Academic Double Standards?

Today, the UT Christian Faculty Network had a good discussion on professors sharing their worldview with their classes. In particular, how many Christian faculty can be slapped down for sharing/defending their worldview, yet other colleagues can mock that same worldview and push their own with little or no fear of reprisals. We discussed how we as Christian faculty can/should respond to this, especially when students come to us to complain or seeking reassurance that it is possible to be a Christian and a scientist or, more generally, an intellectual.

Proselytizing versus Academic Freedom

Today, our faculty fellowship completed a discussion on the contrast between ‘proselytizing’ and the academic freedom to discuss our worldview in various aspects of the university setting.

Because ‘proselytizing’ has such a negative connotation, it has been used as an easy accusation to put Christians on the defensive. The Wikipedia entry seems to be a rather thorough and balanced treatment of the subject. I highly encourage you to read it before continuing here.

Key points include the Jewish origins of the concept of the ‘proselyte,’ the idea that today it isn’t limited to religion, but also atheism, agnosticism, or pretty much any idea that can be ‘followed,’ that there are both legitimate and illegitimate types of proselytizing, and that there are appropriate limits, but there is legitimate differences of opinion on what those limits are.

As faculty, there are legitimate concerns of which we must be aware. Primarily, we are in a position of influence and even power over students, and so whether we intend it or not, students can perceive pressure to assent to whatever we say. I would argue at this point that this is true not just for Christian faculty, but also atheists, naturalists, Marxist and any other faculty who passionately follow a political or religious worldview and proclaim it from the bully pulpit of our position as faculty.

To further complicate matters, in today’s culture, ‘author intent’ is almost irrelevant compared to how the reader perceives the message, known as ‘reader response.’ In the context of this discussion, this means that it pretty much doesn’t matter what your intent, context or style of communicating is, if someone takes it wrong (i.e. as proselytizing), you are guilty of offending them. It has become an issue of being guilty until proven innocent.

Because of this, charges of proselytization are particularly hard to refute, and it can become an easy way to marginalize people of faith, and Christians in particular. Furthermore, in the culture of some academic fields, there is a perception that faith has no place to be discussed at all, unless in completely derogatory terms, and some go so far as to say that if someone is a Christian, it is impossible for them to be competent in the field.

So, now that I’ve done pretty thorough and depressing job of describing the problem, what are the solutions?

First, God is bigger than our problems, and He also promised we would have problems of this sort, so we are not to be surprised, and even to rejoice when they occur. That said, He also warns against seeking out trouble where it isn’t offered, through Paul’s exhortation to “so long as it depends on you, live at peace with all.”

Secondly, we must remember and hold on to the idea that the university, by definition, is meant to be a place where diverse and controversial ideas can be explored, discussed, argued, tested and refined. The Christian voice is a genuine and relevant part of the diversity modern universities celebrate, and so we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be shelved. With inclusion should come a responsibility to be civil and respectful in all discourse, regardless of how we are received. This is also the heart of Biblical evangelism.

Third, we have the freedom (and in some cases, the responsibility) to inform our students of the nature of our worldview as one’s worldview can affect our perspective on topics, and in fairness to objectivity, announcing our bias is part of disclosure. It is helpful to teach/remind them of this—that all people have a worldview, and so all have a filter through with they interpret data. Students also tend to be a little curious about what manner of person their instructor is, so a passing autobiographical abstract is appropriate at the beginning of the semester, and our faith is legitimately part of that. That said, there are times, classes, situations, where such declarations can inhibit free discussion of ideas, so discernment is, as usual, necessary.

Fourth, when students bring up religious-based topics and ask for your opinion or background, you have nearly carte blanche to discuss it, again within reason and respect.

Fifth, you are free to drop hints as relevant in lectures discussions, and any interested students who pick up on them can follow up independently. Be sensitive to their interest level, like you would discussing any topic with anyone.

Sixth, when a student group invites you to speak to them, accept the invitation! They are explicitly asking for you to expound on the topic in an intramural rather than classroom environment. They are not a captive audience having paid tuition dollars to be in your class, they are voluntarily associating with others and you are the invited speaker.

Finally, if you are accused of proselytizing (and sure you have been completely appropriate and above legitimate reproach), don’t roll over. The Christian voice has a legitimate place at the diversity table. There are resources available to help you. They include your local faculty fellowship, the faculty ombuds, the academic freedom/grievance committee, and maybe others. Get informed, respond with grace, pray, don’t go on the attack. We are human and make mistakes, so if you do cross the line, determine objectively to what extent you did, own up to it, agree to be more careful, apologize and move on.

