>>On Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 10:11:01 -0600, Michael Smith wrote: >>> Feeling a bit verbose, a few notes about what Mike P wrote. >> >>[To which "Mike Palij" wrote:] >>This was posted after I hit my 3 post limit yesterday, so I had to >>wait until today to provide a response. I was curious about what >>kind of responses Prof. Smith's comments would elicit and I remain >>curious. I had planned on making one of my verbose responses to >>Prof. Smith's points but I now think that there would be little point in >>doing so. >>Via con Dios folks. > >[To which On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 10:04:30 -0700, Jim Clark wrote: >JC: >Like Mike P. I'm skeptical of the consequences of responding, but >here's a few thoughts. [snip]
After reading Prof. Smith's comments I got to thinking about the types of restrictions that faculty might find themselves under and how this might affect what and how they teach. In the U.S. we can make the following distinctions among academic institutions: (1) Public colleges and universities: on the basis of the establishment clause of the constitution (i.e., seperation of church and state) these have to be "non-sectarian" and should not promote a particular religious viewpoint. Teaching evolution as biology would be the norm as would most traditional mainstream academic topics. On hiring, a faculty member is probably asked to swear an oath to support the U.S. constitution and (probably) the state constitution (I'm not sure about what in addition to the U.S. constitution is sworn to in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and U.S. territories). (2) Private Colleges that are Non-sectarian: these are private colleges that (a) not directly supported by the government (though they may receive financial and other aid in many forms) and (b) do not promote a particular sectarian/religious viewpoint. Private colleges may have been non-sectarian from their very beginning or may have started out as sectarian and converted into independent and non-sectarian status (Harvard and Yale are examples). Because they are non-sectarian, these colleges are eligible for federal and state funds and programs which may be an important incentive to becoming non-sectarian. NOTE: a college/university may be non-sectarian but still have significant religious/theological units (e.g., Yeshiva University). Being non-sectarian, in one interpretation, is that a religious viewpoint and teaching are restricted to traditional courses relevant to religion and theology and not presented in other courses, such as biology. (3) Private Colleges that are Sectarian-Catholic: Catholic colleges often will be sectarian but this does not mean that (a) all of the faculty at such institutions are Catholic nor (b) all students at such institutions are Catholic. The Catholic colleges and universities will have departments of religion and theology though it is my understanding that not all students are required to take courses in them (NOTE: a colleague at a major Catholic university expressed surpise when he learned that incoming students were directed into different curricula depending upon whether they identified themselves as Catholic or not; I assume that Catholic students may have been required to take a certain number of credits in religion/theology while non-Catholics would not or only be required to take an intro to religion course). Catholic institutions do put certain demands on their faculty. Faculty in departments of religion and theology are bound by the Pope's "Mandatum" that their teaching is consistent with with Catholic dogma and re-affirms Catholic values and beliefs (perhaps this is to keep the faculty going Hans Kung route). Faculty in non-religion/theology departments are advised to generally teach their courses consistent with Catholic values and beliefs but I am unsure whether these faculty are also held to the Mandatum or have sign a "statement of faith" affirming Catholicism. In order to receive federal and state funding, the religious programs are kept seperate from the non-religious. The Pope has affirmed that faith and reason can and should co-exist and science can provide useful knowledge and understanding of the physical world beyond what the Bible can provide. Thus, evolution is accepted and creationism/ID is seen as peculiar system associated with certain Protestant groups. Nonetheless, the current Pope has been outspoken on trying to reign in the U.S. colleges and universities as shown in the following article: http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0408/512391.html (4) Private Colleges that are Sectarian-Non-Catholic: A variety of religions have affiliated colleges and universities (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Universities_and_colleges_by_religious_affiliation ) but the majority of these will be some flavor of non-Catholic Christian faith. These schools can range from liberal in matters theological and political to ultraconservative. An extreme example of a conservative Christian college is "Patrick Henry College" (PHC), see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry_College . What is perhaps most noteworthy about PHC is its alleged connection to the U.S. Republican party and the George W. Bush administration (e.g., quoting from Wikipedia: | It also attracted attention because a number of the school's students |gained White House internships and opportunities within the Bush administration: |in spring 2004, seven of the 100 student White House interns were from |PHC, which had only 240 students at the time.[11] This is the same number |of interns Georgetown University had during the same period.[14] ) PHC also had problem in obtaining accreditation as a college because of its insistence on teaching creationism/ID in biology courses; see the following article from "Christianity Today": http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/july8/15.16.html?start=1 PHC received accreditation in 2007 as detailed in the wikipedia article though it is unclear what effect this had on biology and other courses that had religious content mixed in. A practice that some Christian colleges and universities have is that all students and faculty must sign a "Statement of Faith" which demonstrates their affirmation of the beliefs in the statement. Quoting the Wikipedia entry: |Religious affirmations | |All students must sign a "Statement of Faith" before they arrive, |affirming belief in what the college considers core Christian doctrines. |For example, students are asked to acknowledge "Satan exists as a |personal, malevolent being who acts as tempter and accuser, for |whom Hell, the place of eternal punishment, was prepared, where |all who die outside of Christ shall be confined in conscious torment |for eternity", and "Christ's death provides substitutionary atonement |for our sins."[23] The college professes non-denominational Christian |beliefs. | |Teaching faculty must also sign the "Statement of Faith", plus a more |detailed "Statement of Biblical Worldview", which represents the College's |requirements for what should be taught.[24] For example the Biblical |Worldview Applications states that, "Any biology, Bible, or other courses |at PHC dealing with creation will teach creation from the understanding |of Scripture that God's creative work, as described in Genesis 1:1-31, |was completed in six twenty-four hour days." [25]New Scientist has |claimed that Patrick Henry College and the homeschooling community |in general were "possibly threatening the public school system that has |fought hard against imposing a Christian viewpoint on science teaching."[5] I think it should be obvious how such a viewpoint might also constrain or affect the teaching of psychology at such institutions. PHC has dismissed employees on the basis of disagreements with the Statement of Faith (according to Wikipedia, a library clerk promoted the position that baptism is essential for salvation, a position that is inconsistent with PHC statement). It should be noted that Statements of Faith have been interpreted as a restriction on academic freedom, notably by the American Association of University Professiors (AAUP). See their statement which appeared in their journal "Academe": http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2006/JF/Feat/wagn.htm I have gone through this review in order to reach a particular point, namely, the "Statement of Faith" for Taylor College: http://www.taylor-edu.ca/about/doctrine.htm Quoting from the statement: |Statement of Faith | |Taylor seeks to maintain a position which is faithful to the scriptures as |understood through the Baptist theological tradition. We believe that it |is the right and responsibility of each believer to arrive at an understanding |of the Christian faith which is based on Scripture interpreted in accordance |with his/her conscience. