After Twelve Hours

So, this is it? One comment? I am very interested to know why the many people who post comments on so many other articles have not posted here. I have some guesses as to why there is such a dearth, but I am interested in the actual reasons that people offer. Will anyone who has posted a comment in the past please post here telling me/us why you hadn’t otherwise commented here?

Curious, at 5:35 pm EST on February 1, 2006

Differences even among Christians

Ron, I like what you have written here. It echoes much of what Naomi Schaefer Riley has researched in God on the Quad (an excellent read for those addressing spiritual issues and college students). However, I thought to myself about the freedom you described in teaching may not exist at all Christian colleges. Certain evangelical denominations and the colleges they sponsor are more apt to embrace a worldview that promotes “all for the glory of God” — work, scholarship, play, athletics, etc. Yet, I have seen other evangelical denominations possess a paradigm that seems to promote (even if unintentional) a Christian sub-culture. Christians have created their own line of books, TV stations, music, etc. and interact very little with the culture except for purposes of proselytizing. I highly respect the two colleges you have taught at —> Gordon and Westmont. I think they promote a liberal Christian education as it ought to be done, looking at all issues with a critical mind while addressing issues of faith. However, I have seen other Christian institutions react in a similar manner equivalent to state or secular institutions, each attempting to prohibit “the other side” from infiltrating their camp. In recently speaking with an LU alumnus, I asked him about his higher ed training as a pastor and the rigor or preparedness he received. In summary, he stated that Liberty (BA)taught him everything conservative. Duke taught him everything liberal (PhD). But Gordon (MDiv) made him investigate all matters from each perspective (liberal, moderate, & conservative) and think critically about each. In my mind, this is the essence of a liberal education, teaching students to think critically about life while developing their faith.

Josh Brown, Assoc Dir of Univ Assessment at Liberty University, at 9:05 am EST on February 2, 2006

Atheists and non-Christians grapple too

“Sadly, on most college and university campuses today, few faculty are engaging students in this deeper work of meaning and purpose in life — what we might call the larger vocational questions that students are asking.”

um. . .. What? This is such utter BS that I’m almost speechless, but not quite. We in the liberal arts, and in particular in the humanities, have been doing just this, asking students to engage in the “deeper work” you describe, and which you erroneously imply is “religious.” Secular humanists espouse many of the values you think are inherently “Christian” and I assure you I am engaging my students morally and spiritually even though I don’t teach at a Christian college, nor do I consider myself a Christian. I think it’s great that you are finding meaningful vocational work in your professional setting. Now I ask that you leave room to imagine that some of us secularist humanists/atheists/agnostics/Wiccans/anti-absolutists are deeply interested and capable of engaging our students on the spiritual and vocational levels, and of being deeply invested spiritually in the values that inspire the liberal arts and sciences.

Violet, Spiritual but not Christian, at 4:30 pm EST on February 2, 2006

Where to begin...

First, I do encourage those interested in learning more about these kinds of institutions to read the aforementioned “God on the Quad” (St. Martins Press, 2005) by Naomi Schaefer Riley, as she surveys the landscape of American higher education institutions that have remained intentionally faith-based.

As to the charge that I have too quickly dismissed the “deeper work of finding meaning and purpose” among my colleagues in the academy at large, I again point to the national study by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA referenced in the op-ed piece. I have no doubt that there are faculty teaching at state universities and private non-sectarian colleges who probe these deeper questions for their students. You are out there, working hard, trying your very best to help your students discover what it means to live the good life, to work for justice, to admire what is beautiful and true, and so on.

Yet, if students are arriving on these campuses with deep moral and spiritual questions (and they are), but report that they are not finding much encouragement or help for their struggle (which they do), then the question remains—what is happening both inside and beyond the classroom that leaves students begging for help?

At the very least, campuses that embrace a philosophy of education that intentionally encourage the moral and spiritual development of students are not afraid to ask these questions in open and non-threatening ways. You are welcome to debate (and will continue to do so, no doubt) the relative merits of ‘academic freedom’ at these institutions. I freely recognize that there is a range within Christian colleges and universities regarding the edges of academic freedom in relationship to specific teachings of a sponsoring church or denomination. I granted this in my article.

So having granted this, I simply note that there is no such thing as “absolute” academic freedom in ANY institution. Does anyone believe that a department of economics that is known to be predominantly “free market” in its orientation will seriously consider hiring a Marxist for an opening? When an English department advertises for a position in comparative literature, do we really believe that there are NO expectations beyond basic competencies in the subject-matter regarding how a person’s ideological or theoretical perspectives will line-up with the predominant paradigm within the department?

Institutions and departments are free to select faculty who line up with the mission and vision of the organization. That’s the beauty of American higher education.