Unfortunately, academic freedom is neither absolute nor infallible. Like any freedom, it is easily lost when assumed, neglected and not nurtured or defended.

Be encouraged, be faithful, be without fear.

SDG

File This Bill under “Ambivalence”

The Texas Legislature is in session, and a bill has been proposed to protect faculty and students from discrimination for studying “theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.”

As you can imagine, this is simply igniting the blogosphere, mostly with outrage at how backwards Texas is. Pick your own favorite invective and it is surely being hurled our way.

I am having a very difficult time deciding how I feel about the bill. Part of me supports the general idea of protecting academic freedom from political correct whims. We have respected research on many esoteric and minutial topics, yet there are some topics that are simply taboo. The purpose of tenure is to protect academic freedom to explore extremely controversial topics with a minimum of blowback. To the extent that universities fail to hold themselves to that standard, such laws may be useful. Regardless of how folks feel about “Expelled,” there is a certain level of antipathy towards areas with theistic implications, whether or not they explicitly have anything to do with evangelical Christianity.

To be honest, there is also some controversy among scientists of faith as to how to define ID. Is it a theory, as the bill calls it, or something more vague? A theory implies a series of testable/falsifiable hypotheses that suggest research to answer specific questions. If ID merely suggests a different interpretation of the data, but does not offer insight on how future experiments can be performed that would reveal either an increase or decrease in the ruggedness of that interpretation, it is of limited scientific value.

Of course, I suspect some ID proponents would rebut with the idea that if they had the freedom to pursue ID research in the open, then they would be in a better position to move from the latter to the former. Fair enough.

For me, the heart of the matter goes back to the whole agent/mechanism dichotomy. When looking at origins, we need to be careful to distinguish the mechanism by which things occurred, from the agency initiating and/or guiding that mechanism. Both sides muddy this line pretty badly and it makes for increased antagonism.

The mechanism question is best explained thus: Did the various species on earth arise from whole cloth, either instantaneously or in a type of punctuated equilibrium, or by a series of gradual processes from simple to more complex? There are a number of variations from these descriptions, but basically this covers the various proposed models.

The agency question is quite independent from the answer to the mechanism question: What initiated the first thing we can clearly identify as a living organism and was subsequent development directed or random. If directed, how and by what?

Then there is the clincher agency question:  Can we definitively distinguish the difference between various agencies? If the mechanism is Darwinian evolution, how would we tell if it were motivated by an intelligence with a purpose or simply was a series of random mutations that now that we are here, we call ‘lucky?’ The same question can be asked for whatever answer we come up with to the mechanism question.

If we cannot distinguish between agency models, then the discussion is moot, and must firmly remain in the areas of philosophy. If, however, there were a way to distinguish between the agency models, then it seems like it is of paramount importance to pursue that course and resolve it. Otherwise, we are limiting our own progress. But to the extent the question cannot even be discussed in the academy, there will be a nagging question in people’s minds, “what if?” The Christian church has received a great deal of criticism over how it handled various key scientific discoveries and how if they had embraced the investigations rather than squelching them, more progress might have been made faster. Are we as the scientific establishment making the same mistake that we accuse the Church of making?

If ID researchers can garner grant money, attract students, perform competent investigations and help resolve even the clincher question, why not allow it? Why should universities care as long as they are getting their overhead? It certainly adds to the diversity of the community.

I know many in the scientific community see the issue as moot. They are upset because they genuinely believe the issue is settled, the horse is so dead that it’s already a fossil in the British Museum. At the very least, part of tolerance is allowing others to scratch their itch.

Also, many believe ID is just an excuse for quietly inserting religion into science. While many ID proponents are scientists of faith, not all are. While a few may have a hidden agenda, most don’t. I personally know many people in the ID movement, and they have absolutely no desire to post the Apostle’s Creed in their classrooms and recite it at the beginning of class. However, no matter how convincingly that is argued, I know that many naturalists cannot be convinced that ID is nothing more than a secret Christian conspiracy. All I can say is that it isn’t. You can choose to believe it or not.

(Some readers are probably asking where I come down on this as I am obviously sympathetic, but not quite embracing, and so wonder if I am adopting an artificially neutral position to ‘appear legitimate.’ I address that issue here.)

