Logic

Shortell has said “The world is filled with reasonable people who identify or affiliate with religious traditions.”

Can “moral retard” and “reasonable” be stated of the same person? If Shortell says yes to this question, can we trust that he has any idea what “professional ethics” means?

Does Shortell understand that public and private is a distinction that can be shown in a thousand different ways not to hold up?

Elbow, at 9:30 am EDT on June 8, 2005

Professor Shortell’s attempted excuse of “It is funny how easily people forget about context when criticizing others’ speech, even though they know all about playing multiple roles and role switching” is just that: an excuse.

There is NO “appropriate” context for using “retard.” The word is as offensive as any racial or ethnic slur to those of us who have family members with developmental disabilities. Period.

Regardless of this professor’s views on religion, he has shown himself to be ignorant and prejudiced by using such a cruel and offensive term. If he’s so concerned about the context of his speech, perhaps he should go look up the term “retard” in =Webster’s 11th=, which very clearly states “often offensive” when defining it in the sense he used. Then he should apologize to the disability community in public.

As a sociologist and as a human being, he should be ashamed to have shown such clear and present bias against the developmentally disabled.

Lesley McBain, at 9:39 am EDT on June 8, 2005

“A lack of suitable nutrients may retard growth.” This seems like a perfectly fine use of the word “retard” to me. As a noun, it’s a little more problematic, but it’s not so difficult to shift “moral retard” to avoid the noun: “A belief system that operates as a paranoid construction retards moral development by blocking out discordant information.” And it’s hard to find a religious belief system that does not operate as a paranoid construction. It’s a shame when people are fired for making statements that are too brusque in their correctness.

Thane Doss, at 1:04 pm EDT on June 8, 2005

Response to Thane Doss

While I agree that your usage examples of the word “retard” are perfectly appropriate, Professor Shortell’s phrase “moral retards” is clearly in context the pejorative usage that =Web 10= defines as “often offensive: a retarded person; also: a person held to resemble a retarded person in behavior.”

Professor Shortell’s statement was not “too brusque in its correctness.” It was offensive. Why is it not okay to call someone another racial/ethnic slur, but okay to use offensive slurs that mock the disabled? If our society has (by and large) learned that those words are hurtful and hateful and should not be used, why is it such a difficult task to learn that people with developmental disabilities or other disabilities should not be treated as fodder for insult and the equivalent words should not be used to deride them?

Some people with developmental disabilities DO know what the word “retarded” used as an insult means, and are hurt by it every day. In addition to people with developmental disabilities, there are millions of people in the United States alone who have someone in their family with developmental disabilities and who confront this prejudice from friends and strangers alike, daily.

Not mocking the disabled is a matter of common decency, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof.

Lesley McBain, at 2:09 pm EDT on June 8, 2005

Hear, hear

“Not mocking the disabled is a matter of common decency, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof.”

Personal anecdote:

if I’d ever used the word “retard” like that, my parents would have washed my mouth out with soap.

Unfortunately, some people think sucking-up to the Berkeley/Cambridge crowd for 4+ years gives them a Deity-given right to insult other people and not suffer any negative consequences.

How unfortunate their parents didn’t discipline them adequately, as children. Now, look how much time and effort is being consumed. A pity.

Art, at 2:54 pm EDT on June 8, 2005

ACADEMIC FREEDOM FOR ATHEISTS AND BELIEVERS ALIKE

There are at least three important issues at stake in this case and they should all be considered carefully. First, there is the question of adequate sensitivity on the part of a professor toward students. Second there is the matter of institutional authority and how it is wielded by campus groups who have various levels of power and prestige. Third, there is the dilemma of whether or not, as Tim Shortell insists, we should assume a sharp division between one’s role as a personal agent and one’s role as an agent of a publicly accountable institution.

Before giving my take on these matters, I’ll mention that I am a socially conservative Pentecostal, evangelical, and small c catholic Christian who teaches history, philosophy and sociology at a small religious college in a rural county of a rural state. Though this setting has its special benefits along with its challenges, it is not at all what I envisioned when I completed my doctorate and had several years teaching both undergraduate and graduate courses at a state university.

Given my views, my position and my personal history, one might expect me to be upset at a professor like Tim and want demoted or fired. But I don’t. I actually sympathize with his situation. I can very easily see myself in the same position that he is in. That’s because I, like Tim, hold views that would make me an easy target for any person on a university campus who might happen to be looking for an opportunity to score points in a politically correct crusade against intolerance or bigotry. Even worse, I hold social views that, while mainstream a short generation ago, may preclude my ever finding employment on a secular university campus.

Maybe a bit of honesty would help this discussion. My guess is that seventy or eighty percent of sociologists in our universities agree fundamentally with Tim’s views about religion. Of course only a tiny fraction of these would express these views so bluntly, especially in regard to his use of the term “retarded.” Why should Tim be penalized for expressing a very mainstream view, even if he used words that were excessively animated? Do religious people in the university want their professors to lie to them about what they really believe? I would not want to be put in that situation. Even more, do factions within the university have the right or obligation to censure professors for statements that occurred outside the classroom or office setting? To answer these questions in the affirmative, it seems to me, is to invite the narrowing of academic freedom in ways that are inconsistent with the mission of a university. If Tim can be punished for expressing in raw form a view that is actually dominant in the secular academy, it is hard to see how a person like myself, who holds distinctly minority views on certain “hot button” issues, could even be allowed in the game.

As for the other questions I raised in my first paragraph, I certainly advocate politeness, kindness and the cautious use of language. But based on the description of Tim’s actions given in the report above, I see more a case of temporary recklessness with words than a cardinal sin against collegiality. Keep in mind that most sociologists hold very nearly the same basic views about religion as he does. I find those views to be based on a fundamentally flawed picture of reality. But unless someone is going to mandate the radical gutting and overhaul of a 150+ year intellectual tradition (which of course is impossible), I don’t think there is going to be any solid basis for reprimanding professors like Tim for his out of classroom statements.

As for the third dilemma I mentioned, which is whether and to what extent one’s out of classroom statements can be separated from official university duties, this is a much more difficult matter. I can see both sides. As a follower of the Christian faith, I would like to maintain a sphere of separateness in which to maintain and explore views and perspectives that for various reasons don’t mesh with the purposes of my institution.

At the same time, I can’t honestly claim (and would not wish to claim) a clean separation of my religion and my moral beliefs (be they “retarded” or exceptional or somewhere in between) from my classroom teaching. Of course there is overlap—it’s absolutely unavoidable. For a professor like Tim, who seems to hold what I would characterize as an atheist faith (and I recognize that I am likely offending both Tim and his entire intellectual tradition by using the term “faith” in this way), the same issue exists. To separate, or not to separate? I have decided that the only realistic answer is a “both and,” not an “either or,” and that there is no formulaic recipe for determining the balance between the two. Certainly I don’t want the balance to be decided solely by political forces.

ClioSmith, Associate Professor at Trinity Bible College, at 12:12 pm EDT on June 9, 2005

Civility, language corseness & academic governence

Well said, Prof. Smith. A couple of quick observations —

CIVILITY & INCREASING LANGUAGE CORSENESS. All sides have expressed concern about this issue. IMHO, the Republicans, feeling the need to break through 50 years of Congressional domination by Democrats, opened the battle with the Jim Wright investigation. And here we are today, with voting participation at its lowest levels.

Per previous posts — consider this behavioral example. Recall the movie Forest Gump, with Lt. Dan and Forest in NYC on NYE. Someone insulted Forest; Lt. Dan took strong offense.

I know people, with relatives like Forest, who might have offered to punch-out Dr. Shortell. I don’t advocate that response — but if someone called my brother stupid, or my sister ugly, I’d be in his/her face, real fast, with a very stern talking-to.

In that behaviorial vein — imagine Mr. Ward Churchill trying to block the Columbus Day parade in the late John Gotti’s neighborhood, instead of downtown Denver. In Gotti’s ‘hood, I suspect the ‘hood response would be extremely violent.

People: words have consequences. Also — per the Chinese proverb, “words once spoken, cannot be retrieved by the swiftest horse.”

Democrats have their positions. Republicans have theirs. Contrary to Mr. W.L. Churchill, each has a constitutional right to legally express them. Others have a constitutional right to legally oppose them. This is not North Korea (yet). Again, attempt civility, at least for the first five minutes.

Think of attempting civility, as a character-building assignment. Contrary to many of your peers who have what are essentially inferiority complexes, having a graduate degree and full workload has NOT exempted you from having a minimal level of what used to be called “good manners.” Try it — you might like it.

ACADEMIC GOVERNANCE. As a dept. head, Dr. Shortell would have been management. CUNY executive management reserves the right to approve such persons. Obviously, Dr. Shortell embarassed CUNY executives. They responded, as management does. You can argue the issues, but in the end, management in 99.999% of organizations (e.g., Fidel, Putin, H. Dean, GWB, Larry Summers, AFL-CIO, et al) get to choose who is on their management team. They must think they have rights, too.

Homer, at 7:51 am EDT on June 10, 2005