nuance

The bill in the Missouri legislature states that one of the “intellectual diversity concerns” that could be reported on is NOT that “the viewpoint that the Bible is inerrant,” but that the campus is responsible for “the protection of religious freedom including the viewpoint” that the Bible is inerrant. Who could argue with the protection of religious freedom?

There are several tangled things here, aren’t there? The statement as it appears in the bill suggests that the legislature is concerned that faculty members respect students’ religious beliefs. Is it possible to teach evolutionary theory and still respect students’ religious beliefs? Dozens of Christian colleges and universities—despite the mistaken perceptions of broad patches of the academy—seem to be able to do so. Students at my university enter top physics, chemistry, and biology graduate programs without difficulty, and are as well prepared as or better prepared than their peers from land-grant schools.

A second confusion seems to be in the distinction between “inerrant” and “literally true.” If, as the writer says, “academic groups note that it is rare for public colleges to be told or even urged that they must protect the teaching that the Bible is literally true,” then the academic groups need to understand that “inerrant” means for most Christians “without error in the original manuscripts.” It doesn’t mean “literally true.” There’s debate about whether the story of Jonah is “literally true,” or the early chapters of Genesis, but the “inerrant” issue has to do with the transmission of the manuscript, not the genre of literature being transmitted. Perhaps the writer himself is over-generalizing, of course, and using “literally true” as a mistaken explanation for “inerrant.”

Of course, it may be that the legislature meant “literally true,” but in that case one would hope for better thinking among the representatives of the people of the great state of Missouri.

Rich, Dean, at 8:35 am EDT on April 16, 2007

The Intellectual Dishonesty of ACTA

Well, this is progress. Thanks to ACTA, geology professors in Missouri may someday be called on the carpet for suggesting that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. Biology professors may earn demerits in Jefferson City for denying that human beings and dinosaurs once coexisted, just like on the Flintstones. Even lecturers in religious studies could be subject to meddlesome government scrutiny for daring to use the words “scripture” and “metaphor” in the same sentence.

Oddly enough, ACTA’s press release hailing the passage of the bill by the Missouri House neglects to mention the bit about Biblical inerrancy. Instead, they vaguely refer to the bill as “amended” and provide a link to the text of the bill on the legislature’s website (knowing that almost nobody will read it). Evidently, this is what passes for full disclosre in ACTA-land: glossing over the fact that, in order to secure passage of their legislation, they had to jump into bed with some of the most reactionary, anti-intellectual forces in American society.

Of course, the greater dishonesty has always been ACTA’s claim that there is nothing mandatory or coercive about their “intellectual diversity” bills. Anyone who knows a thing about politics (and Anne Neal is married to a Republican congressman, so she obviously does) understands that such legislation is inherently coercive. You don’t require colleges and universities to report on something unless you reserve the right to make use of such information in drafting future bills. ("Nice University you got there, Mizzou. Sure would be a shame if something happened to it...")

As much as I dislike David Horowitz and all he stands for, at least he is a wolf in wolf’s clothing. His aim is to crush the left and he makes no bones about it. Anne Neal and her organization have the same goal. They are just unwilling to admit it.

Between the good cop and the bad cop, give me the bad cop every time. They are, after all, both working toward the same end. The difference is that the good cop is a liar.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 9:30 am EDT on April 16, 2007

I’m Interested In Intellectual Diversity Too

I can already see where you guys are going with this discussion. It’s going to be all about evolution, intelligent design, the Old Testament, politics, gay rights, women’s studies, African American studies, string theory, stem-cell research, universities with Native American mascots, David Horowitz, probably even Ward Churchill.

But I teach mathematics and statistics, I am an arch conservative mathematician, and I am tired of all of those left-wing liberals in my classes. When I go into class and express my prejudices – e.g., about the Central Limit Theorem ... or confidence intervals ... or L’Hopital’s Rule ... or the denumerability of the rational numbers ... I mean practically anything – my students are often hostile in their objections. A great many of them disrupt class by feigning ignorance. Many hide their faces and won’t even speak to me.