It’s certainly easy to grab hold of the “headlines” about faculty members who are dismissed or choose to leave a faith-based institution on the basis of a disagreement about the interpretation of a faith statement. It has happened. And there are most usually (though not always) reasonable explanations for such disagreements.

In the end, I write from my particular experience teaching at two Christian colleges. What I found was a “freedom within a framework of faith” (an expression which Gordon College uses to summarize the basic philosophy of education at that institution). We were not mass producing “red-state Republicans.” Nor were we mass producing “blue-state Democrats.” Rather, at both Westmont and Gordon where I taught, and other dozens of other faith-based colleges and universities, students are invited to take their faith commitments seriously, even as they enter into the difficult (and often troubling) waters of their disciplines. Their faith can be informed by their discipline, even as their discipline can rightly be informed by their faith.

These campuses are intentional in their mission, and at the very least, are striving to be consistent in the academic programs and opportunities which are presented to students. While that consistency may not be particularly well understood by the broader public, the responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of those teaching and leading these institutions to better articulate and explain their unique character and place in the higher education landscape.

Ron Mahurin

Ron Mahurin, at 4:55 am EST on February 3, 2006

Hi Ron, I appreciate your response here, and I see how the studies do report feeling they are not getting help with their spiritual struggles. My question is why do we interpret this as a failing on the part of the teacher? I bet we could find studies that say students feel they are not getting a good education, that they are not learning what they need to know in the workforce, that their professors are not good teachers, etc. My feeling is that students are generally more self-entitled than they have been in the past, and that they are very good at expressing their dissatisfactions with parts of the college experience that inconvenience them in some way, from parking issues to religious/political issues that challenge or offend them. In short, at what point do we allow them to outline the terms of their education? At what point do we as a faculty retain authority over the curriculum and stop trying to package the perfect consumer product? Now we have to package “spirituality,” when, like you said, we in the liberal arts have been engaging issues of morality and truth since the beginning?

Maybe we can dovetail their spritual yearning with some other important issues that are being eclipsed by the whole religion on campus debate. Things like diversifying the campus, or creating more green campuses. Addressing important social issues can be spiritual, right?

Violet

Violet, Professor at Mid-Western Private University, at 12:05 pm EST on February 4, 2006

Responding to Jim

Jim, I don’t know where you’re teaching (evidently not a safe place, or you’re not proud of it, as you don’t identify yourself beyond University of Jesusland), but quite a number of Christian colleges in fact challenge “fervid American nationalism” in helping students see that their citizenship is elsewhere; assist students in achieving a measure of healthy understanding of themselves as sexual beings, and strongly encourage students to service, travel, and study abroad precisely to hear other voices. Every one of these is consistent with evangelical Christianity.

You write, “How can an educational environment without Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, uppity women, or liberal Democrats protect these perfectly-scrubbed little white (and I do mean white!) kids for a job outside of the most rigid of the red states?”

What makes you think that members of these groups are absent from many evangelical Christian colleges? Jews excepted (who would be welcome in many schools—after all, who are the strongest supporters of Israel?), I know a number of schools where all of these groups are present. All may be welcome at many schools; the issue is that Christianity demands that none of us remain as we are. (And what makes you think that their presence will somehow ensure quality education?)

And “lily-white"? While evangelical colleges in general have a long way to go, their difficulty is frequently a matter of location—where the population of color is large, students of color are strongly represented (look at Nyack College, Seattle Pacific, Trinity International, Biola, Azusa Pacific, for instance). They do not enjoy the state funding that enables state universities to subsidize enrollments from lower-income students, who are frequently from minority groups.

Red-state? Some of the best Christian colleges (USNews) are in Oregon, Washington, California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Michigan. Every one of those states is blue (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/)

Rich Sherry, Dean at Bethel University, at 9:55 am EST on February 27, 2006

Response about Whim

I’d be happy to respond about the Whim, a magazine at Radford which publishes, among numerous other things, a cartoon which some on campus feels mocks Jesus. In response I would like to say that I don’t think this has in any way created a climate which any self-respecting Christian would find “hostile.” We are talking about one cartoon. I’d say one of the things I find horrific about some evangelical colleges is their desire to create an environment totally “safe” from any criticism or satire. In my opinion this illustrates a failure to have faith in ones faith to be able to intellectually engage and resist such criticism or satire. These colleges wish to address such issues by shutting them out, lamtenably an all too common response in religiou history (they used to burn those who criticized them, now they simply make sure they don’t teach or attend classes at their campuses).

