Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

No Christianity Please, We’re Academics

July 30, 2010

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

I had lunch this summer with a prospective graduate student at the evangelical college where I teach. I will call him John because that happens to be his name. John has done well academically at a public university. Nevertheless, as often happens, he said that he was looking forward to coming to a Christian university, and then launched into a story of religious discrimination.

John had been a straight-A student until he enrolled in English writing. The assignment was an “opinion” piece and the required theme was “traditional marriage.” John is a Southern Baptist and he felt it was his duty to give his honest opinion and explain how it was grounded in his faith. The professor was annoyed that John claimed the support of the Bible for his views, scribbling in the margin, “Which Bible would that be?” On the very same page, John’s phrase, “Christians who read the Bible,” provoked the same retort, “Would that be the Aramaic Bible, the Greek Bible, or the Hebrew Bible?” (What could the point of this be? Did the professor want John to imagine that while the Greek text might support his view of traditional marriage, the Aramaic version did not?) The paper was rejected as a “sermon,” and given an F, with the words, “I reject your dogmatism,” written at the bottom by way of explanation.

Thereafter, John could never get better than a C for papers without any marked errors or corrections. When he asked for a reason why yet another grade was so poor he was told that it was inappropriate to quote C. S. Lewis in work for an English class because he was “a pastor.” (Lewis, of course, was actually an English professor at Cambridge University. Perhaps it was wrong to quote Lewis simply because he had said something recognizably Christian.) Eventually John complained to the department chair, who said curtly that he could do nothing until the course was over. John took this to mean that the chair would do nothing and just accepted the bad grade.

I suspect that many readers are already generating “maybe .... ” scenarios that fill out this story so that John was actually treated fairly. Blaming the victim is a familiar response to reports of discrimination. Maybe John is just one of those uppity believers who don’t know their place.

Maybe. Maybe John got an F purely as an academic judgment. I’ve seen the marked paper (and my own view is that it is academically weak, but certainly not deserving of an F), and I’m not in a position to hear the professor or the chair’s explanation of the broader context. But the wider point is that those of us in Christian higher education often hear such accounts. We also experience similar incidents ourselves. Here, for instance, is a story of my own:

"Rethinking the Western Tradition" is a Yale University Press series that reprints influential texts along with original essays. It has an editorial committee of eminent academics. I submitted a proposal for a volume on The Idea of a Christian Society by T. S. Eliot (you remember Eliot — for much of the 20th century he was a prominent pastor). Perhaps the committee members did not realize their comments would be passed on, making them unusually frank. They agreed that my proposal was well-crafted, drawing on well-chosen experts to write the essays, including an outspoken atheist. Nevertheless, most did not want this volume in the series and the reasons for rejecting it which they gave were often explicitly anti-Christian.

One of the few who said they would begrudgingly allow it to go forward justified their decision by conceding, “It is worth considering why ideas we find not just impossible to believe but even impossible to believe that others believe — such as the ideology of the Taliban or Saudis — have such appeal.” (That urbane Modernist poet, Eliot, the voice of the Taliban?) One of the "nos" wrote a four-page anti-Christian rant. Here is just a bit of it: "In order to believe in that I fear, you have to believe in something like the ‘Holy Catholic Church’ (which we who were brought up as Anglicans were taught as children to say we believed in as we recited the Nicene Creed – not understanding even half of what we were professing so fervently to believe.) ... But who – other than someone willing to swallow all the offensive nonsense in the same creeds (the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, the trinity, complete with the filioque) – can believe in that? Surely no one who pays any heed to the historical evidence.” (The filioque? As if the double procession of the Holy Spirit was conclusive proof that Christians always take things too far.) Another was unsympathetic to the proposal, but candidly admitted that “this is doubtless prejudice to some extent.”

A persecution complex is not a healthy thing. A mantra among Christian academics is that if your work is rejected, assume it was because it is not good enough. Like others experiencing discrimination, we expect that we might need to do significantly better than the competition to have a chance and think that we should primarily just get on with trying to do exactly that. We are apt to apply to ourselves the Canadian politician Charlotte Whitton’s observation about gender discrimination: "Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult."

So, although we hear these stories frequently, Christian academics are the first ones to respond to them with suspicion. Maybe John got a bad grade because his work was not very good. Maybe my proposal was written in an irritating tone that baited some members of the committee to respond that way.

Nevertheless, scholars ought to be concerned that Christians often report that the academy is a hostile environment. Are academics generally glad that such a perception exists? If not, how might it be dispelled? If it is based on genuine experiences, what can be done about a climate that tolerates religious discrimination? If the two stories presented here are merely assailable, anecdotal evidence, then why not gather information on this issue more systematically? Do academic institutions ever try to discover if their Christian students or scholars experience discrimination?

I am hereby calling for such an effort. This could be done through surveys, or focus group discussions, or even just by inviting people to tell their experiences and following up on them, seeing if certain patterns emerge. If these are not the best methods, just think of what you would do in response to reports that a university or academic society was marked by institutional racism or sexism and then apply those same strategies of listening, investigation, and response. Like John with the department chair, however, I too am tempted to be defeatist about the academy being willing even to investigate the possibility of discrimination against Christians, let alone attempt to eradicate it.

Timothy Larsen is McManis Professor of Christian Thought, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois. His most recent monograph, A People of One Book: The Bible and the Victorians, is forthcoming in January from Oxford University Press. The author provided Inside Higher Ed with the comments Yale University received about his book. The press declined to discuss the matter.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on No Christianity Please, We’re Academics

  • anti-Christian discrimination
  • Posted by Steven Pierce , Lecturer, History at University of Manchester on July 30, 2010 at 6:45am EDT
  • One would be much more impressed by arguments along these lines if they didn't consistently come from one brand of Christian. For some reason, liberal Christians never seem to talk about the discrimination they face, even when they incorporate aspects of their religious beliefs into their scholarly work. Just as anti-abortion fanatics seem to equate uncompromising pro-choice rhetoric with the bombers and gun men who kill abortion providers, right-wing Christians equate disagreement with discrimination. Doubtless there is some discrimination against (some) Christian viewpoints. But I think this is a case of motes vs. beams in the eye.

  • As you sow, so shall you reap.
  • Posted by Brian Mulligan on July 30, 2010 at 6:45am EDT
  • As a scientist, I am led to believe that the humanities are full of this type of prejudice in peer review. As Sokal identified, the post-modernists seem to be the most culpable. I have heard stories (albeit third-hand) of students who felt that they could not disagree with their post-modern professors. However, I can't say I have a lot of sympathy for those who disregard evidence and reason when they suffer from the prejudices of others of a similar inclination.

  • Thanks!
  • Posted by RJS , Administrator on July 30, 2010 at 6:45am EDT
  • I appreciate this piece; I think it's accurate, and I concur with the call for broader discussion.

    Two perspectives: when applying for a significant grant to assess student learning several years ago, a consortium of seven evangelical colleges had developed a solid proposal. They received a one-year planning grant, strengthened the initial proposal,and saw it rejected. The foundation awarded the grant to a consortium of three secular liberal arts colleges for a proposal that in its fundamental design neither addressed the topic of the RFP nor on its face could yield meaningful results for the topic at hand. Sure enough, two years and $292,000 later, the three schools admitted that this was the case. Although this foundation has funded Lutheran and Roman Catholic schools as well as secular liberal arts colleges, not one evangelical college has been funded in the last five years. This is amusing in that some of the ongoing research from the planning grant has been presented at regional conferences on accreditation and national conferences on assessment--evidently the work was good enough to get national-level attention, but not enough to be funded.

    Second: C. Stephen Evans, philosophy professor at Calvin and Baylor, has commented that the Christian academic has a dual role, as "interpreter of the faith" to the academy and as "interpreter of the academy" to the Church. In "The Role of the Christian Scholar-Teacher," he writes:

    "The educated Christian is a kind of double missionary. On one hand the educated Christian is a representative of Christ’s church in the spheres of life where intellectual issues are important, arenas that are culturally influential but where a Christian voice is often decidedly lacking. On the other hand, the Christian scholar is also a missionary for the life of the mind within the church…."

    Missionaries are frequently not well liked, often not tolerated, and occasionally martyred. They speak at the intersection of cultures, neither of which sometimes can admit to the relevance of the other or the justice of the other's perceptions. Both sides regard the "Interpreter" as wasting her time. The danger of taking these rejections too seriously from either side is that one cannot continue with any equanimity in the work to which one is called.

    Having said that, I concur with Dr. Larsen. Discrimination against Christians is one of the last socially acceptable failings among academics.

  • Yes, well
  • Posted by David Kaufmann , Associate Professor, English at GMU on July 30, 2010 at 7:00am EDT
  • It is probably hard for a good number of academics to feel that Christians are discriminated against, given the sheer numbers and political heft of Evangelicals and Born Agains. It no doubt also rubs a number of people of faith the wrong way that so many low-church Protestants have arrogated the term "Christian" to themselves. (I once had a Baptist student maintain stoutly that Catholics were not Christian, much to the confusion and anger of the Catholic members of the class.)

    But the biggest problem might lie with the very nature of faith (belief in things not seen and unprovable) and the very nature of Evangelical faith (inerrancy of the Gospel). Secular universities are by their very constitution allergic to this kind of dogmatism, no matter how dogmatic in their own way individual professors may be. Witnessing faith is one thing. Telling other people that they're sinners and telling them that their life choices are evil--a frequent gambit of our more conservative Christian students-- is another. (I myself--a person of some faith--have been told this several times. My sin? I remain Jewish.)

    By the same token, the professor who failed the student failed to do his job, which was to help thatstudent write a persuasive argument about faith and from faith, but that did not merely use an inerrant Gospel as its proof. To say that it is so because the Bible says it will convince no one who is not already convinced and is the basis of a very bad essay indeed. Pity that the professor didn't know Lewis. Not my favorite, to be sure, but a good apologist nonetheless.

  • Wow, persecution everywhere, eh?
  • Posted by Aware and Scared on July 30, 2010 at 7:45am EDT
  • "Having said that, I concur with Dr. Larsen. Discrimination against Christians is one of the last socially acceptable failings among academics."

    RJS, thanks for wrapping up your comments by so succinctly proving Steven Pierce's point -- it's always the Christians getting the short end of the stick, eh?

    Funny, but didn't Larsen report that the student in question was transferring to an evangelical Christian program? How nice that he will be able to bathe himself in the dogma which the student (and apparently Larsen) believes should impact EVERY one's life. I'd be interested in hearing Larsen's defense of madrassas or any other NON-Christian non-theological school. If you want to immerse yourself in religious ideology, don't we have seminaries and schools of theology to accommodate you?

    But that's not enough for the poor put-upon evangelical Christians.

    Instead they want free reign in secular schools to undermine peer-reviewed scholarship and insert their -- often personal -- interpretation of one book, an oral history put to paper centuries after the events it purports to chronicle supposedly occurred. I seem to remember in my collegiate education being encouraged to incorporate verifiable empirical evidence into analysis, not base it upon my own interpretation of a singular source.

    Perhaps the Yale University Press decision is an unfortunate example of reverse dogma. But, frankly, I'd love to see how a non-adherent is treated in one of the "Christian" schools, the ones which demand acceptance of a "statement of faith." Oh? They shouldn't be there because they wouldn't be welcome?

  • Dogmatism?
  • Posted by Anonymous on July 30, 2010 at 8:00am EDT
  • The comments thus far seem to prove the author's point. Imagine if *Inside Higher Ed* posted an article on anti-black discrimination in the academy, and the commenters all took issue with black students and their supposed malefactions. This would justly be seen as disgraceful. Somehow, however, in regard to Christian students, it's open season.

    Prof. Kaufmann: You say the academy dislikes Evangelicals because of their dogmatism. Oh, yeah: Academics loathe dogmatism, as you can tell from any visit to the local women's studies (or is that "womyn's studies"?) department. In matters of multiculturalism, or race relations more generally, what word better describes the secular university than dogmatism?

  • Crisis of Doubt -- the Christian Factor
  • Posted by Jerry Pattengale , Ass't Provost at IWU on July 30, 2010 at 8:45am EDT
  • Tim, For those unfamiliar with some of the key pieces in this discussion they may want to go to the work of your former colleague, Mark Noll (now at ND); The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind and its sequel are good starting points. More recently, Stanley Hauerwas’ works are helpful and provocative (e.g., State of the University, 22007). Also, the work of John Wilson via the acclaimed thought magazine, Books & Culture, provides an accessible and consistent venue to peak into the evangelicals’ (and others’) deeper discussions. And, of course, Byron Johnson’s work (and that of his colleagues) at Baylor’s Institute for Studies of Religion. As for the level of “discrimination,” to survey and respect anonymity would be the way to go—if someone is pursuing this (some dissertations, etc. already do to some level). David Horowitz tried to employ a research model in his controversial The Professors: 101 Worst … (2006) to ferret results on a related political question, but people wanted much more of an irenic approach which you’re calling for. I’ll never forget buying that book at D.C.’s DuPont Circle and sitting at the nearby Tomato bistro studying it (for his research method—which he shares, trying to ascertain its merit apart from its candid conclusions). Someone next to me said, “Can you believe anyone would read that thing?” I simply wanted to know how he came to his conclusions, as the conclusions themselves were obvious in the title and press releases. As for rampant discrimination, I think it’s much more complex than simple categorization. Perhaps you can amass enough anecdotal stories and at some point anecdotes become datasets—but the issues are many. Thoughtful Christians, Jews, Muslims and other fervent believers should be called to the same standards as those who are anti such beliefs. While I could share a couple of biting stories that were rather unfair to me, or any scholar, I’ve enjoyed the vast majority of my interactions with the academy and most of my engagements have been with large publics. Though accepted to a doctoral program in England, I chose to go to Miami (OH) to study with the eminent Edwin Yamauchi. It was/is a great public university (which was part of the draw after attending privates, including Wheaton). My mentor’s scholarship (and his 26 languages) won him respect far outside of his evangelical circles, but his acceptance was also attached (in my opinion) to his humility and appreciation of others' serious efforts. When he retired the Shriver Center was packed—his careful objective approach, even though often resulting in ardent support for his Christian beliefs, had gained him respect from those of various traditions. I think that’s what you’re asking of the academy for all students, and for treatment among colleagues like those in his department. And though we were both Christians, I’m pretty sure we were of different political parties. Also, readers of this piece can turn to your 2006 book, Crisis of Doubt (Oxford?), for an example of wonderful scholarship and writing.