What makes my job difficult is that, instead of following my lead, they belligerently stick to their own theories when they write answers to test questions. I have no recourse but to mark their answers “Incorrect!” Then what? I’m sure you know. They bring their papers to me and try to intimidate me into giving them higher grades, and, when I stick to my guns, it’s on to the Department Chair ... then the Dean ... then the VPAA ... then the President ... and soon all the way up to the State Legislature. There is a movement here at the U.R. Wussy College of Arts and Sciences to have a paid ombudsman in every class.

I’ll tell you, it’s difficult to be an arch-conservative in academe. Most of the time now-a-days it just wears me out, so I mark their papers correct, give them high grades, and try to find an afternoon tennis match.

Frizbane Manley, at 10:10 am EDT on April 16, 2007

Paranoia or Foresight?

When the conservative christian crowd opposes gay marriage they often use the slippery slope argument: “What’s next? Polygamy? Marriage to animals and plants?”

The horrified liberal wailing about colleges being required to merely report their state of affairs is basically the same thing. “Today, transparency. Tomorrow, theocracy! Look out!”

Does anyone understand and object to the new legislation without reference to things to come? Probably not.

Samwise, at 10:47 am EDT on April 16, 2007

On Not Being Able To Connect The Dots

In his post, Rich – whom I respect a great deal – suggested that this situation is a bit of a tangled web. And, given his remarks about the matter, I can’t help but recall the famous quotation of Sir Walter Scott about tangled webs.

First, allow me to describe one of my biases:

Before signing on as a faculty member at Dean Rich’s university, faculty must sign an Affirmation of Faith that contains, among others, the following beliefs ...

1. 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.

12. The Last Things ... We believe in the personal and visible return of the Lord Jesus Christ to earth 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.

As one whose future will include “the endless suffering of the wicked,” I am just a little leery of the role of modern science in forming the world views of the faculty at Rich’s university

Thankfully, religious – and in this country, especially Christian – rationalization to fit the discoveries of science is really quite impressive. Indeed, most of those guys are either (1) cafeteria Christians, picking and choosing Biblical passages that suit their personal knowledge of the world and explaining the rest as metaphor, or (2) masters of rationalization, believing that it’s all literally true, but hiding behind the claim that the Almighty has the power to do things anyway He wants. I suppose Rich’s faculty fall back on their Biblical affirmation that the Book is “ ...without error IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS ...,” claim it was meant metaphorically, and go on from there. [Lets hope the statement about my spending eternity burning in Hell was also meant metaphorically.]

My favorite debate amongst these folks is about the age of the universe ... is it 7,000 years old, plus or minus 1,000 years ... or is it 13,000,000,000 years old, plus or minus 200,000,000 years?

In any event, taking the King James Version literally and believing the universe is about 7,000 years old, puts a heavy strain on the Creator, running hither and yon and hiding all of those weird fossils that have given the evolutionists their grist. But my favorite is the clever way God got the light from stars that are millions of light years away down here to us – and apparently for no other purpose than our personal enjoyment and, of course, so we can marvel in His majesty — in just 7,000 years.

In fact, there are many explanations (e.g., worm holes in the universe) – so you must take this one with a grain of salt – but my favorite scientific account is that God, in His infinite wisdom, made the speed of light much faster back in the day ... and it has slowed down to its current 670,616,629.384 miles per hour during the past 7,000 years. You had better believe I’ll be teaching that the next time I teach my course, Light and Magnetism 101. Check out ...

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ15.html

http://www.rae.org/light.html

http://www.speed-light.info/angels_speed_of_light.htm

RWH, at 11:49 am EDT on April 16, 2007

Ideas that should die

So this is really all about students who are fearful of expressing views that differ from their professors? Tough. If they cannot learn to think critically and openly defend their positions on the basis of reason and evidence, then they should be a bit fearful.

While individuals are free to believe whatever they like, universities are not forums that should protect the free expression of stupidity by silencing professors who criticize those who espouse it.

There are good reasons why some ideas do not and should not survive critical scrutiny. So-called “biblical inerrancy” and the flat-earth theory are a couple of those.