Ken Wagner, Radford, at 7:40 am EST on February 28, 2006

Comparison

Just to clarify the difference between some religious colleges (and I do mean some, there are religious colleges that do not force statements of faith on their faculty and students) and free, real colleges. I am a Christian (a Southern Baptist in fact). I often quote the Bible in class. I have given evidence for (and against) Christian viewpoints. But I and my fellow faculty are free to present arguments and evidence that are non-Christian: that the Bible is not inerrant, that creationism is bereft of sense, that there was no historical Virgin Birth etc.. However, anyone who taught the latter at the religious colleges I mention are often disciplined and fired (Wheaton recently canned a fellow because he became a Roman Catholic, and we can’t have that!). This is the ‘freedom’ that is defended here? Only in an Orwellian sense.

Ken Wagner, Radford, at 4:50 am EST on March 9, 2006

Academic Freedom at Religious Universities

For another excellent article on this topic, see this recent article in “Academe":

http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/2006/06jf/06jfhard.htm

I believe that the reason people from outside the religious college community don’t understand the article is that the author uses what we call a sanctified language that is hard for outsiders to understand. I unabashedly use the sanctified language of my community. However, for the sake of people outside the community, I will give our definitions of words that we use differently at the end this comment. These words will be marked with italics. I believe that once the language is understood, the arguments become easy to follow. The private religious college where I teach fired a professor about fifteen years ago because the professor stood up for his heretical opinion on the topic of whether a monogamous, loving, homosexual relationship could be acceptable to God. This article explains how this kind of event fosters an environment of academic freedom. At secular universities, professors with convictions are sorely persecuted on a regular basis. In fact, these institutions encourage relativism and the persecution of people with convictions. These professors are true martyrs. However, because of the persecution, they begin to feel less freedom to enter into reasonable discourse about their convictions. They would feel much more free to reasonably discourse at a private religious college whose statement of faith lines up with their convictions.

We have more freedom here than do professors at secular universities. For those of us who have convictions, and whose convictions line up perfectly with the statement of faith of our institution, it is extremely freeing to have the intellectually capricious individuals, whose only purpose is the stifle reasonable discourse and persecute others, removed. In this environment, we are free to have reasonable discourse about our convictions with no fear of persecution. First, I should define ” convictions“. A conviction is something we believe regardless of any amount of logical or empirical evidence to the contrary. A ” statement of faith” or ” creed” is a list of convictions one must agree to before one is allowed to work at a place like this. An opinion is called ” heretical” if it does not line up with the creed currently in effect in the sanctified community. What liberals call “learning” and moderates call “being capable of changing your mind” is what we call ” intellectual capriciousness” or ” relativism“. ” Reasonable discourse” is when a group of people with same convictions argue with each other using the sanctified language of the community (which explains why our arguments don’t make sense to people on the outside). A person is being ” persecuted” if someone makes a well-reasoned argument calling into question or refuting the person’s convictions. If the person of conviction is made to look stupid or hypocritical by the well-reasoned argument, he or she is being persecuted for the sake of his or her convictions and we call this person a ” martyr“. You might wonder why we use words in a way that is so different from the way they are used in the rest of the world. We are ordered by God to be sanctified and ” sanctified” means set apart or separated. You might be more familiar with the synonym used by liberals: “culturally and intellectually isolated". Call it what you want: if that’s what it takes to protect us and our students from cults and other dangerous influences (and you know what I mean), we don’t mind. And if you don’t believe that cults are a real problem these days then you aren’t paying attention. Now that you know some of the sanctified language being used, the arguments made in this article will make a lot more sense.

Royal, Professor at Bethel University, at 11:55 am EST on March 10, 2006

Talk About A Wonderful Double Entendre

Ken, I have enjoyed your posts, but you’ve got to cut Royal some slack (by the way, they are the Bethel University Royals if you didn’t already know)

In a sense, what he’s telling us is that every discussion must begin with specification of a domain of definition (in the mathematical sense) ... and once the domain of definition has been specified it fixes the vocabulary (definitions), the axioms, and the acceptable logic for making arguments and proving theorems.

To make this perspective real to many of us, how many times, Ken, have you been in an argument with your spouse, only to have her formulate a devastating argument – at least to her – that you thought was completely off the subject. Nine times out of ten, a little thought will reveal that she has changed the domain of definition that you thought was fixed ... and in that new domain of definition she has nailed your ass to the wall. A great many fruitless arguments between spouses entail confusion about the “active” domain of definition.

Now, what Royal has done is describe his (e.g., Bethel University’s) domain of definition as being closely related to the statement of faith that one must sign to get a job there to begin with ... and those statements of faith are, more often than not, very much like the Apostles’ Creed.