  • Faith versus fidelity
  • Posted by Aware and Scared on July 30, 2010 at 8:45am EDT
  • "Anonymous" like so many of the other Christian conspiracy theorists totally misses the point by comparing the complaints of evangelicals to Blacks or women.

    For quite sometime minorities and women were not PERMITTED to attain education and the contributions of their ancestors were glossed over (or ignored wholesale) in preference for dead, white (and predominantly CHRISTIAN) men.

    Yeah, "womyn's" studies does seem needlessly divisive but no more so than suggesting that after centuries of predominance in the representation of history, Christians need to be protected and attended to like those societal groups who truly suffered marginalization and disenfranchisement.

  • Dogma
  • Posted by Bob Schenck on July 30, 2010 at 9:00am EDT
  • For believers in religion there is no escape from the questions asked by academics. How does religious belief differ from superstition? How does prayer differ from wishing and hoping? What makes a book holy? Freud, Einstein, Krishnamurti, Russell, Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and skeptics like them cannot and will not be deterred by such moaning no matter how real the pain of believers. Their questions must be answered.

  • Dogmatism
  • Posted by Splendid One on July 30, 2010 at 9:00am EDT
  • Wow. Comparing Christian to being black. That makes so much sense, except, wait ... being Christian is a choice and no one is trying to make anyone else black.

  • Posted by Anonymous on July 30, 2010 at 9:15am EDT
  • Wow, "Splendid One." As long as you choose to be the member of a group, it's open season on you, eh? So if I choose to be a Muslim, any bigotry directed at me is merely my fault? Or if I choose to be Jewish? Or do these non-arguments only work for Christians?

  • Just imagine....
  • Posted by Adam Kotsko , Visiting Assistant Professor of Religion at Kalamazoo College on July 30, 2010 at 9:15am EDT
  • People keep saying, "Imagine if we got a report of racism or sexism..." -- but in IHE comment threads I constantly see people who try to explain away that kind of thing or decry liberal overreaction to it. I'm pretty sure that was the case during the Henry Louis Gates controversy, for example. Just like "liberal media bias," the idea of "liberal academic bias" is more of an axiom than the result of empirical observation. Has no one ever heard of an economics or business department, which both have huge numbers of majors and both inculcate pretty conservative values?

    This individual professor definitely seems to have acted inappropriately, if nothing else by reinforcing the persecution complex that so many evangelical Christians bring to secular institutions. I've had committed Christians in my religion classes whom I successfully challeged to argue for their beliefs instead of asserting them -- but that might be because I'm from a Christian background myself, and because as a professor of religion, I "know my stuff" well enough for them to trust that I'm not just being a jerk to them. (The thing about the Greek, Hebrew, etc., Bible really was idiotic.)

  • Posted by Alexandar Mihailovic on July 30, 2010 at 9:45am EDT
  • The people on this thread who insist on the ubiquity of anti-Christian prejudice in the academy need to understand the myriad ways in which it is not the same as racial prejudice. Being Christian may be an identity, but it is also more pointedly a world-view, and a system of ideas. Does an individual's disagreement with that system of ideas render her into a bigot? I don't know that it does, and those who insist otherwise need to give this some very careful thought. I also must say that Steven Pierce's and David Kaufmann's comments about the code status of the term "Christian," in the way it is being used in the present context--and actually in most cases of the blogosphere and the media--are very well-taken. The bloated elephant in the room of this discussion thread and in the vestibule of its original article is that Christian is understood here in very specific terms, as evangelical protestant. I am a left-leaning Eastern Orthodox christian who is also an academic in the humanities. I have never been attacked for my beliefs by my more (and in some instance openly atheist) secular colleagues in the university where I teach, even though my published scholarship has on occasion focused on aspects of Eastern Orthodox belief. My work has, however, at conferences been on the receiving end of obloquy from a few protestant evangelical scholars, whose critical language of dogma I find reminiscent of attacks on my work from marxist scholars. As academics, it is our duty to engage in an analytical fashion--and to grapple with--material that is fundamentally separate from us, even--and perhaps especially!--when it happens to be "our" culture. One needs to argue and empirically demonstrate a point a view, and not simply declare it. This is what I tell my students. If we are not applying the same standards to ourselves, who are we to teach them? Even religiously inflected scholarship (e.g., the protestant Paul Ricouer) recognizes the need for speaking in a non-proselytizing way to a community outside of one's particular belief system.

  • Have we really moved forward at all?
  • Posted by Christine on July 30, 2010 at 9:45am EDT
  • Yes Anonymous, many of the commentors here are proving Dr. Larsen's point. And thank you for this article sir. It presents some fine ideas for examining this problem.

    To paraphrase a Catholic administrator quoted in an IHE article, "...anti-Catholicism is the anti-Semitism of the intellectual class..." As a practicing Roman Catholic working at a public university, I have heard unbelievably offensive statements regarding my faith from friends and colleagues. These folks are Hindi, former Catholics, and other Christians. I NEVER experienced this type of blatant insult to my faith UNTIL I CAME TO WORK IN THE ACADEMY.

    All one has to do is look at the comments on IHE regarding the controversy surrounding President Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame last year. It was essetially a matter within the Church and the Catholic higher education community, but all of the Catholic-haters found a place to spew their vitriol on IHE.

    I am amazed that in an atmosphere that promotes respect for diversity, it really only seems to be aimed at a few select groups, not everyone. It seems that even in this "diverse" environment, most think that only their issue deserves the most respect. Everyone seems to have their prejudices and biases.

    My life experience, and my faith, teach me that all people have value and worth and deserve to be treated with respect. I'll remain in that faith tradition any day over the cynical, self-absorbed, elitist, arrogance that I see from so many who call for equal treatment of diverse people, but do not practice it themselves.

  • Posted on July 30, 2010 at 9:45am EDT
  • So now we are able to discriminate against someone because they made a choice to be Christian? Discrimination, by law, includes religion as well as race. Your job as a professor is to evaluate the quality of the research and writing. Whether or not you agree with someone's beliefs is not the point. In fact, if you have someone presenting high quality work that may also support Christian beliefs, perhaps the best thing to do is to use it to begin a scholarly discussion. You know, the idea that people with different beliefs should discuss and learn things from each other, instead of just bashing one another?

  • "statement of faith" colleges
  • Posted by Steve Epstein , Associate Professor/communications at Suffolk County Community College on July 30, 2010 at 10:00am EDT
  • I am always amazed that someone would want to teach at or attend a college that required the acceptance of a "statement of faith." One of the core values of a higher education is an exposure to conflicting points of views that challenge our basic assumptions. I have been privileged to both study at and teach at several public and private colleges, Ivy League, Land Grant, and Community College, that valued diversity not only in demographic complexion but in intellectual point of view and methodology.

    With so many Evangelical colleges requiring the acceptance of a “statement of faith,” which discriminates against those of all other faiths as well as against those who do not have any faith, it is hard to think that the Evangelicals of the world suffer any real discrimination in the marketplace for jobs. If they suffer from “discrimination” in the marketplace of ideas it is because this arena is ruled by forms of proof that do not admit as evidence for an argument anything that cannot be verified.

  • Caution in Leveling Charges of Discrimination
  • Posted by Steven L. Berg , Associate Professor of English and History at Schoolcraft College on July 30, 2010 at 10:15am EDT
  • Although it sounds from the description that some of the professor’s comments to John could have been out of line, it is likely that a comment about versions of the Bible might be appropriate because it can make a difference which version of the Bible you are reading and whether or not you are reading it in the original language or in translation. Unfortunately, there are some professors who do try to impose their own views on students instead of working to help students “write a persuasive argument about faith and from faith” (Professor Kauffman’s comment).

    At the same time, we need to be careful not to level the charge of discrimination too easily. For example, I once had a student accuse me of discriminating against her because she was a Christian and because I did not support her political views about health care reform. Although most students with whom I disagree politically or whose religious views I do not share tend to do very well in my courses, it was easier for this student to cry discrimination than to fix her citations and other serious research errors.

    Another student accused me of trying to promote my own religious views because the class was researching the life of Muhammad Iqbal and studying Islam. Even after I pointed out that I was not Muslim, she still went to the Dean with her complaint. I really believe that in her world view there are Christians and that there are non-Christians; that it was irrelevant which non-Christian religion I practiced. By making her learn about a religion other than Christianity was an attempt to force my personal religious views on her.

    In the same light, I am reminded of the African American student who accused me of being a racist because I kicked her out of class when she would not stop text messaging instead of participating in group work. Then there was the woman who once told me that people hated her because she was a lesbian. I didn’t like this woman either—not because she was a lesbian but as a result of her incredible lack of social skills.

    In citing these examples, I am not trying to discount the very real nature of religious discrimination, racism, and homophobia. Instead, I want to caution that we need to be careful not to be too quick in charging discrimination.

    To decide, without knowing the context of the assignment, that a weak essay did not deserve an F and to then to use this as an example of religious discrimination serves as a distraction to some very valid concerns that need to be addressed.

  • A simple question test?
  • Posted on July 30, 2010 at 10:30am EDT
  • Here is a very simple question I have as an academic to discern if there is prejudice...

    What if the two course titles were proposed at your institution...which would be accepted and allowed to run?

    1.Islam and the tenets of the faith.

    2.Christianity and the tenets of the faith.

  • Hiding religion
  • Posted by Livia , Graduate Student at MIT on July 30, 2010 at 10:30am EDT
  • I do agree with anonymous that some of the vitriol poured out in the comment section supports the author's point. I've been very lucky in my experience in academia not to have encountered overt discrimination. People are generally respectful. However, I do see young academics who are afraid to let their colleagues know that they are Christians for fear they may not get tenure. Do you think these people are paranoid, or do they have cause to worry?

  • Posted by Jennifer Sanborn , Director, the Women's Education and Leadership Fund at University of Hartford on July 30, 2010 at 10:30am EDT
  • I read this article with interest. As someone who identifies as Christian and who chose to attend a "Christian college" as an undergraduate, I always anticipate some resistance when I move to a new college or university (none of the institutions I've served as employee have had overt religious affiliations). Interestingly, I have not experienced anything I would regard as discrimination. Wariness, yes. Curiosity about my capacity to embrace people of other belief systems, yes. I am sure there is discrimination against people for a host of different beliefs about the world, but I try to carry myself in such a way that I can transform such moments without becoming the target or arrow. When I articulate my own sense of the world well, and when people are both good questioners and listeners, I find a lot of open doors. I am saddened that in too many instances in the past and present, we have not been good questioners/listeners of one another. I don't know that a survey will yield the results the world is needing. To prove that something is or is not taking place can be relatively simple. If what we focus on expands, though, do we want to lean into a problem, or do we want to highlight those instances where people really can converse across the supposed boundaries of belief systems? I'd rather invest in organizations like the Public Conversations Project who equip people to be in the presence of great difference in productive, thoughtful, peaceful ways.

  • No Roman Catholics Please, We're Evangelicals
  • Posted on July 30, 2010 at 10:30am EDT
  • While I can sympathize with John, I think I'd be more receptive to Professor Larsen's argument if his own institution didn't discriminate against Roman Catholics.

  • Comments Proving the Articles - For a Different Reason
  • Posted by Mike Hickerson on July 30, 2010 at 10:45am EDT
  • Many, if not most, of the comments above are personal reactions to Larsen's article, citing personal anecdotes to prove/disprove Larsen's thesis. Please pay attention to his final paragraph: he asks universities to take these accusations of bias seriously and to investigate whether or not they have merit. Why do so many of the commentators above think that a glib dismissal of these accusations is an appropriate academic response?

  • The Professor Who Strengthened My Faith...
  • Posted by mary jamison on July 30, 2010 at 10:45am EDT
  • ... was teaching an upper-level English course. He told me he thought I had promise as a scholar, and he invited me to dinner at a quiet, dark restaurant to discuss graduate schoool. Over the course of a wide-ranging conversation, he said, "God? I trust you've disabused yourself of *that* notion."

    As it turned out, he (married, tenured) was looking for an affair. I eventually found out he'd gone through a series of women students, promising to get them into grad programs. Even at the time, I felt that his attack on God was an attempt to undercut any claims I might make to morality. I was trying to impress him and so I assured him that of course, I had no faith. Now, nearly 30 years later, the incident lingers.

    The attacks on POFs (persons of faith) are secondary to the assertion of non-believers that belief in God, or even ultimate meaning or purpose, is intellectually ridiculous. Academics who are non-believers pull their punches with non-Christian POFs, but I suppose they think we're all equally deluded.

  • re: Yale UP Anti-Christian?The Str
  • Posted by Peter Herman , Professor, Dept. of English at SDSU on July 30, 2010 at 11:00am EDT
  • In addition to publishing seven books by the distinguished history of English religion, Eamon Duffy (e.g., The Stripping of the Alters: Traditional Religion in England 1400-1580), Yale University Press has a very large selection of books on the study of Christianity, including the works of Jonathan Edwards and Lian Xi's Redeemed by Fire: The Rise of Popular Christianity in Modern China.

    I find it very hard to believe that this press has a prejudice against Christianity.

  • Religious Colleges Are the Worst Offenders
  • Posted by John K. Wilson at collegefreedom.org on July 30, 2010 at 11:00am EDT
  • Prof. Larson doesn't exactly provide a lot of solid evidence for his claim of discrimination. A rejected book proposal and a student who refused to appeal his "F" grade don't provide us with much proof of anything.

    By contrast, we have strong evidence that religious colleges are the worst offenders when it comes to religious discrimination; hundreds of colleges explicitly refuse to hire an atheist. I'm not aware of one American college that bans an evangelical Christian from being hired.

