some 180 years after unearthing the first human fossil, paleontologists have amassed a formidable record of our forebears.

    “This Old Body” (Neil H. Shubin)
    Evolutionary hand-me-downs inherited from fish and tadpoles have left humans with a curious propensity for hernias, hiccups, and other maladies.

    “What Will Become of Homo Sapiens?” (Peter Ward)
    Our bodies and brains are not the same as our ancestors’ were – or as our descendants’ will be.

    “Four Fallacies of Pop Evolutionary Psychology” (David J. Buller)
    Some grand claims about how the human mind evolved may lack solid evidence.

    “Evolution in the Everyday World” (David P. Mindell)
    Understanding of evolution has fostered potent technologies for health care, law enforcement, ecology, and all manner of problems.

    “The Science of Spore” (Ed Regis)
    Building simulated creatures in a game is a far cry from real-life natural selection.

    “The Latest Face of Creationism” (Glenn Branch & Eugenie C. Scott)
    Creationists who want religious ideas taught as scientific fact in public schools continue to hide their true aims under ever changing guises.

    Of course, rfrank, these authors are simply amongst the 99.85% of earth and life scientists who attest to the accuracy of a Darwinian theory of human development ... and Scientific American has conveniently left out your pals, the other 0.15% who dispute Darwin’s theory when they chose authors for their special edition.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_proof.htm

    No to worry, however, we Americans refuse to be cowed by either the evidence or the overwhelming authority of our scientists. Only 39% of us believe in the validity of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Take that you scientific know-it-alls!

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx

    And SWNID, while I think you summarized things pretty well, I read the comments to this article twice and was unable to find “the harshness of the disdain [for ‘Christian’ education]” or “the hostility toward faith-based higher education [that] is often so bitter” in any of the responses above.

    I am reminded of RWH’s post, “Words From An Expert” in

    http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/11/28/wilson

    There s/he essentially argued that a social scientist should never marry a mathematician (and I agree). Statements that a mathematician may interpret as interesting in the abstract - ones requiring responses in kind - are very often taken as personal attacks by social scientists ... whose feelings are hurt.

    So, SWNID, as a mathematician to a theologian, lighten up. This is not a pastoral counseling session ... this is a bunch of academics, imbued by their academic freedom and letting their prejudices fly. And what’s wrong with that?

  • In Response To “A Prof”
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on March 5, 2009 at 3:45pm EST
  • While I came dangerously close to calling rfrank a complete idiot, I would never do the same to you. Let’s see, you wrote ...

    “If a Democratic senator suddenly supports Republican ideals, the party has every right to expect that person to change parties. This doesn't restrict one's freedom to believe what they want. It just means that one shouldn't undermine the ideals of an organization.”

    Now if you’re talking about members of political parties - and Joseph Lieberman excepted - then I have no problem with your perspective. But if you’re referring to colleges and universities, then you’re flat out full of it. Allow me to address several of your points.

    First, the title of your post should not be “Intellectual Honesty;” it should be “Academic Honesty.” Your post addresses nothing at all of an intellectual nature ... and, in my opinion, it’s not very honest either. It is simply another of those ubiquitous, tired arguments that universities are businesses and faculty are employees ... and, therefore, must toe the company line (as that line is specified in the organization’s mission statement ... not that every mission statement ever written is not subject to interpretation). As Tennessee Ernie Ford lamented, “I owe my soul to the company store.”

    Second, when you refer to the “ideals of the organization,” I am inclined to tell you I am something of a radical when it comes to the question, “What is a college or university?” I think of such “organizations” as nothing more nor less than communities of scholars - the students, faculty, and research scholars - and, quite frankly, everyone else is on campus - and that includes administration - for no other purpose than to serve the scholars. Indeed I have great affection for Robert Greenleaf’s notion of servant leadership (managers and administrators) ...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_leadership

    Third, I agree that there is something special about Christian colleges, their missions, their statements of faith, and their hopeless quest for academic freedom. As I said before, I am not inclined to be bent out of shape by their dilemma. I do, however, have a solution to the problem. Let’s take Azusa Pacific University and Swarthmore College and focus our attention on academic freedom. Obviously APU can never achieve academic freedom as it is defined and practiced at Swarthmore. No big deal ... why don’t we define a new entity. There are colleges (a class to which Swarthmore belongs), but there are also christiancolleges (a new class to which APU belongs). Then when we refer to “academic freedom” everyone will know our domain of definition is the class to which Swarthmore belongs, but when we refer to “academic restraint” everyone will know we’re referring to something that’s sort of like academic freedom, but it applies to schools that belong to the class of christiancolleges; i.e., those that require faculty and/or students to sign statements of faith or otherwise restrict what the christianscholars may think or say.