As a freshman, I took Life of Christ (3 semester hours) from a professor who I’m quite confident did not believe in the virgin birth. One day in class he asked, “Could it be that the Holy Spirit hid in the bushes and when the Virgin Mary happened by He leapt out and somehow impregnated her?” Apparently his question was thought by some to be more than hypothetical, because he was asked to leave his position at the college and several years later was “separated” from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.) after a heresy trial (hearing). And for good reason too ... the man was simply making logically inconsistent and outrageous statements vis-a-vis a domain of definition to which he had affixed his signature. But I digress.

Royal’s quite wonderful description of the vocabulary of his (Bethel University’s) domain of definition specifies the way words will be used in his presence to make logically consistent arguments. And, Ken, it’s obvious to me that you don’t belong there. You have the very bad habit of trying to force him to be “logical” in your domain of definition. Give it up. And if you and I ever bump into Royal in downtown St. Paul, let’s invite him for a beer and let him know we appreciate his sense of humor ... that is, if he’s not “outed” by then for participating in this discussion.

I can’t exit without comment about the most mind-boggling phrase in this entire discussion ... and, oddly enough, Ken, it’s your remark about “...a failure to have faith in one’s faith ...”

I’m an expert on faith. I had it and lost it and had it and lost it and had it and ... well you get the point. In my teens and early twenties I was saved enough times to be a plant on the Elmer Gantry sawdust trail. I take “faith” to be what is required in order to believe that which cannot be physically experienced (say, in a physics laboratory) or derived by logic from that which can be physically experienced. Generally, faith is the hat we pull out from under our cape when we want to pull something quite unbelievable (in the sense of physical experience) from the hat. It’s quite a trick.

Anyway, I’m still trying to understand what it means to “have faith in one’s faith.” Is that something like the hat we pull out of our cape and demonstrate to the audience that it is completely empty before we pull another hat out of that hat and demonstrate to the audience that it too is completely empty, before we pull the creator, the unmoved mover, from the second hat? Helllllllllp!!!

RWH, at 4:20 am EST on March 13, 2006

I’m Really Working At This

Truthfully, Ken, I’m really trying to be on your side. But you’re making it very difficult.

For starters, quit using terms like “flies in the face of logical coherence and empirical reality,” “respectable higher ed company,” “respectable institutions of higher education,” etc. What could phrases like that possibly mean?

I suppose if one lived in the rarefied environs of Radford University – and I can’t say I have the slightest idea what “statement of faith” you endorsed when you signed on there – then, no doubt, one would have strong reason to believe dear old RU is a “respectable institutions of higher education.” On the other hand, Royal’s Bethel University apparently leaves something to be desired vis-� -vis “respectability” ... at least when viewed from the vantage point of Radford.

And, Ken, employing words and phrases like “laughed at.” “ignored,” “shown the door” “lunacy,” “lunatic positions,” etc., most assuredly diminishes the thoughtfulness and logic of your arguments.

I think your statement “Bethel and the like are akin to the man who is presented with reliable, sensible, and verifiable evidence of his wife cheating but instead resolves never to associate with anyone who informed him thus” makes Royal’s point quite succinctly. Suppose, for example that up here at Bethel our notion of marital fidelity embraces stepping out on occasion with a woman not one’s wife. Then here comes Ken telling me he saw my wife cheating on me last night in the balcony of the Guthrie Theater while in the embrace of Garrison Peeler. When I give him a quizzical look that means “Who is this lunatic? Why doesn’t someone show him the door?” poor Ken thinks I’m in a state of denial.

The entire misunderstanding, however, is nothing more than Ken and I living in two different domains of definition with different sets of vocabulary, different axioms, and probably different rules (logic). When Ken says he saw my wife cheating on me he simply didn’t know what he was talking about. Maybe that’s cheating at Radford University, but our definition of cheating up here at Bethel University is something else again. Hells bells, even Bill Clinton knew it was all a matter of which domain of definition you’re talking about and what the definition of “is” is.

That is the distinction Royal was trying to explain to all of us in his earlier post. I’m sorry Ken, but your statement “[Royal] thinks [conviction] means to believe in something that not only lacks logical coherence and empirical verification, but to actually believe in something that flies in the face of both” is not at all what he said ... to wit, “A conviction is something we believe regardless of any amount of logical or empirical evidence to the contrary.” In addition to changing his noun to a verb, your elaboration misses his point by a wide margin. And, truth be known, although I’ve got more than my fair share of prejudices, at the moment I can’t think of a single conviction I embrace.

I know you and I could probably go back and forth on this topic without ever arriving at a common domain of definition – it’s obviously too difficult for us to find our way there together — so I’m bowing out. I’d like to suggest, however – and in the friendliest possible way – that you purchase and read Edwin Abbott’s short book, “Flatland.”