    Larson's own college, Wheaton, recently fired a professor for getting a divorce (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/04/25/wheaton) and a few years ago fired a professor for becoming a Catholic (http://english.sxu.edu/sites/kirstein/archives/232). Perhaps Larson is legitimately afraid to criticize his own repressive administration, but surely an essay by someone on anti-Christian discrimination should address the discrimination against Christians by his own college.

  • academic documentation
  • Posted by theron on July 30, 2010 at 11:15am EDT
  • How much of the perceived "hostility" stems from a conflict between academic discourse and "god talk" in which truth is revealed?

    Years ago, for example, I worked at a small a small liberal arts college..and went to a small Methodist church in the same town. I found myself mediating betwen a course instructor and a student claiming bias.

    It turned out that the instructor was also unhappy that the student attempted to document a propostion saying that "the Bible" said so. The instructor was trying to point out that nothing was the case simply because a book said so. The student, who believed in the Bible as "the word," couldn't quite get it that any given 'word" was not sufficient in academic discourse.

    The resolution: Because I had also taught English composition, I worked with the student to better structure his argument and how to better use the Bible as "A" source, as evidence instead of proof.

    In my experience, much of the perceived hostility comes from studnets being challenged that their revealed truth is not a shared truth...nor is the revelation shared. This, therefore, challenges basic assumptions and makes students defensive, making them feel under seige.

    On the faulty side, facuty need to be aware that brow-beating and sarcasim do not necessarily make good teaching techniques. The idea is to work with studnets to better be able to use their revealed truths as evidence, not proof!

  • Thank you, Mr. Larsen
  • Posted by Daniel Mathews on July 30, 2010 at 11:15am EDT
  • I find it comical in the extreme that so many of the "academics" on this thread have disagreed with Tim Larsen's premise by posting comments that are redolent with anti-Christian bias. The myriad puerile endeavors with which these savants attempt to twist themselves into tiny little radical secularist pretzels in order to justify their own bigotry are risible. Steven Pierce feels that it's perfectly fine to discriminate against Christians as long as they're of conservative theological or political stripe. Someone who self-identifies as "Splendid One" actually opines, without a trace of irony or shame, that it is perfectly reasonable to discriminate against those who opt into their second-class status. By dint of such logic, it would be terribly wrong to discriminate against Sammy Davis Jr. because he was black, but any anti-Semitism directed at him would be eminently justifiable. Brilliant! David Kaufman ingeniously dismisses anti-Christian prejudice on the grounds that there are just so darn many of them. This begs the question: what was his opinion of South African apartheid? Adam Kotsko seems to be saying there is no such thing as ideological academic bias, and besides it isn't just the leftists who are doing it. I would ask all of these savants: in the "diversity statements" of the various institutions which you evidently infest, is prejudice against groups with which one chooses to affiliate expressly sanctioned? I highly doubt it.
    "Anonymous" is right on the money. Do Christians actually have to get lynched on campus in order for some people on this thread to understand that they are constantly discriminated against as a routine matter in academia? I remind the intolerant pedagogues here that whether one wears a white hood with eye holes or merely a pince-nez and mortarboard, discrimination against any group, whether it is blacks or Jews, Muslims or gays, women or (yes) Christians, always yields the same result for the bigots: they become lesser human beings.

  • RE: Comments Proving the Articles - For a Different Reason
  • Posted on July 30, 2010 at 11:30am EDT
  • The original article is also based on what could be termed anecdotal evidence. Larsen justifiably insists that the recounted incidents should be taken seriously. Why should personal recollections of others be dismissed? Both sets of experience took place. In the absence of formal statistics or studies of the problem, this is the evidence we have to reckon with. Larsen is right to insist on a formal study of the problem.

  • Several issues being conflated here
  • Posted by bbj , Philosophy on July 30, 2010 at 11:45am EDT
  • 1. The issue of course offerings and program - some commentators have raised the question of whether a course studying Christian thought would be welcome at the same place as a course studying some other religious tradition. This depends on the nature of one's program. We have a Religious Studies program at a state university. We have a Christian Thought course, as well as an Islamic Thought course and a Hindu Thought course, and several others. Instructors are chosen based on expertise, not personal commitment. All traditions are treated with respect, and all are subjected to critical examination. Generally, it's the Christian Thought course in which I hear the most complaints (I don't teach any of these, but I'm the department chair, so these things eventually end up in my office), and they are complaints that the instructor is "anti-Christian". As far as I can tell, that amounts to saying that any critical examination of Christian thought and culture is interpreted as rejection (for some students, not all).

    We do not have a theology program - religious studies means what it generally does in a university setting, which is the academic study of religion using various disciplinary tools and approaches.

    2. The issue of receptivity to a student's position or beliefs: This is a different issue than course offerings. I have both attended and taught at both religious and non-religious institutions. There is no generalization I can make about these. One religious institution I attended was extremely narrow - what passed for academic inquiry was just window dressing on the way to the eventual "right" answer. On the other hand, I've taught at a religious institution that had, if anything, more academic freedom than I have now at a state institution. The faculty was more questioning, and they were less likely to settle for received ideas than other places I've been.

    Where I am now, faith positions are taken very seriously, but as cultural forms of expression. That includes Christian ones. Some students, as I say, may feel like their faith isn't nurtured here, but then again, that's not our job. Our job is to provide them with tools to think for themselves. The conclusions they arrive at are their own business. One of those tools is to be able to stand in someone else's shoes, at least partially, and try to understand the world from their point of view. Plenty of Christians can do this. Plenty more can't. And that's where the tension comes from in a university setting.

    So, I think it's too broad a brush to suggest that secular institutions are more hostile to faith, and religious ones are less questioning.

    3. The issue of an instructor's own beliefs. In a state university this, of course, should be irrelevant. But instructors are not merely dispensers of information, but human beings. The question is, can the instructor be a professional, and do what we expect students to do, which is to stand in a position that is not one's own, and give a sympathetic and critical account of that? There are obvious limits to anyone's ability to do this, but the fact is, we do it all the time. And, more than that, can a professor bring his/her passion to class, while at the same time being even-handed? That's a hard one to pull off, but many do. Not all do, and I think it becomes clear when you are part of a group that has not been understood well. It's even harder when your understanding of your own group is itself biassed, and in fact the instructor is bringing another perspective to that group that doesn't line up with that.

    I would hate to see education come to mirror the blogosphere or the mediascape, where everyone has their own echo chamber, and they just keep going there to hear what they want. In my ideal educational world, everyone is a little uncomfortable at least some of the time (and that includes both instructors and students), but that discomfort is a moment on the way to a clearer understanding of one's own world. In that sense, Christian students who feel put upon could look at the situation as one of opportunity, to examine exactly why they believe what they do, or behave the way they do. Not to change it, but to understand it.

  • The author is right
  • Posted by Anna Reed on July 30, 2010 at 11:45am EDT
  • An explicitly Christian institution like Wheaton has every right to restrict their faculty and students to those who follow their doctrinal statement. The same would be true of a Jewish college that declined to employ Christian professors or Jewish students who convert to Christianity. (Wheaton, by the way, admits graduate students of every faith). But when an institution is secular, it is another story. In the name of academic freedom, all lines of thought, religious or not, should be allowed to be explored. Unfortunately, the university has been coopted--and corrupted--by liberal dogma that discriminates not just against Christianity, but against all conservative thinkers.

  • Arenas of Conflict
  • Posted by Mike Sacken , Professor/COE at TCU on July 30, 2010 at 12:45pm EDT
  • There is discomfort for some, maybe many, I don't know, in academia w/evangelic or what are viewed as fundamentalist doctrinal beliefs. But that is the form of belief structure that liberal arts was intended to liberate young minds from - and the individuals pursuing that goal may not always act w/grace or caution. Nor avoid replacing one doctrinal commitment w/others.

    But having said that, the notion of pervasive and antagonistic institutional discrimination seems overstated. Discourse in universities is often challenging, or antagonistic. Whatever beliefs we personally hold dear, if we publicly expose/profess them, are likely to be questioned or dismissed. Professors have lenses they use to analyze life and its many issues. If my belief intersects that lens, well, my feelings can be hurt.

    I think many profs can tell stories about kids who are intractable or antagonistic when they feel their truths are questioned. The clash in classrooms and across campuses can be barbed and unpleasant. There are parts of my beliefs and values I don't subject to collegial comment, eg.

    Nonetheless, the resulting stories are often compelling and express pain or feeling bullied. Stories on all sides (and I don;t mean to discount the hurt, anger or frustration folks experience when banging up against this disputatious culture). I expect folks to disagree and act ideologically & aggressively towards peers and unfortunately, students - it's what a university does. Act as a cauldron of sorts. This set of exchanges demonstrates the range of discourse that will occur when sensitive issues are thrown into the middle. In a way, then, this dialog is not only characteristic of universities, but it's also evidence the university is healthy and performing its role, within reason.

     

  • In hiding?
  • Posted by esgPhD , Professor at Univ Texas Medical School on July 30, 2010 at 12:45pm EDT
  • As a long time prof at a medical school in the so-called Bible Belt, I am in daily contact with a faculty who have a wide variety of opinions on this topic. They range from highly secular academics who view religious belief of any kind with vitriolic disdain to the two scientists I know who are actually priests as well as faculty. The religious affiliations represented in our faculty are diverse: Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, etc. People tend to view these differences as irrelevant to our work and to our relationships as colleagues. I'm guessing this has much to do with the fact that in academic medicine, one does not typically do scholarly work where one's religious views might be seen as a source of bias. An exception might be instances where ethical standards of practice are discussed (e.g., views on matters such as abortion, euthanasia, etc.). I have also noticed that on the whole, physicians tend to be more likely than scientists and other full time scholars to profess religious belief. That said, however, I do often work with colleagues at undergraduate colleges and universities, and it is my clear impression that the climate there is very different. I have been in many gatherings with colleagues at which comments have been made that were derogatory toward Christianity in particular and religious believers in general. These comments always seem to be made with the assumption that, of course, everyone here would agree, wouldn't they? No one here could be one of THEM...? I find such comments personally offensive, and on occasion I say so, which usually leads to a thudding silence and an awkward lull in the conversation, sometimes followed by a defensive rant. There's no doubt in my mind that this is a major blind spot for the academy, which otherwise prides itself on tolerance, diversity and open exchange of ideas.

  • Dogma Indeed
  • Posted by mb on July 30, 2010 at 12:45pm EDT
  • "Anonymous" beat me to the punch vis-a-vis pointing out the hypocrisy of mainstream academia when it comes to accepting and promoting dogma when it's politically correct, and her/his example of women's studies departments is spot-on.
    For example, it's accepted as "fact" among women's studies faculty, and feminists in general, that historical disparities in participation rates between men and women in past medical research is due to "discrimination against women," and to question or otherwise challenge this assumption will almost always bring on the wrath of adherents, many in positions of power and authority and thus capable of acting on their biases by engaging in discrimination. However, the actual history of medical research paints a very different picture than the one presented by feminists: The reality is that up until medical research came under the jurisdiction of ethical standards and institutional review boards most research was conducted on two populations, soldiers wounded in war and incarcerated convicts. Both groups are overwhelmingly men, in the case of soldiers many/most of them were drafted against their will, and in many cases "participants" were compelled to have the research conducted on them without informed consent. Furthermore, much of the so-called "research" can only be seen as barbaric and inhumane by modern standards. So, what it seen by adherents to feminist dogma as "discrimination against women" is actually more correctly seen as a function of female privilege, in this case the privilege of women to not be subjected to the draft and the disparities in incarceration rates between men and women. Once it became safe for women to participate in medical research, they were (and are) recruited in droves, to the point where now the disparity is in favor of women. However, instead of receiving a thorough and fair hearing, this valid interpretation of the history of medical research is shouted down as sexist, wanting to "take women back 100 years", etc. Also, comparing women's past discrimination to that of the racism that blacks endured and thus justifying parallel programs of reverse-discrimination (i.e., affirmative action and other so-called "diversity" programs) to compensate for past injustice is absurd and insulting to African Americans and people of good conscience. Consider that the men we discriminate against now (at a time when discrimination against women in the U.S. and other western nations is for all practical purposes non-existant) are just as likely to be born to a mother who herself endured real discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere. Further, consider that the woman who is the recipient of the special privileges provided by affirmative action is the daughter of a man who discriminated against women in the past. In these scenarios one can see that instead of addressing past injustices, the injustices are being exacerbated. Unlike skin color, female sex is not necessarily passed on to the next generation, so equating efforts to address past discrimination against women to those addressing racism is at best folly and at worst a cynical ploy to exploit minorities. Yet given the adherence to feminist dogma at most colleges and universities in the western world, affirmative action for women is very similar, if not identical, to that given to minorities.

    I certainly can believe that Christians are discriminated against in much of academia, and the call to look into it is valid and appropriate. I've had similar discussions when addressing issues related to gender-based discrimination: when the academy investigates gender based issues, in my experience investigators at colleges, universities and elsewhere almost always never actually ask men about their experiences in the classroom, workplace, etc., but they always survey women.
    I believe that the same is true for Christians, and IMO it's because the powers that be simply are not interested in the issue, or perhaps even worse, don't want to know for fear of having to address inconvenient truths.

  • Freedom of thought
  • Posted by Just a thought at Georgetown on July 30, 2010 at 1:45pm EDT
  • We are evangelical Christians but my children attend Georgetown a Catholic institution. My daughter's essay said it best "I want the freedom to explore issues of faith without being considered less than intellectual". I find it ironic that it is only Christianity that seems to need defending in higher education - Muslims and Jews are able to hold beliefs under a cultural exemption. I fully acknowledge that there are some who's beliefs and actions make Christianity unpalatable for others and for that I am sorry, but Christianity has promoted many good works in the world as well.

  • Vocabulary - No Christianity, Please
  • Posted by Steven M. Scott , Browser at Not instutionalized yet, thank God on July 30, 2010 at 1:45pm EDT
  • I just wanted to compliment Daniel Mathews on his exquisite vocabulary. It was a joy to read!