Going back to the proposed bill, the small-government, freedom-minded part of me isn’t terribly thrilled with it. Here is yet another law cluttering the books. Even if the universities do not discriminate and take the attitude I propose four paragraphs ago, would the ID researchers be able to obtain grant money or be reviewed fairly in the literature? Can this bill help with that? Should it try? How will the Law of Unintended Consequences have an impact on things? Many well-intentioned laws end up, through the vagaries of practice and interpretation, doing the exact opposite of their intended effect. If someone wanted to study the scientific implications of, say, the Hindu creation story, would that be covered by the protections of the bill? It is an equal protection bill? The wording appears so, but the challenges of a pluralistic society require us to examine such things, preferably ahead of time.

Did Representative Zedler consult with faculty and universities to explore impact before proposing the bill? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to “bite the hand that’s petting me.” I’m exploring the issue as a scientist—looking at it from various angles to see if it is needed, wanted and/or accomplishes the intended purposes. If the answer is no to any of those, it needs to be reexamined for improvements or possibly discarded as a nice try.

I have no doubt that my ambivalence on this issue will irritate folks on both sides. I think there is need for increased charity towards one another, and let the data lead where it will, but I’m not convinced this bill is the best way to make progress towards that.

SDG

What is Freedom?

I promised from the beginning of this blog that it was apolitical, and I have come to realize I did not say what I meant. A better word would be apartisan. Anytime a statement is made about human systems, it is a political statement—it deals with the policy of a polis, a group of human beings. Thus, when I discuss academic freedom or even different views on Creation, those are political statements, even if they are not partisan. Of course, I do need to clarify what I mean by partisan, which is I will not advocate for any of the organized political parties in the US. I will share views on issues, some (many) of which may be identified with a plank in a given party’s platform, but those are happenstances of agreement rather than advocacy, as I will also usually challenge weaknesses of a given view or its application to policy.

Enough disclaimer.

Obviously, I feel the need for the disclaimer today because “freedom” is a very political concept. There is inherently a prepositional implication: “freedom from” or “freedom to.” It is certainly THE most cherished value in our society, yet strangely, one of the least defined or discussed. It is so foundational an axiom in Western life that few meditate on it or study it. It is the water in which our culture swims, and we rarely realize that indeed, we are wet. That is, until we perceive dry spots on our scales.

Literally, herein lies the rub. In its most basic sense, freedom is the ability to shape the environment around us, to a greater or lesser extent. To have freedom is to possess the ability to influence. Therefore, if there is more than one entity with the ability to influence, then the risk arises that these influences will interact. When they do, the interaction can be constructive, neutral or destructive, in the sense of achieving the goals of both entities. Dry spots occur when the influence of one entity reduces the influence of another entity. Given that the entities are separate, it stands to reason that the motivations and goals of each will have differences, and can run counter to each other, or, that the preferred methods for achieving even common goals can be different.

Therefore, as the number and complexities of entities increase, the risk for conflict increases until at a certain point, that risk becomes a certainty. Conflicts are avoided or resolved by one of two means, restricting an entity’s own freedom, or restricting the freedom of others. These are the only two options, yet they play out in a variety of ways: self-restraint, overpowering, or compromise (which is mutual self-restraint).

When an entity refuses to exercise self-restraint, conflicts become more intense. If its influence is small, its impact on others is small to non-existent. The greater its power (the freedom to influence a larger area of its environment), the greater the conflict in intensity, number of involved entities, or both.

The ability to influence is not the only issue however. There is also the quality of self-awareness. A hurricane has a substantial ability to influence, but is not self-aware, and therefore cannot be said to have freedom. An animal has the ability to influence (building a nest), and perhaps some minor level of self-awareness (a dog being obedient or not), but it is an open discussion as to how ‘free’ they are in the context of this post. No, for purposes of this discussion, we are talking about human beings and the systems that groups of humans create in order to have working societies.

So, given that conflicts arise due to the exercising of freedoms, what are our options? We basically have two—live with it or take away freedom. If we live with it, it means we are accepting the other’s ability to hinder our freedom (i.e.- to be inconvenienced). However, in order to take away freedom, there must be an entity with enough freedom to do so. Thus, when a restriction in one entity’s freedom is imposed, it of necessity must be done by another entity with more freedom…AND/OR the permission of the restricted entity. So really, there really is only one option—when conflict arises (apart from issues of pure misunderstanding), someone’s freedom is restricted. The questions then become who’s freedom, by how much, and who imposes the restriction?

With this foundation, in the next post or two, I will look at contemporary examples of freedom to see if we can find resolutions for points of conflict. {Of course, if this extends past two posts, I am merely exercising my freedom as the owner of this blog. You are welcome to exercise your freedom to read or not!}

SDG