RWH, at 2:10 am EST on March 14, 2006

dogmatism

Ken accuses us of dogmatism. A charge to which we plea guilty.

Recently, one of our colleagues in psychology did some research on dogmatism among students here and found that dogmatism decreases significantly the senior year and also studying off campus for a semester reduces dogmatism significantly. Dogmatism was defined in the research in the same way that I defined conviction before.

The faculty here had two responses to this. First, we became concerned that students might be losing what was call in the discussion “good dogmatism". A second response was simply to disbelieve the evidence and stand fast in our determination that studying abroad for a semester does NOT affect dogmatism in spite of the empirical evidence.

At a secular university, we would be persecuted for holding these views. Here, we have the freedom to stand up for our convictions.

Dogmatism is our best protection from dangerous cults who brainwash people into believing their nonsense. It is our best protection from intellectually capricious individuals who are always learning new things and changing their minds when presented with logic or empirical evidence. It is our protections from relativists who present rational arguments refuting our point of view.

Royal, Professor at Bethel University, at 11:45 am EST on March 14, 2006

Reflections on earlier postings: sorry

Ken wrote some time ago: Just to clarify the difference between some religious colleges (and I do mean some, there are religious colleges that do not force statements of faith on their faculty and students) and free, real colleges. I am a Christian (a Southern Baptist in fact). I often quote the Bible in class. I have given evidence for (and against) Christian viewpoints. But I and my fellow faculty are free to present arguments and evidence that are non-Christian: that the Bible is not inerrant, that creationism is bereft of sense, that there was no historical Virgin Birth etc.. However, anyone who taught the latter at the religious colleges I mention are often disciplined and fired (Wheaton recently canned a fellow because he became a Roman Catholic, and we can’t have that!). This is the ‘freedom’ that is defended here? Only in an Orwellian sense.

Ken, all the positions which you say you are free to investigate at Radford are likely to have been examined at Bethel. Again, while it’s true that if you “espouse” as oppose to “examine” you’re likely to get fired at many Christian colleges, that’s true at secular institutions, as well. (Or at the least, I imagine, you’d be marginalized!) Look at Larry Summers!

I am surprised a little (does this sound either ad hominem or tu quoque? sorry) that you find it compatible to be a Southern Baptist and adopt the positions you do. For instance, if you were to adopt the position of the Baptist Faith and Message on women’s roles in the church, and espouse this in the classroom, would Radford reconsider your employment? Would you be marginalized? And, of course, the Southern Baptist position on the virgin birth (section II.B) (and the primacy of evangelism in the life of every believer, section XI) must make it challenging to integrate your life.

Just wondering.

Rich, Dean at Bethel University, at 10:20 am EST on March 21, 2006

Answers

Rich As I mentioned in my first response to Royal I had some doubts that he was being for real. I hope you would agree with me that any academic that really espoused such views is certainly wrong. As to how I mix my personal beliefs as a Baptist and a RU professor that is quite simple. First of all, not all Southern Baptists affiliate with the Southern Baptist Convention. Even if they did Baptist tradition includes soul liberty and the indepenence of each congregation. So I’ve never agreed with the exclusionist and reactionary views of the SBC and don’t have to. Even if I did subscribe I should hope that I could realize that certain provisions of my faith could not be “proven” in some way that would allow me teach them in some authoritative manner in a higher education setting. The Virgin Birth, Creationism, etc. are certainly not settled questions, but Bethel and like institutions consider them, on their campuses at least, to be settled. It is prohibited by your statement of faith you sign to teach views contrary to or undermining of such views. Of course I imagine some of your faculty may “present” the assumed “erroneous” views of those outside your faith community, but they are prohibited from, after critically examining these issues, coming to agreement with them by administrative fiat, not by the rules of logical and empirical examination. This is a rigged game at best, not honest intellectual exploration of an issue.At my institution a professor can “espouse” that poverty creates crime while the professor in the class after him can “espouse” that it is bad parenting that does so, not poverty. Neither is fired or forced to change their view by administrative fiat. At your college, they are. As to marginalization there is not, nor will there ever be, a workplace where co-workers will not marginalize another worker who makes comments they find distasteful. This will happen at Bethel and RU. The crucial difference is that at Bethel the worker can also be fired for what they say. Again, that is not academic freedom.

Ken Wagner, Radford, at 4:10 am EST on March 24, 2006

A final note from me (I hope)

Ken, thanks for continuing to be engaged on this topic. I admit I hadn’t recalled that you’d written the Academe article until I looked at it again yesterday.