  • Can there really be no discrimination?
  • Posted by Nick Schlotter , prof/chem at Hamline University on July 30, 2010 at 1:45pm EDT
  • So, we must accept, uncritically a group that has a world view that evolution isn't real? We must accept a group that has a history of killing off those that disagree with them and won't convert? A group that won't allow academics who are not of their strip to teach at their institutions? What about satanists? There are Christians and there are zealots from the dark ages that claim to be Christians. I see a distinction. When someone tells me that a 2000 year old text is the last word in genetics and social behavior I find it rather absurd from a logical point of view.

    I don't condone the English professor's response, if we have the full story. My guess is that we have a one-sided version. As far as grants and publications I think it is very hard to claim discrimination without more access to the decision making. Certainly, I've thought there were grants that I should have gotten - and the reasons for rejection seemed weak (everyone's first response!)

    So can we draw any lines in academia without being politically incorrect? As a white male I have been discriminated against - that seems to be okay, at present. Job searches and hiring routinely have discrimination built into them - like quality of the applicant, equal opportunity issues, etc. Being Christian is one thing, promoting a Christian world view is quite another at a University. I think it is fair to not discriminate in hiring a Christian, but if they try to teach faith based views like creationism (in the bio dept) I feel it is something that they should be fired for, since it is not supported by our observations of nature. Where an evangelical Christian would go with marriage, women's equality, sexuality, gay relations,etc would seem to subject to academic scrutiny as well.

    Finally, isn't it our job to discriminate with regard to intellectual merit? Do we really want to give it up?

  • Posted by Anonymous on July 30, 2010 at 1:45pm EDT
  • Discrimination does happen, ranging from overt hostility to the widespread assumption in many departments (including mine) that intelligent people don't believe *that* (although most of the comments I hear are directed at Christians, I think that is only because they are the most prominent; orthodox Jews, Muslims, and others who believe seriously in faith and in following the dictates of their religion in regards to lifestyle would face the same mocking).

  • Evidence, please
  • Posted by tcl on July 30, 2010 at 1:45pm EDT
  • Why do we accept at face value the story of "John, the straight-A student"? If what the story says is true, the professor was clearly wrong. No argument from me. But, the problem is that students often embellish to legitimize their claims and writers "massage" anecdotal stories to emphasize their points. The author raises this issue, but uses a nice rhetorical strategy to claim the student's story and his own story about the rejection of his book proposal are, in fact, true. And, he makes vague reference to what "Christians often report," but he offers no real evidence of systematic or even large-scale discrimination.

    Moreover, his use of the word "Christian" is curiously inconsistent. Consider, for example, that 56% of American academics self-identify themselves as Christian, while only 8% self-identify as atheists. This raises the question, why would academics discriminate against themselves? Perhaps the answer is that they do not. Perhaps they are "discriminating" against non-academic analysis?

    Of course, what the author is referring to when he says "Christian" is a particular brand of Christianity, Evangelical Christianity. He does mention this, but he purposefully glides between the two terms as if there were no meaningful difference. Another nice rhetorical strategy.

  • Dr. Larsen's Article
  • Posted by Goethe on July 30, 2010 at 1:45pm EDT
  • I agree with Dr. Larsen and his article. I also agree with the majority of the comments. Not with the naive, silly anti-Christian people and not with those who respect Christian intellectuals but not Evangelicals. Two little points:

    The way to fight anti-Christian prejudice is to go public. The student in the English class, once the course was over, should have taken the matter to the Dean or Provost, and to the student and town newspapers. The bigoted English professor would have been shamed and shamed good. The same for Dr. Larsen. He should go public with the names and bigoted comments of the Yale referees. And they will be shamed. The bright light of day will destroy bad mushrooms.

    In my classes, at some time, I let it slip that I am a Christian. A few students always come up to me after class and thank me. I am perhaps the only Christian professor they have had. They live in a state of alienation on our campuses, and they need and deserve our support.

  • Posted by Anonymous on July 30, 2010 at 2:00pm EDT
  • There is an organization which exists solely to document and defend those who are discriminated against in academe: Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. This group has defended students and faculty who have been punished by the academy for a variety of thought offenses. Here's a sampling:

    *A college student group was not allowed to show "The Passion of the Christ," but another group at the college was allowed to perform "F**king for Jesus".

    *A student religious group was booted off campus for not allowing non-believers to join. (It was a Muslim group.)

    *Students have been expelled or not allowed to graduate because they didn't toe the line in ideological "litmus tests".

    *Faculty at a public university who attended a protest of an unconstitutional "free-speech zone" were banned from entering the campus and subjected to administrative discipline.

    *A professor was punished for making pro-war remarks.

    *A professor was punished for making anti-war remarks.

    *A student was expelled for peaceful protest of the college building a....parking garage.

    The fact that this organization exists is in itself an indictment of the academy's barely-veiled intolerance of anyone who dares speak outside the orthodoxy.

    I'm making this post anonymously because I know my employer doesn't tolerate unorthodox views--those being politically and ideologically conservative.

  • Thank you, BBJ
  • Posted by Debra Malewicki , Director of Tutoring Services on July 30, 2010 at 2:00pm EDT
  • First, thank you to "bbj" for summarizing and clearly responding to the main issues being discussed.

    I'm a lifelong Christian, conservative in some respects and liberal in others, who chose to attend a private, secular undergraduate university and a public graduate program. In the former, I was exposed to faculty who supported and fostered my faith as well as faculty who openly attacked it. Please note that I understand the difference between someone challenging my belief system and claims based upon beliefs vs. evidence as opposed to an attack. The faculty who challenged me to think more critically made me a better writer, critical thinker, and later English professor. The ones who simply attacked my faith left me hurt, resentful, and less willing to learn from them.

    As an adjunct English professor, I was often faced with the challenge of encouraging my students to explore different sides of an issue in an evidence-based capacity. I remember one student, a very conservative Christian, writing an essay adamantly opposing the inclusion of homosexual men in the Boy Scouts organization. The draft set my teeth on edge, but, by encouraging her to replace "homosexual" with "black," she was able to recognize the discriminatory approach she was taking and prepare a better researched and phrased final version. She and I will never share the same view on that topic, but she left the assignment a better writer and critical thinker and, I hope, not feeling that I had attacked her belief system.

    To respond to Larsen's call to action, I agree that claims of bias require exploration. As another person aptly noted, many times that exploration will yield no findings of bias, but we all know that there are plenty of allegations of a sexual harassment, racial, and faith-based nature that are legitimate. As a graduate student, many years ago, I became the target of one professor who held a track record of inappropriate behavior in the course that was public knowledge. He ultimately assigned me a C for A work. I sought advice with my other professor, who had late in the course openly praised me for exceptional work, and earned a B- from him shortly thereafter. The next term, in private, he admitted he had never read my final paper as he'd lost it but "felt it was an appropriate grade." The chair of the department declined to investigate either claim despite a track record of all As in my other courses and being at the top of my undergraduate class. These are secular issues with hard evidence that I could present in my favor, but every door was shut in my face when I wanted to protest what had happened. Is it any wonder that most students of faith, and their faculty counterparts, just swallow the bitterness of attacks on their faith when they are cloaked in the purported integrity and open-mindedness of Academe?

  • Please, No Christianity
  • Posted by Stanislaus Dundon , Professor Emeritus Philosophy at California State University, Sacramento on July 30, 2010 at 2:30pm EDT
  • The presence of bias against traditional Christian faith on secular campuses and even on formerly religious campuses may be tied to the failure of believing academics to react indignantly when it is expressed. I am a person of faith and I think I have been guilty in this way. If I roll my eyes, will the biased speaker even know why? If someone says something to the effect that the beliefs are based on writings composed centuries after the events and I have just read the most recent exquisitely scholarly debates about the dating of some epistle of St. Paul where the issue is AD 54 versus AD 58 (20 years after the events of Christian salvation-history) my eye-rolling may be one of contempt (I hope not), of amazement that such areas of ignorance can remain in these days of Google, of dismissal since clearly the speaker doesn't care, or--and this is the key where the well-being of students is not in question--of sympathetic embarrassment for the speaker( this I do hope) much as I might feel for someone who has left his fly open.

  • Posted by J on July 30, 2010 at 3:00pm EDT
  • A handful of comments here have asked about the lines drawn between Christian students (primarily evangelical Christians) and students who believe in other faiths. There IS a notable difference and I see it every semester when I assign a project in which students advocate on behalf of a non-profit or charity organization. Because of the huge number of faith-based charities, they are always well-represented, and they usually draw on different faith traditions. No Jewish student nor any Muslim student has appealed to the class on the basis of a organization's affiliation with those faiths. Every semester though, at least one Christian student offers up her/his organization on the basis that it is a Christian organization and/or is will "bring people to new life in Christ." Unlike the Christian students (and to be clear, only some of the Christian students), no Jewish or Muslim or atheist student has ever walked into the classroom assuming that everyone else in the room shares her/his faith. I don't have to explain to a Muslim student why Muslim proselytizing would be a ineffective argument, but explaining that to a Christian student will likely draw a complaint to my department chair.

    I do think it's pretty clear that there are instances of discrimination against Christian students because of their faith, but they are not as common as some would claim, nor do they take on the systematic nature of other forms of discrimination. Some of my very best students have been deeply conservative Christians, but they can recognize the difference between being informed, influenced and guided by their faith and then meeting others on shared ground. In that regard, those students are no different than the Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and atheist students I've taught. It is the ones that assume their Christianity is everyone's Christianity that create more problems.

  • Dogma vs Godma
  • Posted by Bob on July 30, 2010 at 3:15pm EDT
  • Lets think back and remember our common human history.

    Q. How many war's, crusades, pogroms, inquistions, genocides...and the beat goes on can be rightly connected to religion?

    A. ALL of them!

    Q. How many of the same have been caused by colleges or academic's?

    A. NONE of them.

    yet....fanatics of all religions don't get why they have a credibility issue....those poor prosecuted dearies.

  • A Certain Resemblance
  • Posted by Matthew on July 30, 2010 at 3:45pm EDT
  • Thanks for the different viewpoints.

    I do see a certain resemblance between discrimination against Christians (all denominations should beware), and erstwhile discrimination against women and blacks:

    The perpetrators of all these biases displayed a smug superiority, which masked their underlying insecurity concerning the purported basis of their discrimination.

    Similarly, the "truth-value" of claims made by women, blacks - and now Christians - overwhelmed all the conceptual bases which had been erected by the so-called "superior class." This, despite anemic attempts to preserve the status quo.

    Christians, and I am one, are no strangers to persecution. And the current breed of oppressor is no different or better than those of yesteryear.

    But rhetoric will not be the decisive factor in this "war of words." Only the Truth will set us free.

  • What about Bob?
  • Posted by Professor G , Associate Professor/Biblical Studies at Reformed Theology Seminary on July 30, 2010 at 4:15pm EDT
  • Is there any non-religious person on this thread who wants to reflect upon Bob's catechism?

  • Religion, the cause of all ills?
  • Posted by Gary Fitsimmons , Director of Library Services at Bryan College on July 30, 2010 at 4:45pm EDT
  • I could not let Mathew’s post stand without rebuttal. Matthew, you do not know your history. Stalin exterminated 20 million people in the name of being “anti-religion,” not to mention the Khmer Rouge, and others. The merits of ideologies or religions must be judged on their own apart from what adherents decide to do in the name of their religion. Few of today’s adherents to Christianity would condone certain things that went on in the name of Christianity in the past. Yet those very things are constantly held up as arguments of why Christians should have no credibility, as if we (full disclosure, I am one) are somehow personally responsible for such atrocities that have no real basis for support in either our Scriptures or our doctrines. I would expect more from academics who claim to be free of bias. If you do not believe our Scriptures, that is your choice, but do not condemn us with straw man arguments that have nothing to do with what we believe and espouse.

  • Yeah, What About Bob?
  • Posted by mb on July 30, 2010 at 4:45pm EDT
  • Professor G asked: "Is there any non-religious person on this thread who wants to reflect upon Bob's catechism?"

    Sure, I'll bite. Bob's thesis is so ridiculous that it doesn't deserve a response, but since you asked, here's a couple of examples:

    The Pacific theater of WW-II was not about religion - the Japanese didn't care that we were Christian, nor did we care that they were Shinto and Buddist.

    Vietnam: see above.

    Korea: see above.

    WW-I

    The Spanish-American war.

    The War of 1812.

    Need I go on?...

  • My mistake
  • Posted by Gary Fitsimmons , Director of Library Services at Bryan College on July 30, 2010 at 5:15pm EDT
  • I must apologize to Matthew as I mis-attributed to him Bob's rant earlier. Please accept my appologies. Bob obviously is the one who does not know history and yet seeks to use it in his straw-man arguments.

  • Posted by Jeffrey Hall on July 30, 2010 at 6:00pm EDT
  • Bob,

    You have a very strange way of "remembering" history. Communism and Fascism, two avowedly secular and anti-Christian political movements, killed at least 160,000,000 people in the last century. Both political movements were born from the deranged ravings from European academic philosophers (Marx, Engel, Barres, Heiddiger.) Furthermore, numerous academics from all over the world cheered on the great dictators until it became unpopular or impolitic to do so.

  • Religion=Mental illness
  • Posted by Jon Rann on July 30, 2010 at 6:00pm EDT
  • Religion, be it Christian, Hebrew, or Islam...HAS NO PLACE WHATSOEVER (except perhaps in an historical context: "This is how deluded people once were") in ANY learning environment.

    Sincere belief in the supernatural, whether belief in some divine baby or the tooth fairy, is an unmistakable symptom of mental illness.

    Surely, no one with even a high school degree can honestly believe that god is a kindly old man, with a long white beard, sitting on a golden throne, living in a golden castle, on a golden cloud, and is constantly tabulating the death of each sparrow, every moment of every day, while listening to each word of each prayer.

  • Important Omission...
  • Posted by mb on July 30, 2010 at 6:00pm EDT
  • Apologies to all: In my last post I left out the crucial fact that I am not religious in the slightest. I was raised agnostic and have remained that way for more than five decades.

    Sorry for leaving that out of my post responding to Bob.