    Now everyone can go about hir business with no false pretences, no confusion of vocabulary, and, as you apparently want A Prof, without undermining the ideals of the organization.

  • Question of Ownership
  • Posted by steve conn , Student Activities at Huntington university on March 6, 2009 at 3:15pm EST
  • I'm sorry but if I'm not mistaken "academic freedom" as a liberty belongs to the institution, not to the individual. The University by default has control unless it chooses to sign it away by contract.

    If you are going to provide a paycheck for faculty to educate students on your behalf I don't think it's out of line to require them to stick to the truth.

  • Serving the Scholars
  • Posted by RJS , Former Dean at Bethel University on March 25, 2009 at 6:15am EDT
  • I always enjoy Fitzbane Manley's writing, although I almost always disagree with him in some measure. His comment:

    Second, when you refer to the “ideals of the organization,” I am inclined to tell you I am something of a radical when it comes to the question, “What is a college or university?” I think of such “organizations” as nothing more nor less than communities of scholars - the students, faculty, and research scholars - and, quite frankly, everyone else is on campus - and that includes administration - for no other purpose than to serve the scholars. Indeed I have great affection for Robert Greenleaf’s notion of servant leadership (managers and administrators) ...

    There's certainly a degree of truth in this description. But isn't it also true that the organization exists to serve a larger, external constituency--in fact, maybe more than one? If we start with the medieval university, it serves the Church; denominational colleges, or even interdenominational colleges, do the same today; public institutions serve the public good, which is why they are accountable to the legislatures of our states. In fact, all of our institutions, to the extent we take federal or state money, undertake to serve the common good, so let's acknowledge that, too. So let me rephrase the ending of Fitzbane's paragraph, perhaps:

    "everyone else is on campus--and that includes administration--for no other purpose than to serve the scholars. But the scholars are on campus--students, faculty, and research scholars--to serve someone else, a larger public or audience than themselves. They are not just there to serve "Truth" in some disembodied sense, or "Physics" or "the American Psychological Association" in more limited senses, or even "my own career." And just as administration and staff are not there to serve themselves, but those who are engaged in the process of learning, so those who are learners are there to serve the vision of those who founded the institution, for whom Boards of Trustees hold that vision "in trust." This may mean consonance with a religious vision, as in a church-related institution; this may mean enactment of a vision of public service, such as schools of government or law; this may mean application of a vision of human betterment through applications of technology, as in a school of engineering."

    I wonder if issues of "academic freedom" more often than not arise because someone joins an institution with a mistaken sense of the institution's vision of whom it is serving, and how that service is to be realized. At my institution, for instance, we are explicit about what we expect faculty to adhere to--and it's actually pretty inclusive within the Christian tradition. The number of applications we get from faculty who seem not to have any sense that this matters to us is astonishing. And I wonder if the disdain that so frequently appears in the responses above emerges because of that confusion. Those in public institutions and private, religious ones may not have the same sense of whom they are serving, and for what reason.

  • How different is it from other faculty job commitments?
  • Posted by Dr. Brenda S. Cole , Director, Research & Analytical Services at South Texas College on April 6, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • I was just wondering how comparable requiring a commitment to Christian faith (in support of institutional mission) would be to a requirement such as is found on our faculty and staff job descriptions at a community college: Listed under Job Qualifications "6. Commitment to the College philosophy of education" (in support of our institutional mission). Someone else asked about - what happens if someone converts to a non-Christian religion - do they get fired? What would we do if someone discontinued their commitment to the College philosophy of education? Do they get fired? Is this really about religion and academic freedom or is it about the right to have and maintain an institutional philosophy?