We disagree on some issues, and on some of them, I think you’re theoretically right and practically mistaken. I think it’s because you don’t know these institutions very well. Theoretically—-and maybe in practice at some places—-it looks as though administrative fiat prevents discussion of some topics, because faculty voluntarily agree to a statement of faith. But in practice, topics get discussed fairly and carefully on campus (at least here). If you look carefully at the Bethel statement of faith, for instance, you will see no mention of “creationism.” The article reads: “God the Father: We believe in God the Father, an infinite, personal spirit, perfect in holiness, wisdom, power, and love. We believe that He concerns Himself mercifully in the affairs of each person, that He hears and answers prayer, and that He saves from sin and death all who come to Him through Jesus Christ.”

That’s all there is. Biologists and physicists thus are free to explore origins issues, and to explore them with our students. What science cannot speak to-—if there is agency behind the creation—-is not the same issue as the mechanisms describing how the world changes.

Our statement of faith is similarly limited in its statement about inerrancy: “The Word of God: We believe that the Bible is the Word of God, fully inspired and without error in the original manuscripts, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; and that it has supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.”

That doesn’t mean that we don’t have textual critics on the faculty who examine the text; it means we also have faculty who make students aware of the cultural conditions and assumptions attending biblical documents. Understanding how John, or Paul, or Luke thought about the Law or the Prophets is very important—like our “strict constructionists” dealing with the Constitution, you have to understand what a text is addressing in its own time before you can have much of a clear idea what it might be saying to you in 2006. Baptists at Bethel do not specify how one is to interpret the Bible—-that’s the work of the Holy Spirit indwelling believers.

In another respect, you and I differ very profoundly when we think about academic freedom. The “rules of the game of inquiry” you describe—-“the rules of logical and empirical examination”-—also have limits, don’t they? The supernatural—-in other words, our very understanding of the framework of the world we live in-—is relentlessly excluded from consideration in much modern inquiry. It leads one to wonder if the explanations derivable from the study of natural phenomena may turn out to be explanations based on “local conditions.” If the universe is a supernatural place, what effect does this have on academic freedom? As a Southern Baptist (even one not affirming the Baptist Faith and Message!), surely you agree that this might make a difference?! Even while saying this, I have to affirm—-our physicists, chemists, biologists, nurses, business majors, historians, psychologists, etc.-—study their fields with the same textbooks and the same attention to evidence, logic, and method that you would find at Radford or VCU. They won’t be effective in the world unless they are competent in their fields. The same extends to our students.

Unstated in most of the discussion above is what we intend should happen to students in the process of higher education. Most of the discussion, as I recall it, has been about faculty job security or not. Aren’t there also significant differences between these two viewpoints here at the level of what happens to students? Christopher Derrick some years ago pointed out that the primary virtue coming out of the secular academy is “skepticism” (he’s British, so I’ll keep his spelling). Academic freedom seems to encourage continued questioning, which is a good thing; in the process, it may relativize or call into question values (Is there anything “right” to do in some situations? How do you know?) to the point of cynicism; and finally, it may promote sloth about actually making choices and _doing_ something. Aren’t academics perpetually the target of jokes about our pettiness and ineffectuality? (“The reason academic conflicts are so vicious is because so little is at stake”?)

I hope we who teach at religious colleges encourage students to become people committed to making a difference in the world: intellectually honest, self-critical, with a degree of intellectual humility, and prepared to incorporate the empirical as well as the supernatural into their considerations. Again, I think you do not know the spectrum of institutions you are writing about—-in theory you do, but not in practice.

Best wishes as we come to Easter. I’m sure _that_ event makes a difference in both of our lives.

Rich, Dean at Bethel University, at 9:55 am EST on March 24, 2006

Starting My Crusade Right Here

Okay Dean Rich at Bethel University, four things ...

First, for at least the past twenty years – up until about a year ago – I used that wonderful bit of biting sarcasm, “Academic politics is so vicious because the stakes are so low” with some frequency.

Second, I don’t know who the author of the statement is, but it’s often attributed to Henry Kissinger (1923- ) ... and, true or false, Henry is not the sort of fellow who denies a clever retort thrust upon him by the masses. I’m guessing he’s not even close to the being the author. Indeed, at various times, the quote has been attributed to Mark Twain (1835-1910), George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), C.P. Snow (1905-1980), Laurence J. Peter (1919-1990), and Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1927-2003).

To the best of my knowledge, Kissinger’s first reference to something approximating the quote was in 1997 at the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs

(see http://www.ashbrook.org/events/memdin/kissinger/home_speech.html

when he said “... I’m going to say one thing about academic politics to which Mr. Schramm referred. I formulated the rule that the intensity of academic politics and the bitterness of it is in inverse proportion to the importance of the subject their (sic) discussing. And I promise you at Harvard, they are passionately intense and the subjects are extremely unimportant.”