  • discrimination at Christian Universities
  • Posted by sk on July 30, 2010 at 6:45pm EDT
  • Unfortunately, discrimination is alive and well at Christian universities also. I have been the source of some ridicule by colleagues in my own department (religion) for views they consider too conservative and for promoting ideas supportive of the Christian mission of the university that "are not in line with the goals of the department." The discrimination has included a general lack collegiality, demotion in position and loss of pay. Of course, discrimination by Christians against Christians is nothing new, but in "Christian" universities today, the discrimination tends to be against the more conservative members of the academy.

  • tolerence, yes or no?
  • Posted by Kevin Wale on July 31, 2010 at 7:15am EDT
  • Everyone wants tolerance for what they believe and feel, but few want true equality. Seldom is the job of academia to deal with absolute truths. That's why the law of gravity is still considered a theory. It is no coincidence that quantum mathematics has changed the way we view the 'law' of gravity in light of the definition of theory.

    What if the paper was an assignment given to discuss the opinions of the writer on the varying theories of the big bang concept, and the student agreed with a side that the professor did not and he simply rejected his dogmatism? Dogma doesn't only exist in religious context. We would probably be saying that there is no way to give an F on such a paper because we do not know enough about the nature of the universe to reject one of a few given theories, all based on varying conclusions from mathematical data and the temperatures measured in the measurable universe. There is no more way to prove one of the other of them right at this moment over another. Nor is there any more way to prove religion wrong than there is to prove it right. But, we can quickly mock, and reject those opinions and theories because it is popular.

    Well, popular has changed a lot over the years, and smart people have looked rather dumb from time to time.

    The simple truth is, this professor should have asked for better argument of his position, not rejected it to the degree of an F. The purpose of academics is exposure and broadening of the mind, not limiting it. Present arguments against, and allow the student to better argue his position, while being exposed to other positions. At the same time, any professor who thinks he is the be all end all of knowledge on a subject is worthless in my opinion. If he/she thinks that, he/she needs to leave that bubble and talk to more people.

    One minute we hear how college is supposed to be fair, the next it seems only so when your views line up with the prof's. Grading an opinion's merit is impossible in nearly all cases. That's not even debatable, yet it's being debated? That is rather remarkable to me. I always thought we were supposed to learn how to communicate, not how to fall in line. All the bashing of Christians for being sheep, it sure seems like that's what profs like this want from their students.

  • A view from the sciences
  • Posted by Science prof at Large public university on July 31, 2010 at 7:15am EDT
  • I teach in the natural sciences at a large public university. I don't know the religious affiliation (if any) of most of my colleagues, even though I've been here for decades.
    My guess is that fervent religion is rare and fundamentalism is especially rare. The education of scientists includes learning critical thinking, as part of the scientific world view. Critical thinking does not recognize "it's written in the Bible" or "the authority of the Church tradition" as valid scientific arguments. Whatever my colleagues may think in their private lives, in their lives as scientists they rely on natural causes, and do not invoke miracles or cite scripture. In that sense, science itself militates against some kinds of religious belief. Scientists are not intimidated but galvanized by organized attacks on evolution by fundamentalist Christians.

    Even outside of the sciences, I'll venture the guess that many highly educated people do not take religion at all seriously. Any religion, not just Christianity, or some branches of Christianity.

  • academic method and depravity
  • Posted by J. Hill , English prof at SEU on July 31, 2010 at 7:30am EDT
  • Three years or go or so, I attended the workshop at the CCC Conference entitled "What to do when your student is a 'true believer.'" It was a laudable effort, in some sense, to address the question of the undergraduate education of evangelicals, though from the cues to laughter in the room, it was clear that there weren't supposed to be any "true believers" in the room. What's more regrettable was that there were no "true believers" on the presenting panel--a move which could have opened up dialog and kept the social atmosphere from getting as nasty as it did.

    I would gladly have served on such a panel (and may yet), and as a teacher at a decidedly evangelical school, I practice many of the suggestions of my unbelieving CCCC colleagues. Our evangelical undergraduates are, by and large, not good critical thinkers, much like the non-evangelicals I taught before coming to Florida. My professional goal is to help them see all the possible logical arguments for their position and against their position, tracing each one back to its (often hidden) assumptions, testing the available evidence by its weight with their chosen audience, etc. In a word, rhetoric. They are taking baby steps, and I encourage and challenge them along the way--even if I disagree with their conclusions.

    I do develop relationships with these students, though, and talk through these issues with them (if they seem to want to--not pushy) in our out-of-class downtime. I remember what it was like to be pushing through the fog, required to say what I think, then condemned for it, but holding on to my right to seek the truth myself, not be handed it by the academic consensus.

    Where evangelicalism and secularism separate is not logic (sorry, Jon Rann), but rather their fundamental assumptions. In this Jon Rann is correct, even if only by providing an example of anti-supernaturalist presuppositions. Evangelical teachers and students can and do practice the same analytical methodology as their secular counterparts, though they often build on a separate foundation. It seems to me, then, that if claims of anti-evangelical bias are studied, it would be important to analyze them by these categories 1) the "oppressor's" outright rejection of evangelical presuppositions, 2) the "oppressor's" assertion that said presuppositions don't apply to the question at hand, 3) the "oppressor's" critique of the logic, audience-appropriateness, or evangelical source material, 4) the "oppressor" being a victim of a culture of victimhood, unfortunately learned quickly by evangelicals (all in descending order of seriousness).

    It may be appropriate to have some of the evangelical faculty serve as counselors in these situations, translating between their colleagues and the students, with language that both can understand. Many universities have programs like these for GLBT students, with participating professors clearly identified.

    By the way, the "Christian/religious/evangelical" terminology problem is complex. I would favor using the term "evangelical" in the original article, not because all Christians are evangelical, but because that label does generally stand for a group of people who *start* from some clearly different presuppositions (not all of their presuppositions are different--they still have significant overlap with secularists in many presuppositions, especially in the hard sciences and medical fields). The reason "liberal" Christian groups seem to be left alone is that they function from the most of the same basic assumptions as the secularists--centrally that religion is from humankind and for humankind. (of course, they could be better at tact than their evangelical counterparts, too)

  • When is it discrimination?
  • Posted by NB on July 31, 2010 at 7:30am EDT
  • As a member of the atheist minority in the predominantly Christian academy (54% of faculty claming affiliation to a Christian church, 8% of faculty claming to be atheist according to the report Religious Beliefs and Behavior of College Faculty by Gary Tobin and Aryeh Weinberg, available here: www.jewishresearch.org/PDFs2/FacultyReligion07.pdf), perhaps I have been oblivious to the discrimination that we non-Christians have practiced against Christians. In any case this discrimination does not seem to have been particularly effective as Christians are a majority of the faculty and outnumber atheists seven to one. This is one reason that the analogy between discrimination against Christians on the one hand and racial minorities and women on the other seems so misplaced. The academy has done a much “better” job discriminating against racial minorities and women. Historically racial minorities and women were (and in some fields still are) a very small minority of the professoriate. The more fundamental issue is whether the belief systems of some religious people are incompatible with the search for knowledge that is the mission of the academy. It is worthwhile to point to some specific examples: Can a geology department allow the statement “they made a pact with the devil 200 years ago to free them from the French so they have been cursed” be a correct answer to a question about the cause of the Haiti earthquake in a geology class? Can a math department allow believers in the literal truth of every word in the bible use the value 3 for pi? I know the Institute for Creation Research says that 10 cubits might actually be 9.5 or 10.5 cubits and the diameter of 30 cubits might actually be 29.5 or 30.5, but the most devote Christians might well believe that when the bible says 10 it means 10, when it says 30 it means 30, just as 6 days means 6 days.Can a biology department exempt some Christian biology majors from any major requirement that requires them to demonstrate knowledge of the theory of evolution by natural selection? The answer to all of these questions is no. In the first instance, supernatural explanation is not a scientific explanation. The academy went down this road for over a thousand years, and it did not prove useful. In the second instance, those “most devote” Christians are simply wrong: pi is not 3, no matter what they believe the value of pi to be. Finally, evolution by natural selection is essential to the field of biology. If a student does not understand the mechanics of the system, the student does not understand biology in a meaningful sense. To reject these student’s beliefs is not discrimination, it is our job.

  • Mixed feelings
  • Posted by Anonymous on July 31, 2010 at 10:00am EDT
  • My response to the editorial and this thread is mixed. Many people have already pointed out how difficult it is to judge these situations, especially with the arrogance and intolerance exuded by some evangelical pupils. Christians are not the only ones at fault here, and here I can speak to my own situation: As an evangelical student attending a state university and an Ivy League graduate school, I never felt discriminated against by my professors. However, one of my areas of study is social scientific approaches to religious behavior, and when I did my job interviews, I was questioned at two institutions extensively about my religious convictions (illegally, I might add), even though I did not offer them in my application materials, on the grounds that somebody studying religion must be religious and we all know that religious people can't do serious research in the social sciences. Yes, I was told this. Needless to say, neither institution offered me a job, and one of them was my top choice. This was emotionally painful at the time, but now it is becoming funny. I am now published more than the most of the faculty at those two institutions and am gaining a reputation for putting out high-quality undergraduate students. My top choice has since even asked me for advice. I generally prefer that legislators stay out of academia, but I admit feeling glad that some of them are starting to question the presence of religious discrimination and intolerance in some (but not all) state university settings.

  • Academic truth is not religious truth.
  • Posted by Walter Hutchens , Business Faculty at Univ. of Washington Bothell on July 31, 2010 at 10:00am EDT
  • Larsen's call for empirical evidence ironically points to the underlying problem, doesn't it? "Belief" is not an academic value. Academic culture corrosively questions, and the methodology for establishing academic truth is typically naturalistic and skeptical. Conversely, religious identity typically involves commitments to some set of assumptions that are ultimately regarded as unassailable (even though the specific content of those claims likely shifts over time and varies widely among individual believers and sects within a tradition).

    This basic difference between religious and academic culture is the core tension and would seem to help explain: religious persecution of free thinkers (often with later capitulation to their ideas), why most higher ed institutions founded with religious missions no longer emphasize them (or have all together abandon them), why there is no such thing as a prominent Evangelical research university in the world today, and finally, yes, bias in the academic community against faith---bias that does, no doubt, sometimes manifest itself inappropriately.

    But a study of "discrimination" against Christians in academia will have to distinguish between discrimination against shoddy work (by academic standards) and some definition of inappropriate prejudice against Christian scholarship. It will need to isolate discrimination against academically meritorious work done by Christians (that is, discrimination that is based upon the work having been done by Christians, or discrimination that is based upon work tending to support some Christian tenet, even though the work is not methodologicall faith-based). This will not be an easy study. Certainly it will require more than asking self-avowed Christians if they've ever experienced skepticism (or "hostility") to their faith-based truth claims in an academic setting. They probably have, if the academy is doing its job.

  • I wish I could afford to say this myself
  • Posted by PhD Candidate , History at Large Public University on July 31, 2010 at 10:00am EDT
  • As a grader for a class called "The Bible as Literature," I have many times handed out bad grades to students who wanted to interpret the Bible as their pastors told them rather than as the college professor taught. On one hand, of course, a course of this nature is supposed to engage with the Bible differently than they do in a religious atmosphere, but it pained me that religious students could not bring that identity and hermeneutic into the classroom. Their faith was not engaged with--it was simply ignored. The professor laid out his method of reading the Bible on the first day of class and that was the one that stood. I liken this marginalization to a woman student attending a class on "gender theory" and not being allowed to bring her own experiences of being a woman, even a feminist, into scholarly discussion. It goes against all of our standards in the academy for using your own subject position to understand your world.
    And to respond to the commenters who keep mentioning that born again Christians are so numerous----I think they are more numerous in society but not in selective colleges. This fact perpetuates the culture wars within the history and religious studies classrooms. The students who do get into college try very hard to figure out how and where their parents' and their culture of origin came into being. So often they cannot find it in the secular lefitst academy, because we don't historicize how "wacko evangelicals" came to be. So many people just look down upon it. But that only baits many of these students into being upset and feeling (understandably) lost within our Humanities departments. Or--some of them just lose their faith at that point (because they never loved their culture of origin either), but ultimately I do not think they were being treated fairly. A lot of professors and grad students I know hate evangelicals with a passion. They hate them for all they stand for. That's why I have spent years trying to keep a very low profile so my colleagues don't find out that I'm one of "them."

  • John's Paper
  • Posted by A.J. Kreider , Associate Professor of Philosophy at Miami Dade College on July 31, 2010 at 10:45am EDT
  • Concerning the poor grade John received on his paper:

    I often get papers on God's existence that use the Bible as a source. I always mark down (though never an F) if the student in question says nothing concerning why this source should be taken as authoritative. This seems fair in that a) I tell them they need to do this beforehand as with any source, and b) the Bible makes some claims that are prima facie implausible (Tower of Babel, etc.). The student needn't engage in a wholesale defense (which I also tell them), but they need to say something: overall coherence, fulfillment of prophecy, historical accuracy . . . something.

    None of this strikes me as anti-Christian, though some students take it this way. Perhaps John did. While I wouldn't have said, "I reject your dogmatism", as this strikes me as too personalizing and unnecessarily harsh in tone, the main difficulty in merely citing a religious text as authoritative is that it shows a lack of critical reflection - dogmatism, in other words.

    A.J.

  • A few things...
  • Posted by Matt Nelson , Graduate Student in Student Affairs on July 31, 2010 at 10:45am EDT
  • Before we start trotting out claims of persecution against Christians, we should take stock of Christian privilege in our culture (by which I am referring specifically to American culture). You could read (http://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/article_1c303d9a-0736-54ed-a0bb-b93728e05c98.html) or any of the other resources on the Internet regarding Christian privilege. It's difficult to say that Christianity does not dominate our culture, as can be pointed out in numerous ways. Very rarely do Christians have difficulty finding a site to practice faith, have to donate to charities that are not with their faith, can ignore other religions at no social cost to themselves, and Christians can critically evaluate Christianity without presuming that they are attacking Christianity (much as I would be as an atheist). For more discussion of that, check out the fantastic book "Is Critique Secular?"
    In short, there is not oppression against Christians, and there cannot be as long as they remain in the dominant hegemonic role in our culture. When a president does not have to invoke the blessings of an almighty God with a capital G, we'll have made some steps in the right direction, but until then, there is much work to do to reduce the influence of Christianity on academia.