ZH, at 3:50 pm EDT on April 16, 2007

ACTA laughing stock

The ACTA is becoming more and more of a laughing stock. I once thought they were actually interested in even handed thoughtful approaches to intellectual diversity. As a faculty member that leans more to the right than most of my colleagues, I first thought that agencies like ACTA, NAS, FIRE would provide sensible counter-balance to an often liberal groupthink that at times sets in at academic centers. But the more one watches what these agencies do and say, the harder it is for any thinking person to support them. I’m afraid that I was never looking for the government to intrude into higher ed governance to protect facially ludicrous ideas like Biblical inerrancy (talking donkeys? flat earths? this is laughable stuff, one has to stretch the meaning of the word ‘inerrant’ mighty far to get even the start of a respectable view here). The actual text of the bill, which can be found here: http://www.house.mo.gov/bills071/biltxt/perf/HB0213P.HTM

reads:Include intellectual diversity concerns in the institution’s guidelines on teaching and program development and such concerns shall include but not be limited to the protection of religious freedom including the viewpoint that the Bible is inerrant;

ACTA does not note this tasty tidbit and product of their mischief, one suspects because they know it is indefensible. If ideas like Biblical inerrancy is what passes for respectable conservative thought among ACTA and the like then I for one hope it is being systematically excluded at every university across the land...

Will inerrancy of the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita be protected as well (I mean, isn’t religios freedom the real issue, or is ACTA just hypocritically using this as a shield for special protections for their pet conservative beliefs)? Because for a class to protect the idea that both the Koran and the Bible are inerrant at the same time will be quite a feat no doubt...

Ken, at 5:46 pm EDT on April 16, 2007

The situation in Missouri

I really appreciate the concerns of Ms. Neal:

“For years, the academic establishment has refused to take action to protect the free exchange of ideas,” Neal said. “It is no wonder that now, confronted with real problems, Missouri legislators have asked for a measure of accountability.”

In Missouri, the Booker case is the only example and it was being resolved without this legislation. So, what are the problems that prompted the passage of this legislation?

Next year, my campus, University of Central Missouri, will host a presentation by Justice Scalia. Under the impetus of this legislation, I wonder what our campus needs to do to have appropriate intellectual diversity.

Bob Yates, at 5:46 pm EDT on April 16, 2007

Bring some real diversity

Why is it that every cry for “intellectual diversity” seems to come from a white male with funding from right-wing think tanks?

Horowitz continues to spin this yarn into a spool of gold to pay for his Republican lifestyle.

Thom, at 3:20 pm EDT on April 17, 2007

Thom’s point

Thom, I think the reason it _appears_ that most cries for “intellectual diversity” come from white guys with backing from right-wing think tanks is that our perspective is fairly limited. When I was a college student in the 1960’s, the conservatives were generally inside the institutions, and those who might be described as liberals or radicals were on the outside, trying to get in to the public university systems. (Then, as always, everyone wanted to be in the top tier private institutions, but the turnover rate is so slow that people took what was available.) From where I sit, it often appears they’ve succeeded, and now are often the senior faculty, determined (as much as the conservatives of the 1960’s, my instructors) to impose their view of the world and the disciplines on their students. It’s the pendulum effect.

It may again be just my perspective, but you will note that the issues of “intellectual diversity” only rise in the humanities and social sciences. The natural sciences and many of the professions don’t get involved much in these issues, do they? You’re not going to have someone crying out for “intellectual diversity” in electrical engineering, are you? Has anyone considered why this might be the case? And what it could tell those of us in the humanities and social sciences?

Rich, Dean, at 7:50 am EDT on April 19, 2007

Is it just me who finds something strange in a teacher at a university asking his students to write letters urging state legislators to support adoptions by same-sex couples?

Now, whether the students agree with this stance or not, surely no university teacher has the right to ask his students to sign a political statement of any kind, let alone have assessment based on it.

Perhaps its just students at Missouri State University are a bit gutless. Such at request to a class here at the University of Otago would have been met with two words, one to do with urination the other, travel, both from students and staff.

David S, at 7:00 am EDT on May 9, 2007