I’m also fairly certain Laurence J. Peter (“The Peter Principle”) is not the author, else it would be fairly easy to track down.

I can’t say for sure, but I’m putting my money on Wallace Sayre (1924-1973), former Professor of Government and Public Administration at Columbia University. Sayre’s Third Law of Politics is “Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low” ... which is probably where Herr Doktor Kissinger picked it up and embellished it.

By the way, Sayre’s Second Law of Politics is pretty damned clever too; to wit, “Business and public administration are alike only in all unimportant respects.”

Third, despite the fact that the wonderfully sarcastic tone of the quotation fits my personality to a tee, I no longer repeat it. That’s because (1) it’s so outrageously false and (2) it sends a very misleading message to the uninitiated. Of course I agree that academe seems to have waaaay more than its fair share of petty, self-centered individuals. Of course I agree that nothing is so trivial that it would not, under ordinary circumstances, command the attention of a committee of academics for the better part of a day. One might fairly say “Academic politics is so vicious because there are so very many small, petty, self-centered, and intolerant academics pretending to be politicians.” But – and I can’t emphasize this too strongly – the stakes of education at every level here in the United States are probably more important (higher) than the stakes of any other significant endeavor. I repeat, in the main the stakes of education are so critically important to so many different dimensions of our lives, it is simply absurd to suggest otherwise.

So now when I hear some clever wit repeating that quote, I roll my eyes, scowl, look over my glasses and quickly (1) point out how outrageous it is and (2) look for an opportunity to give credit to Wallace Sayre instead of Henry Kissinger.

Fourth, check out this artistic rendering of the quotation, but don’t ask me to explain it:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exhibitions/hoffman/h001.html

Oh yes, I’m looking forward to Easter too ... I love those chocolate bunnies.

RWH, at 5:50 am EST on March 26, 2006

The Devil Made Me Do It

I know, Dean Rich, that you and I want this discussion to come to an end. It’s gone on long enough. I have earlier congratulated Royal for his very clever sense of humor ... by which I mean he accomplished a very important objective, all the while emphasizing that life and matters of the intellect have more than a little humorous content. I tried to convince Ken Wagner – and what’s not to like about him – to join me in inviting Royal for a beer. Now you’ve owned up to — at least on one occasion — appreciating my sense of humor too.

Okay, we’ve got that out of the way. Now let’s get serious. Although I’m a probabilist, and only believe declarative sentences have meaning if they are associated with subjective probabilities, Pr (subscript RWH), let’s pretend, for the moment that all of the following statements have probabilities of 1.0 so far as I’m concerned. And I promise you there is a question at the end of the following string of statements.

1. I am a superb teacher of mathematics and statistics and would be a favorite professor of Bethel University students. Many former students and colleagues of mine will attest to that.

2. At various times in the past, my religious state would have made me an almost ideal candidate for a position at Bethel. As an undergraduate, I was a pre-ministerial student (Presbyterian) with a double major in Philosophy & Religion and Mathematics. In those days, I would have signed your “Affirmation of Faith” without blinking an eye.

3. I am now a terminal agnostic. By that I mean (i) I do not “know,” (ii) the probability that in my lifetime I will ever “know” is very close to 0.0, and, most important, (iii) I have pretty much made an intellectual break with the notion of faith vis-a-vis my beliefs and decisions. I would prefer not to be a terminal agnostic. In my Winter Solstice letter to friends this year, I wrote “Indeed, if the holiday season could bring me anything of value it would be either the gift of a believer’s ability to accept the truth of unknown concepts without resorting to reason (i.e., faith) or the gift of the atheist’s certain knowledge that all of this happened without the existence of an unmoved mover (i.e., someone’s God). As it is, I remain a terminal agnostic.”

4. I am an incredibly scholarly, moral, respectful, and tolerant person (well, except for a dense chain of decisions made by the Bush administration, but I would never even think of addressing them in a mathematics class).

5. I would much, much rather teach at Bethel than at Radford (I actually taught at Radford for a year before moving on to Virginia Tech, and I can assure you I greatly enjoyed my experience there). For what it’s worth, let me add that, amongst other appointments, I have previously had tenure track positions at Virginia Tech (Mathematics), Yale (Political Science), Michigan (Institute for Social Research), UNC-Asheville (Mathematics and Political Science), Michigan (Business), and I had a visiting appointment in Statistics at Princeton.

6. I have “met” you and Royal, I assume you are representative of Bethel University faculty, and, if I am right about that, I imagine I would be respected and appreciated by a significant majority of your faculty.