  • Non-Evangelical Christians get bashed too
  • Posted by H. E. Baber , Professor/Department of Philosophy at University of San Diego on July 31, 2010 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Thank you for this article!

    I can't say I've experienced serious discrimination as a Christian academic, but I've certainly gotten plenty of misunderstanding, hostility and contempt.

    And I'm no evangelical: I'm Episcopalian, socially liberal, a feminist and in politics a socialist. So it's especially vexing that academic acquaintances, when they discover that I'm a religious believer (1) assume that I'm a conservative evangelical (other brands of Christianity having become invisible) and (2) that I'm socially and politically conservative.

    I'm really sick of the cultural assumption that religious belief, of whatever sort, for whatever reason, is on the Dumb Ideas List .More fundamentally, I am sick of the way popular culture, which infects even Academia, maintains Smart and Dumb Ideas Lists. When I was in high school I recall that in English classes simply making anti-religious remarks, without argument or defense, got marginal comments like "Good! I can see you're really THINKING!" Bashing religion, one of the entries on the Dumb Ideas List, got you automatic points.

    One of the most important projects of higher education in the humanities I believe is to disabuse students of the idea that there are Smart and Dumb Ideas Lists--to get it into their heads that they have to support their claims by evidence and arguments, that they have to be clear in their writing and thinking, and that they are not going to be rewarded for learning off some Smart Ideas List--or for reflexively bashing entries on a Dumb Ideas List.

    You'd think academics would know better, and most do. But a significant number don't.

  • Religious Beliefs & Behavior Survey (Tobin & Weinberg, 2007)
  • Posted by HL , Asst. Prof at Private Liberal Arts Institution on July 31, 2010 at 12:30pm EDT
  • NB pointed to a helpful resource: www.jewishresearch.org/PDFs/FacultyReligion07.pdf

    While this document does say that more faculty identify as Christians than as Atheists (as NB points out), it also shows that a majority of faculty view Evangelical Christians unfavorably:

    "One group elicited high negative feelings among faculty: Only 30% ranked their feelings toward Evangelical Christians as warm/favorable, with only 11% feeling very warm/favorable, the lowest ranking among every other religious group, and 53% said that they have cool/unfavorable feelings towards Evangelical Christians (See Figure 37). Faculty feelings about Evangelicals are significantly cooler than any other religious group, leading Mormons as the least liked religious group by 20%. These negative feelings are noted across academic disciplines and demographic factors." (pp 80-81)

  • Acting on one's feelings is NOT the job of an academic.
  • Posted by Anonymous on July 31, 2010 at 3:45pm EDT
  • I wouldn't care how academics "felt" about those who have different beliefs--if they didn't ACT upon said feelings. But they do, and it's nauseating. The example given in this opinion piece, of a professor writing on a student's paper that he rejects the student's beliefs, is not unique.

    My job as a writing instructor is NOT to indoctrinate. It is to teach students to think for themselves, and to express their thoughts in a coherent, logical, and appropriately stylistic manner.

    In my current composition class, one of my students is writing about the increase in intensity of hurricanes. In addition to arguing which scientific theory is the strongest, she is also arguing that the overall climate change is part of the global changes predicted in the Book of Revelation.

    Personally, I don't buy the Revelation stuff. But there is no way I am going to prevent her from freely expressing her views. In fact, I encouraged her to do so. Her reaction was one of disbelief--she looked at me like I'm crazy--and relief, when she realized I mean it.

  • Christianity non-academic?
  • Posted by William Calin at University of Florida on July 31, 2010 at 3:45pm EDT
  • I am disconcerted by the comments which claim that religion (Christianity) is somehow illogical, non-empirical, and, consequently, not worthy of being in Academe. In the Humanities we know (or we should know) that Christianity has been at the center of our civilization and our academic discourse over most of the last two-thousand years. Many of us, including C.S. Lewis, became Christian due strictly to philosophical reasoning, to rational argument. Also, Christianity has been the background and impulse for so much of our art, architecture, poetry, drama, music, philosophy, and, of course, theology. Its contributions dwarf all the other religions on the planet combined. Oh, and here I speak as an Episcopalian, do not assume that Evangelicals are all alike. There is enormous theological and practical variety among the various strands of Evangelical Protestantism. I respect them as I respect all segments of our Christian faith.

  • Many academics pride themselves on anti-Christian bias
  • Posted by Suzanne Nussbaum , high school Latin teacher at Ithaca High School, Ithaca, NY on July 31, 2010 at 3:45pm EDT
  • There are many people I've known, in and around the academic world, who would pride themselves on their hostility to religion in general, to Christianity in particular.

    The English professor who criticized a reference to C. S. Lewis (!) is a bigoted fool; and his quoted criticism of the opinion piece he gave an F to further convicts him. He could certainly have asked the student to qualify what he meant by "Christians who read the Bible" (given that it's a matter of record that some Christians--certainly in the Main Line Protestant faiths--accept, encourage, foster homosexuality and non-traditional marriage). He could also have pushed the student, in some helpful and non-disdainful way, to use actual arguments, instead of just relying on 'my faith tells me so.'

    How anyone can equate T. S. Eliot with 'the Taliban' is beyond me; that's likely to be some silly prejudice (that the holder of the bias is proud of, you can be sure). Eliot's views are important and worth studying if only for a history of ideas kind of perspective; in addition to his own poetry, his views on canonical works in the Western tradition are important and worth knowing (to understand a cultural moment that has passed). I have to say I'm glad my college days were way back in the Seventies, when Eliot still loomed large!

    The reflexively anti-Christian bias mentioned in the article surely goes along with the documented discrimination (in admission to elite colleges) against certain sub-groups in the country, including those who've participated in activities like 4 H and Scouting. Maybe they're clinging to their guns and religions! Who would want anything like that kind of diversity on one's campus?

    No one should, or needs to, claim that pervasive anti-Christian bias is "the same as" the heinous kind of racial prejudice that used to go on in this country, to get a fair hearing. It's still not a good thing. But let's admit it: Academics tend to be snobs, and boy do they look for things to give themselves credit over. "At least I'm not a believer in some hidebound old superstition that would tell me how to live my life!" Congratulations, free thinker! Now, let's get together and make sure that guy who is critical of "global warming" can't get his papers published!!

  • prejudice against christians
  • Posted by defenderofcivilization , professor of something or other at graduate program in something or other on July 31, 2010 at 5:45pm EDT
  • This topic strikes me mostly as funny. No, we shouldn't be prejudiced anybody for their personal beliefs, whether african animist christian, cuban animal abuse christians, evangelists, speakers of tongues, "LDS," papist, snake handling, or one of the more rational versions of christianity, like CC or UU. But it can be a little hard to feel sorry for them, especially those more primitivist groups, since they are themselves so identified with prejudicial (and often even murderous) acts, from killing animals to marrying pre-teen girls, to murdering Jews during the Inquisition and Holocaust.

    And even when it comes to academic prejudice, surely Christians have prevented more non-Christians from even getting into college (think of all the quotas for Jews and total bans for blacks up until the 50s and 60s at every school, even Ivy League). And a recent President (I won't name him, but many thought he went by a middle initial that stood for "Worst President ever") unabashedly gave jobs to unqualified candidates throughout his administration based on their religious beliefs.

    So Christian prejudice is not only more likely to have led to death up to and including the 20th century, but even today is far more likely to lead to unfair discrimination. Another recent Republican gave a national speech in which he suggested only people who believe in God should be protected by the constitution, not atheists or agnostics. Hence I find this article risable. No, I don't approve of the academic prejudice claimed here, if it really happened. But the sense of disproportion compared to the long history of prejudice by Christians makes it seem like whining.

  • Data Please
  • Posted by RAK on July 31, 2010 at 7:15pm EDT
  • Let's have the data. If there is systematic discrimination against Christians in academia, which is Larsen's general contention, then it should be relatively easy to identify and quantify. Larsen is absolutely welcome to call for discussions about discrimination, but it odd that such a call comes from an essay where the arguments are so incredibly suspect.

    First of all, given his position as a professor Christianity at an institution that has well established history of discriminating against Roman Catholics (see the case of Joshua Hochschild, for example), Larsen hardly comes to this topic without a great deal of baggage. Does he embody the mission and practices of Wheaton? I have no idea, but he does represent the institution and it certainly has had its own tumultuous history with the topic.

    Second and more importantly, this piece moves only with anecdotal, highly suspect accounts. Larsen's story of prospective graduate student John is so fundamentally flawed that enters the realm of urban legend. Not only does Larsen have no first-hand knowledge of the supposed discrimination, he only has the account from John well detached from the individual contexts. Larsen has no actual insight into the class, aims of the assignment, or overall student's performance, only what information that John has given to justify why he received a less than superior grade. It is worth noting the context of Larsen's information: John wants admission into Wheaton for graduate school and provides this account to explain a mark on his academic record. (I have heard of too many sick grandmothers not to treat this story with trepidation.) Furthermore, Larsen is clearly not an unbiased observer in his position as a potential advisor and professor at an Evangelical institution. Let's have John's actual account (not relative to admission to graduate school and given to faculty) and, more importantly, let's have the C-granting professor's views.

    Going further, Larsen's own account of supposed discrimination is hardly compelling. His manuscript on Elliot's notion of Christianity may have been rejected for a host of reasons. He describes what he feels are anti-Christian biases of the outside reviewers, which is evidence less than compelling evidence even when it moves through Larsen's filter. Furthermore, the decision to publish or not ultimately is made by the staff and administration of the press, not outside readers. Yale U Press has an established history of publishing works on religion and, in particular, the history of Christianity.

    In spite of these serious flaws in the logic of the essay, Larsen is welcome to call for a discussion of discrimination against Christianity. BUT before we have that discussion, let's have the evidence. Let's have quantitative and qualitative data of discrimination. Enough of the detached anecdotes, let's have documented information. We need to know if individual cases of bias move into the realm of discrimination. We need to know if there is systematic bias and what institutions to support these biases. We need to demonstrate anti-Christian discrimination as an actual problem before we have that discussion. So come on, let's have the data.

  • question
  • Posted by justaguy , parent & taxpayer on August 1, 2010 at 6:15am EDT
  • I've followed the comments from the time there were only 4 and have read all 69 of them. What I haven't read is any mention that the kind of study Dr. Larsen is asking for has already been done. I would think there is a large enough cross section of the academy represented here to point to such a study. Can anyone point to to such a study? If not, why not?

  • Quelle horreur!
  • Posted by Walter Hutchens , Business Faculty at Univ. of Washington Bothell on August 1, 2010 at 2:15pm EDT
  • Prof. Calin asserts that "many of us" have become Christian, "due strictly to philosophical reasoning, to rational argument". That's, well, possible. (However I imagine many more have so asserted, without having actually done so; conversely, I am sure many have thought their way OUT of religion through rational argument).

    But setting aside the theoretical possibility of Christian conversion via philosophical reflection, as a distinguished humanist Prof. Calin knows that most eminent Western thinkers on the matter find that a "leap of faith" is required at some point in their Christian journeys. In the rich tradition he mentions, Christian doctrines are usually said to encompass "special revelation" that goes beyond the "general revelation" discernible through observation and ordinary cogitation.

    Therefore, my claim that religious identity or "knowledge" is faith based whereas academic norms for epistemology are different, and that this tension explains a great deal of "anti-Christian bias" in the academy, ought not, it seems to me, be "disconcerting" to him or anyone else.

    I did not claim religion or Christianity is unworthy of study or inconsequential in global history. I agree the opposite is true (and might be said of Confucianism as well).

    But the "study of religion" and "religious study" in a devotional sense are not, ordinarily, identical exercises. That I think remains a consequential point, and one the called-for study will need to recognize.

    Finally, as an aside let us make explicit that saying a matter is worthy of attention or that it is religious is not to say it is worthy of any automatic "respect." I am admittedly hostile to some "segments of […] Chrisitan faith." I am thinking of the crazies at the Westboro Baptist Church from Kansas, or the Christian apologists for slavery prevalent before the civil war, the vile champions of anti-Semitism, Christian apologists for the divine rights of Kings, or crude contemporary "inerrantists" or creationists. But neither a predisposition of respect nor one of hostility is the critical stance I would attempt to maintain in academic study of a religious matter.

    To the extent religious discourse is rational, naturalistic, empirical and willing to have all its assumptions challenged, then I think it ought not find hostility in academic circles. But the nature of religion is that often it is not that kind of discourse; hence the antediluvian tensions between religious and academic discourse.

    I would simply ask my Christian colleagues to agree that being discriminating does not equate to inappropriate discrimination, though it may be antagonistic to many typical forms of faith.

  • Mutual incompatibility
  • Posted by A Christian student on August 1, 2010 at 4:00pm EDT
  • Lost in this discussion, I think, is a critical and important distinction which must be made between true anti-Christian bigotry in the Academy and the Academy simply operating in accordance with its fundamental design. In the Academic world, there is no infallible go-to deposit of absolute truth and certainty; rather, truth must be gradually discovered through reason, logic, empirical investigation, and other rationalistic processes. Further, all discoveries must always remain open to critical review, as new information and understanding continues to be gleaned. This is the intrinsic nature of academia. While certain strands of liberal christianity may be compatible with these underlying premises, the evangelical Christianity being discussed here is not. Evangelical Christianity has as a principal basis the idea of special divine revelation - and this idea is of course utterly antithetical to the humanistic and rationalistic assumptions upon which the Academy operates.

    Any Evangelical who goes to a secular university ought to be well aware of all this, but unfortunately, many aren't. As a results, they often mistakenly view a university's promises of 'diversity' and 'open inquiry' as a guarantee that their "the Bible says it, that settles it" perspective can't be questioned, or downgraded. They soon find out that yes, it can; the Academic realm is inherently unable to take cognizance of any arguments which have at their heart divine revelation. If an Evangelical cannot bring themself to play by the rules of Academia, then they can attend a Christian college, where the worldviews of the school and student are the same rather than fundamentally incompatible.

    Furthermore, efforts to downplay this incompatibility, by trying to present Christianity as intellectually respectable to the cognoscenti, will only, in my view, end up bastardizing the faith. Christianity is *supposed* to offend and draw the scorn of the intelligentsia. Read 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 if you don't believe me. But you've got evangelical intellects like Mark Noll, who wrote in 'The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind' that Christians should abandon belief in six day creation because it's scientifically indefensible. This is true, of course, but belief in a bodily resurrection three days after crucifixion is also scientifically indefensible. The resurrection is of course the sine qua non of Christianity (1 Corinthians 15:12-19), but no stretch of the imagination could ever make it acceptable to true intellectual types, so we can stop trying; once again, it all comes down to a scientifically irrational faith we can choose to have or not. I find it amusing that in the Yale Press incident, Larsen chose to push not for the inclusion of someone who would promote Biblical Christianity, like say, J. Gresham Machen, but for T. S. Eliot, who would have a chance at inclusion only because of the intellectual reputation he has due to postmodern incoherencies like the Waste Land. His 'The Idea of a Christian Society', from what I read about it, really more promotes generic Abrahamaic religious morality than it does confessional Christianity. Why even bother?

    All this said, there is some very real anti-Christian bigotry which has no place in Academia, as the personal stories in several comments in this thread show. I agree that it needs to be reduced, and that many professors need to show simple respect and decency toward people of faith. But I also think that many problems would go away if more Christians understood the basic paradigm and worldview which underlies secular universities

  • Anatomy of a warped worldview
  • Posted by Mike D'Virgilo on August 1, 2010 at 4:00pm EDT
  • It is amazing to me how otherwise smart and intelligent people can be so utterly stupid. There is a lot of that in these comments, and it would take too long to address them all. I do especially love "Science prof at large public university." Note the implications of said prof. One cannot be a scientist and a Christian, because one cannot be a Christian and a "critical thinker." Really? Who says? There may be some Christians out there who rely on "it's written in the Bible" or "it's the authority of the Church," but most Christians believe what they believe based on the evidence for it. No worldview can be proven beyond doubt. None, not one. Zero, zip, nada. The blindness of this prof is breathtaking, but so common. He is objective, he requires no faith, he accepts no unprovable assumptions, he knows the essence of reality as it really is, in all it's scientific glory. Right.

    I guess our prof is also completely ignorant of this history of science, and that it was a biblical worldview that allowed science to emerge in the first place. The prof is an excellent example of why the progressive, leftists in control of academia really can't stand Christians especially, but all religion in general. They think Christians are the only ones who live by faith, who base their faith on certain assumptions. Everyone lives by certain unprovable assumptions. To our prof it's that "science itself militates against some kind of religious belief." And what kind of religious belief would that be? That which dares question the absolute faith many scientists place in natural selection and random mutation as the explanation for why everything exists as it is? Hmmm, I wonder where matter came from in the first place. I guess we'll have to leave that in the assumption pile as not a worthy question, at last not to the prof.

  • Best Comment Yet
  • Posted by Walter Hutchens , Business Faculty at Univ. of Washington Bothell on August 1, 2010 at 5:30pm EDT
  • I nominate the "Mutual Incompatibility" comment by "a Christian student" for "best comment yet" recognition. THAT is the kind of clarity of thought and expression that is A work in any academic setting, scular or otherwise, and ought to be so recognized. I would like to believe Christian higher ed promotes that quality of analysis, and that it would also be praised in a secular university, even if offered by an avowed Christian and even if as the commentor recognizes the fundamental assumptions and methods of truth discovery in academia and religion ultimately diverge.

  • Eliot a postmodernist?
  • Posted by Suzanne Nussbaum , Latin teacher at Ithaca High School, Ithaca, NY on August 2, 2010 at 5:15am EDT
  • Please, Mr. Christian Student, the mere fact that you may have had trouble reading it doesn't turn "The Waste Land" into something postmodern!

    I don't think the postmodern types would appreciate how Eliot privileges the canon of great books in the Western tradition, and all that Dead White Males stuff.

  • That silly Newton......
  • Posted by AP Cookapcook2 on August 2, 2010 at 5:15am EDT
  • That silly Newton and his Christian beliefs. Obviously he didn't undestand how the universe works.......

  • Traditional marriage
  • Posted by bronxboy on August 2, 2010 at 5:15am EDT
  • If in fact John's assignment was to simply write an "opinion" piece on "traditional marriage," he obviously deserved a passing grade. He stated his opinion, presumably in "favor" of it, and provided the basis for that opinion. Unless the professor accepted faith based reasoning for the opinion of a student of a different religion, the claim of discrimination against Christians in this particular instance is baseless. I seriously doubt the professor would have engaged in such blatant unfairness.

    In all liklihood the assignment required the students to marshall more than scriptural references to fashion a cogent argument in support of traditional marriage to the exclusion of same sex marriage or other forms of domestic relations. John was either unable or unwilling to do so. Again, this hardly seems to be a sufficient basis for allegations of religious discrimination against him, Christians in general or others who hold deep felt religious beliefs on the subject of marriage. John was only asked to hone his analytical thinking and writing skills and in the process thoroughly examine his opinion. All of which summarizes the very purpose for attending college --- or at least it did when I was in school innumerable decades ago.

  • Academic Norms
  • Posted by William Calin at University of Florida on August 2, 2010 at 2:45pm EDT
  • I appreciate the comment by Professor Hutchens. It is intelligent and well-argued. Where we respectfully disagree has to do with what he quite rightly calls the academic norms for epistemology. There are some fields in the Humanities where these norms are held quite lightly, for example, literary criticism, various schools of theory, and certain currents in philosophy. Over the centuries great thinkers were Christian, and their Christianity contributed to their intellectual endeavors. Need I cite Jerome, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Newton, Pascal, Leibnitz, Newman, and, in the twentieth century, Gilson, Maritain, Lubiac, Barth, Jaspers, Niebuhr, for that matter C.S. Lewis? Many of them were university professors. I believe that we have to recognize the leap of faith in an academic setting. And we do, in most circles.

  • Posted by Walter Hutchens , Business Faculty at U of Washington Bothell on August 2, 2010 at 6:15pm EDT
  • Prof. Calin's point is well-taken. Yes, indeed, the natural and social sciences are more empirical and naturalistic than the humanities, so the distinction between religious and academic epistemology is more robust there. And to the extent Po-Mo theory and related discourses have muddled even the "rationalistic" conceits of academic life, it does become more difficulty to draw a distinction between "academic" and faith-based claims to knowledge (though I'm not sure whether this tends to legitimize faith-based discourse as "academic" so much as cast some critical theory in a dubious light).

    But even acknowledging these important qualifications, it seems to me a parade of Christian thinkers, however eminent and even if all formally academics, doesn't undermine the basic, and I think still useful, distinction between the paradigmatic norms for arguing and establishing truth in religion and the academy. In the academy (or rationalist tradition) I can challenge Newton's (or for that matter Darwin's) claims about the world without appeals to scripture or church teaching, and my status as a believer (or atheist) need not enter the discourse. Surely this is generally less true with respect to religion. Theology may be profound (or obtuse) as a subject, but in terms of first principles, "the fossil record shows," or even an "unmoved mover" argument is a qualitatively different kind of argument than "see [scriptural citation], QED" or "In my subjective experience, . . ."

    But I suppose I ought to defer to our humanist colleagues regarding how far this distinction has in fact eroded in fields that I know less about. If it is greatly enfeebled or even eradicated, perhaps we should anticipate even more thuggish "discrimination" against whatever perspective one happens not to share, since the common ground for discourse seems undermined (much like ancient religious cosmologies have dissipated? . . . An irony some lit crit practitioners would relish, though it still strikes me as specious). Cheers.

  • Posted by LJ on August 3, 2010 at 6:45am EDT
  • “I reject your dogmatism,”

    Chesterton would say that this was an error of fact. What the professor should have said, to be accurate would be "I reject your dogma." That was the real problem. The student John just put down the wrong dogma. Had he agreed with the professor's dogma he would have received high marks. He would not have been penalized for being dogmatic because nobody is ever considered dogmatic who agrees with the popular dogma.

  • Thank you, LJ
  • Posted by PhD Candidate, Higher Ed on August 3, 2010 at 11:15am EDT
  • I appreciate your comment LJ concerning the distinction between dogmatism and dogma. My colleagues (and I would suspect many others) insist on inclusion yet entirely marginalize the evangelical Christian viewpoint. To use terms such as minority viewpoints and hegemony is to ignore the complexity and variability of experiences and worldviews.

    I'm teaching my five year old to solve problems with words rather than force (in essence, dialogue and the pursuit of mutual expression versus power and reliance on a preferred status). If she's successful with puzzles and interactions with her younger siblings there might be cause for hope.

  • C.S. Lewis
  • Posted by Mike , Graduate Student at University of Dayton on August 5, 2010 at 9:30am EDT
  • The very fact that the professor in question thought C.S. Lewis was a "pastor" and didn't realize that he taught at Cambridge is pretty illustrative.

  • Victimhood, peace and avoiding the fight
  • Posted by John Pack Lambert , soon to be grad student at Eastern Michigan University on August 6, 2010 at 8:15pm EDT
  • As a Mormon I come from a faith tradition that was not explicitly mentioned in the 70% of the comments I made it through. As an undergraduate I attended both Brigham Young University and Wayne State University. As a transfer student from BYU I could make it fairly evident what my religion was, and the fact that I undertook to write a paper on the history of the Down and Back companies of the early-1860s Mormon trail probably made such a situation more evident.

    Probably the class where I came to closest to facing anti-religious bias was Physical Anthropology. However we never really got into the heart of the matter, human evolution. Beyond this, after going to BYU I had been exposed enough to Mormon scientific thought to know that evolution and Mormonism are not incompatible. I have since come up with new ways that compatibility is possible.

    I would say if I had not done 3 and a half years at BYU I would not have funtioned as well in the Wayne State University environment. 2 years as a missionary and then later a year and a half before I resumed my undergraduate studies also helped me be more at peace with the situation.

    I did quit one class because I could not stand the political views of the teacher, or more likely the joint apathy and ignorance of history. The proposal to go listen to a pro-genderles-marriage lecture as part of another class elicited a strong objection from me which lead to the professor saying "we tolerate you and you are different". What she meant by that is unclear, and since the objection to genderless marriage is not about kicking homosexuals out of anywhere it was a pretty off the wall statement. I am not sure if I could have tolerated the whole situation at all if I had not known the professor was a believing Catholic.

    I think though the whole line about helping Christian students and secular professors communicate is a good one. Closely connected with this is I find it most disturbing when professors claim the point of liberal arts is to destroy faith. If it is, they need to be more open, and then we need to ask two questions. One is, how can we make sure people agree to fund such an assult. Secondly, is such an assult even permitted by the first admendment? A private school yes, but in a public institution?

    However I have of late seen the hatefilled reactions against Southern Utah University and Northwest College trying to recruit Mormons by emphasizing things that will help Mormons and existing non-campus infastructure to aid Mormons. These efforts are denounced with vitriol.

    I think the heart of the problem is not so much anti-Christian bias. In some cases that does not help, but the real problem is too large classes, no connection between professors and students, and the anti-Christian elements in our society that help inspire the siege mentality in various Christian students.

    I thought the point about a difference between challenging and attacking views was well put. The version of the Bible has not relevance in John's story. Even a minimum investigation of the debate will reveal that those who want to redifine marriage from a Christian view argue not against the words of the Bible but its permanent binding power.

    In the same way it is the dogmatic athiests who create the most problems. With their campus displays including a Bible, a Qu'ran and a Book of Mormon all labeled as "fiction" and with their using the acronym SANE, they seem to be trying to deliberately anger as many people as possible. Thus the claims that Christian students have the corner on such are false. The antics of the Muslim Student Association at UC Irvine also prove Christians are not the only totally out of line students.

    The Orthodox Jews who sued Yale over its requirement that all single undergraduates live in the dorms, which are coed and worse, show that the standoff between academia and religion is not just by Christians but also done by other groups.

    I would agree the attempt by some Evangelicals to appropriate the term "Christian" to themselves is annoying. I have actually known people to say "I am not a Christian, I am a Catholic". I openly proclaim I am a Christian, and will not let others lessen the terms meaning. That said, I am glad I was never given an assignment to write an opinion paper on "traditional marriage" or any other totally loaded assignment like that.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • real research
  • Posted by MJBubba , engineer not in academia on August 9, 2010 at 4:15am EDT
  • I am surprised that nobody has yet referenced one of the few bits of relevant research: a working paper by Gross and Simmons that relates some solid survey findings: http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~ngross/lounsbery_9-25.pdf
    They report that, while 26 percent of the college-educated public view the Bible as myths and fables, 52 percent of professors hold this view. I think this is a pretty revealing bit of information to contribute to this thread.

  • Posted by James Coder on August 9, 2010 at 6:45am EDT
  • Here's a story from NPR about a sociological study related to this issue:

    When Elaine Howard Ecklund began asking top scientists whether they believe in God, she got a surprise. Ecklund, an assistant professor at Rice University and author of the book Science Vs. Religion, polled 1,700 scientists at elite universities. Contrary to the stereotype that most scientists are atheists, she says, nearly half of them say they are religious. But when she did follow up interviews, she found they practice a "closeted faith."

     

    "They just do not want to bring up that they are religious in an academic discussion. There's somewhat of almost a culture of suppression surrounding discussions of religion at these kinds of academic institutions," Ecklund says.

    Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128959747

    Nb., in many of these comments we find remarks about "dumb people" and "dumb things people have done." I'd suggest that though this can have relevance to addressing the actual issues, much of the time it won't result in fruitful debate.