Now for the question ... suppose you had a position vacancy in either Mathematics or your MBA program (I like joint appointments) and suppose my application showed up on your desk tomorrow morning. Obviously, I will have read the Bethel University “Affirmation of Faith” and, needless to say, I will have checked that part of the application form that states “I can work harmoniously within this Affirmation of Faith but hold differing personal views on the following articles.” There, being the honest person I am, I will list 11 of the 12 articles, all but Number 8 (http://cas.bethel.edu/catalog/acadinfo/lifestyl/affirm.htm).

How will my application be received? ... and I think you know I’m not asking about the logistics of your faculty search process. Please, Dean Rich, formulate your response before reading on.

P.S. Pretend you didn’t hear me say this, but it truly pains me to read “Article 12. The Last Things: We believe in the personal and visible return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the establishment of His kingdom. We believe in the resurrection of the body, the final judgment, the eternal felicity of the righteous, and the endless suffering of the wicked.”

Suppose I became part of the Bethel University family. According to those I knew and loved there, those with whom I worked for the remainder of my career, I would be one of the “wicked,” condemned to eternal damnation.

Take my word for the fact that my beloved sister, a devout Christian, is one of my favorite people of all time. One day I asked her, “... how will you feel when, at the Rapture, you will be lifted from this earth to sit at the right-hand of God and look down to see me — and others like me — being punished with eternal damnation?” She very seriously replied, “I will feel sad.” I didn’t say anything at the time, but it occurred to me that there must be a law that stipulates that one is not allowed to feel sad in the presence of the Almighty. “Hey! ... you there with the halo and white gown ... keep that Miss America expression of bliss on your face.”

So, where do we go from here?

RWH, at 8:35 am EST on March 27, 2006

Yes, Farewell

Part of my “problem” is that I’m such a smartass, those with whom I am not close tend to be a bit wary of me. It’s sometimes difficult to know whether I am putting them on, setting them up, or am completely sincere. I understand that.

As it turns out, 1 through 6 are true (forgive my self-confidence on 1 and 4).

Here is the sad part from my perspective ... and please understand I am speaking from rounded-off probability estimates. If I taught at Bethel, I would never be able to sign off on eleven of the twelve articles of your Affirmation of Faith. [By the way, I have absolutely no issues whatsoever with any of the twelve insofar as the “We believe ...” condition is concerned. It is just that later in the application form you ask me to sign “I understand and am in agreement with the Affirmation of Faith and Covenant Commitments and can support these statements by my actions and beliefs.”] That is like hitting me over the head with a club. I care about my inability to sign your Affirmation of Faith in the sense that I wish I had answers to all of the compelling questions I have about creation and existence. I don’t care about my inability to sign them in the sense that my students and colleagues at Bethel would hardly detect the difference between my demeanor and that of a randomly chosen BU faculty member who did sign the Affirmation of Faith. I would certainly respect the perspectives of all students and faculty, and I would continue my personal struggle with a great many questions for which they have answers ... not answers suitable for me, but suitable for themselves ... and what more could anyone ask?

By the way, I don’t think it’s fair to characterize the question I asked my sister as “whimsical.” Obviously, it’s hypothetical, and I was trying to tell her – in as friendly a way as possible – that, within her domain of definition, I am one of the eternally damned. In addition, you and I are in agreement about “holistic” education, the fact that Christ was a really cool guy (at least as a human being), and the fact that there is something less than convincing about cafeteria Christians.

I think your response to my question would have been a good place to end this particular discussion. Then I was struck with a thought I have never had before. If I were on the Bethel University faculty, there is. I think, a fairly high probability that you and I would be friends ... perhaps even close friends. I greatly enjoy learning and teaching. I would not give up my day-to-day interaction with young people for anything. I care greatly about more intellectual pursuits than you might imagine. I am a much better than average golfer and tennis player. I am a darn good cook and I enjoy having the gang over to my house for whatever. My family’s Fourth of July fireworks have entertained the neighborhood kids for the past 20 years. I am much better than average at house remodeling and landscaping ... and I love to pitch in and help my friends in both of those areas. My house plants (and especially my orchids and African violets) are quite exceptional. I laugh, I think, I listen, and, for the most part, I learn from and challenge those around me. I have decided – and I would be the first to admit that I may be wrong – that, were I a member of the BU community, we would like and respect each other. Yet that could never happen because you are a devout and committed Christian and I am a terminal agnostic.

In other words, Christianity, in some sense, stands in the way of our being colleagues. If you’d like to say it is terminal agnosticism that stands in the way, I won’t take issue with you. But whatever it is, it is how you and I feel about creation and existence that stands in the way of our being affectionate and supportive colleagues. It is our humanness that is subservient to our beliefs. I won’t ask a question – it’s time to move on – but I’ll have to work on how I feel about that. At the moment, it’s not obvious to me what I will conclude.

RWH, at 4:20 am EST on March 28, 2006