    I agree entirely that students should be encouraged to "ground" their assertions, and that this "ground" should go beyond simply: "that's what the Bible says," or "science tells us," etc. etc.. We always need to know, "why is this particular source relevant?" If an English prof classifies another professor (C.S. Lewis) of literature as a "preacher" and finds this alone as a sufficient warrant to criticize quoting his views, that prof needs to do some re-evaluation, and yes: it's likely that this was a kind of knee-jerk reaction to the general fear: "The student is dogmatically asserting something rather than arguing it" - understandable enough when encountering someone quoting a Christian source. Nonetheless, the professor needs to re-evaluate how he deals with that fear, if it elicits responses like this, which seem to speak more to his own fear, than to the problematic of good argumentation and justification of belief.

    I'm also a bit taken aback at how some of the remarks here expose a lack of sensibility in epistemology and hermeneutics. "Knowledge" is, in general, true justified belief - we are always speaking about beliefs in the sciences - the question is, how do we justify such beliefs? Part of this question is: what are the social structures involved in such justifications, and how do we, through intersubjective processes, move from highly subjective beliefs, moving outward toward clarity and eventually consensus by use of agreed-upon methods, toward beliefs with some type of justification? Here, the notion of the "university" becomes quite relevant as one of the important social structures. On the issue of hermeneutics, and also the university, Hans Georg Gadamer is a must-read - Truth and Method. Regarding the university, and also the tendency of many scholars to fall into various "camps" and general patterns of narrative, guided by similar notions of method - Alister MacIntyre's book Whose Truth, Which Rationality? comes to mind. If the Gadamer text looks a bit hairy for you, Anthony Thisselton has written a book on hermeneutics which you might find interesting - this, however, is aimed more at pastors / preachers and also discusses Biblical hermeneutics - I would hope though that most here aspire to that level of reading which preachers are capable of, and reading the text also might dispel some myths about how such preachers reason and engage scripture.

    This is exceedingly important. When we ask students to write papers or write them ourselves, we are engaged in: the enterprise of exploring and justifying belief, no matter which subject matter we deal with. We are always practically engaged in hermeneutics - whether writing academic papers, mowing the lawn, or chatting with our spouses. University personnel especially should be sensitive to matters of hermeneutics and epistemology.

    The "human sciences" do not and should not use the same methodology as the natural sciences - i.e., in responding to a theist, one doesn't do well by asking for conclusions which can immediately be drawn from empirical data - no more than one would do so in responding to an advocate of civil rights. We are getting close to the naïvity of the Vienna Circle at times, and if we were all strict Vienna Circle adherents - we would not believe in human rights. Truth and Method is particularly good at this.

    It seems to me that many here believe that one "camp" amongst two rival sets of traditions and prejudices is intent upon asserting that it is now the sole legitimator of all truth, should preside in the selection of all articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and that it does best at batting down rival arguments rather than rationally considering them, out of fear of some type of danger or possible taint upon the reader. I would consider such a view as, in general, rather alien to confident and equinanimous pursuit of truth.

    The Catholic tradition especially has enriched our understanding of most everything, due to the emphasis placed by Jesuits and Dominicans on pursuit of knowledge and truth. Contrary to what certain dogmatists might believe, this isn't all about "proofs of God's existence" (which altogether would amount to a negligable percentage of the total production), it doesn't all rigidly adhere to prescribed beliefs, and a good deal of it is theologically quite dodgy by Catholic standards. But then again, Catholics in general tend to embrace passionate inquiry into truth without prejudicially casting things aside as unworthy of consideration, and this yields a rather diverse set of views.

    Catholic thought has also been part-and-parcel of our very "enlightenment" tendencies to think as we do, to aspire toward a liberated, unprejudiced, self-grounding rational subject; and to engage in our sometimes-quirky attempts at excluding those things which we fear are somehow "prejudicial." We would not think the way we do, nor have the kinds of universities we now have, were it not for Thomas Aquinas and Ockham, to name but two. Even when espoused by atheists, our notions of rational inquiry, of civil rights, and of humanity have overtones of the "divine" which have been molded by the thought processes and research into ideas, paradigms, and methods by Catholics. Our ideologies, our systems of inquiry, and our social structures were not born ex-nihilo; and it is only by continually exposing these to the light of reasoned critique that we have any hope of improving upon them. Much as Catholics realize that the same applies for their own teachings, methods, and social structures.

    I myself am not Catholic; and I would support the right of a university whose doctrinal stance is generally reformed, to hire teaching staff only in the reformed tradition if this is what they found best (as I would also for a Catholic, or Muslim university). I am also very happy that the Catholic tradition is only one amongst many, and that it receives spirited critique - though, in Western tradition, it certainly is one of the largest and most fruitful ones.

    But I would also support firing any professor who simply, without appealing to rational grounds, advocated the position: "We can just stop listening to Catholics now, and get rid of all these lousy, dangerous Catholic sources."

  • of course!
  • Posted by David S , Prof./Physics at University of Pittsburgh on August 9, 2010 at 11:00am EDT
  • I have been in academia for 30 years and of course there is discrimination, not to mention hatred, of evangelical Christians. I have far too memories to repeat them all here. One colleague, when I told him we home schooled our children, said to me, "Well, that's okay as long as it is for academic reasons, and you're not one of those religious types." Many other times I have been at parties and a colleague has launched into a diatribe against conservatives and evangelicals as stupid. Rather than a nuanced discussion of world view differences, as one might get when discussing tribal peoples or Muslims, one gets simply pure hatred. Anyone who says it ain't so is just lying. One feels like a communist or Jew in the middle of the last century. "They're everywhere!" the prejudiced one shouts! "They must be stopped!"

  • Posted by mlo on August 10, 2010 at 12:00pm EDT
  • I'm a leftist Christian and I will say there is an enormous amount of discrimination in the academy against Christians.

    No one guesses I'm a Christian at first so I have heard a myriad of hateful things said about Christians in all contexts.

    Seriously, I cannot believe that non-Christians aren't aware of their own attitudes towards Christians. Do you like Christians? Do you think they are like you? Or do you see them as foreign, suspect and other? Do you think they are as smart and ethical as you are? If you do, then I suppose you might have reason to doubt they are discriminated against. But honestly, people please just think about your attitudes toward Christians and imagine what it is like to be at the receiving end of those attitudes. Can you honestly believe that, if there is this much vitriol, there is no discrimination?

    The problem, of course, is that some Christians are mentally closed off and students like this of any stripe do have problems in the academy. I really suspect the student the author here describes is like that. As a professor, it is simply impossible to teach students who cannot imaginatively entertain a variety of perspectives and they do extremely poor work. I cannot give a Christian diatribe a good grade. Nor can I give an argument that uses wholly Christian texts a good grade when the class has nothing to do with those texts. You get an F in my class and you deserve that F if you write like this. This isn't discrimination but a failure of the student to display good scholarship.

    So I'd say the examples aren't convincing but the problem the author points to is real.

    There's no way I can prove to any of the people with anti-Christian attitudes that their presuppositions are utter bullshit so I don't even try anymore. People are very defended in their hostility. They are sure it is justified and they are sure Christians truly run the world (into the ground) so it is fine to have contempt for them. They also believe people choose to be Christians and so merit these attitudes. What can one say?

  • Posted on August 11, 2010 at 5:15pm EDT
  • I find several assertions by mlo (and related ones on this thread) to be debatable:

    "Seriously, I cannot believe that non-Christians aren't aware of their own attitudes towards Christians. Do you like Christians? Do you think they are like you? Or do you see them as foreign, suspect and other? Do you think they are as smart and ethical as you are? If you do, then I suppose you might have reason to doubt they are discriminated against."

    Nobody should be demeaned, or told that they are stupid. Inflammatory language is inexcusable, especially when it is our job to offer our students and readers an ethical alternative to the routine nastiness, vicious typecasting and mindless oversimplification that pullulates on the internet and the media as a whole. People also have the right not to be members of a particular religious denomination, and should be allowed the opportunity to articulate a reasoned disagreement with its assumptions and intellectual positions. Is a Catholic, Protestant, Mormon or Orthodox Christian necessarily bigoted because s/he chooses, on the basis of the foundational principles or beliefs of their faith, not to be abandon their own Christian denomination for another? Or a Reform Jew who decides not to join the Lubavitcher movement? The answer to these questions is no.

    "There's no way I can prove to any of the people with anti-Christian attitudes that their presuppositions are utter bullshit so I don't even try anymore. People are very defended in their hostility."

    Again, what you see as "anti-Christian" might in some contexts represent a divergence of views, something that is not tantamount to an assault on someone's being or humanity.

    "They also believe people choose to be Christians and so merit these attitudes."

    Of course people choose to be particular kinds of Christians. How could it be otherwise? Religion is nothing if not about values, and internally coherent (and strongly articulated) world-views. There are any number of learned disagreements that everything to do with dissenting from the core religious values of one's interlocutor (e.g. the polemic between Luther and Erasmus). As is often in case in life, tone matters as much as content, and nobody deserves verbal abuse, or belittling treatment. Your own use of profanity does not help your plea.

  • Posted by JCF on August 16, 2010 at 6:00am EDT
  • a consortium of seven evangelical colleges had developed a solid proposal. .... Although this foundation has funded Lutheran and Roman Catholic schools
    &RJS: you're contrasting "Lutheran" and "evangelical"?! (Who came up w/ the term "evangelical", anyway?)

    I think this highlights the euphemistic aspect of this discussion: using the terms "evangelical" or even "Christian", when what is meant is socially conservative (while that's the accepted term, I think that even that is a euphemism for anti-gay/anti-feminist prejudice).

    I'm a Christian, and as "Bible-believing" as they come. However, out of my reading/interpretation of Scripture (and in light of Christian Tradition), I do not share the social conservatism (displayed particularly against LGBT people, and women who choose abortion) of these self-designated "evangelicals" (who, despite what their name signifies, assert too much BAD NEWS for too many types of people!)

    Should academics w/ these types of prejudice receive equal consideration?

    Perhaps---but that's a very DIFFERENT question, than the one being asked and answered here: "Why were we not chosen/selected/promoted/awarded/tenured (etc)?" Because we're Christians.

  • 'I'm as Christian as they come'
  • Posted by Douglas Lewis on August 16, 2010 at 12:00pm EDT
  • JCF (I'm familiar with this person's comments on other sites) simply changes the focus of the prejudice. Yes, the majority of Evangelical Christians are socially conservative. Therefore it's OK to discriminate against them.

    What makes me nervous is that a number of commenters on this thread may actually agree.

  • Lots of sturm and drang, no action...
  • Posted by Bikerdad , ComputerDude / Truck Driver at nowhere near the Ivory Towers. :-) on August 16, 2010 at 7:30pm EDT
  • 90 odd comments, more than a score identified academics of various disciplines and as many institutions, and yet not even the inkling of a plan to actually research the subject. Sad, sad, sad.

    Larsen raises the topic, I'll issue the challenge. You who've posted here seem to care enough about the topic to pipe up. So organize yourselves and DO THE BLASTED RESEARCH. Step out of your comfort zones and find out what's really going on.

    Be curious.

  • Science & Religion Mutually Irrelevant?????
  • Posted by JBS , Pastor at Evangelical on August 27, 2010 at 5:00pm EDT
  • Several commentators seem to be laboring under what they believe it be a settled question that Science and Religion have nothing in common. I would like for them to read the following quote from William Lane Craig. Perhaps it will open some eyes to consider the broader debate about truth and how it is sought.

    Graig say the following about the current dialoge between science and religion.

    "Numerous societies for promoting this dialogue, like the European Society for the Study of Science and Theology, the Science and Religion Forum, the Berkeley Center for Theology and Natural Science, and so forth have sprung up. Especially significant have been the on-going conferences sponsored by the Berkeley Center and the Vatican Observatory, in which prominent scientists like Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies have explored the implications of science for theology with prominent theologians like John Polkinghorne and Wolfhart Pannenberg. Not only are there professional journals devoted to the dialogue between science and religion, such as Zygon and Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, but, more significantly, secular journals like Nature and the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, also carry articles on the mutual implications of science and theology. The Templeton Foundation has awarded its million dollar Templeton Award in Science and Religion to outstanding integrative thinkers such as Paul Davies, John Polkinghorne, and George Ellis for their work in science and religion. The dialogue between science and theology has become so significant in our day that both Cambridge University and Oxford University have established chairs in science and theology.

    I share all this to illustrate a point. Folks who think that science and religion are mutually irrelevant need to realize that the cat is already out of the bag; and I daresay there’s little prospect of stuffing it back in. Science and religion have discovered that they have important mutual interests and important contributions to make to each other, and those who don’t like this can choose not to participate in the dialogue, but that’s not going to shut down the dialogue or show it to be meaningless."

    The full article can be read here.

    http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5355

  • Posted on August 29, 2010 at 10:00am EDT
  • I read this article with great interest, because I'm one of those Christians who has always been extremely skeptical of stories of persecution in the secular academy. I know of two individuals who claim such "persecution status"; in both cases, however, my assessment of their work perfectly matches that of my secular colleagues. As for myself, I have NEVER faced discrimination.

    I have, however, noted a great deal of embarrassment about faith in academic circles in the USA. I spent most of my career in Canada, only recently moving to the USA. Here, the political voice of conservative evangelicalism seems to silence, or overwhelm, the voice of other traditions. Those unaffiliated with right-wing politics lack a voice. Our conservative Christian students also lack a voice: when writing anything related to faith, they often find it difficult to turn their bias (and we all have these, right?) into the basis for intellectual dialogue and exchange. The political-religious tensions that swirl in US public life make this much more difficult for them than for other students, I suspect, for both they and their professors hear the "shouts" of the political arena, where religious (and anti-religious) rhetoric often sounds all too loudly. Those echoes overshadow and deafen. They shut down conversation, even in the classroom--the very site where we try to cultivate such skills as listening and speaking thoughtfully.

    Perhaps American students and professors need to start by acknowledging the way in which American political rhetoric inhibits dialogue and conversation. Politics, after all, is not a two-way exchange of thoughts or ideas, but about the pursuit of power. Marked by "other criticism" rather than self-reflection, its stances poison the academic atmosphere. It's not impossible to step beyond the world of political debate: judging by my own experience, most do - even if political and religious tensions continue to lurk in the background.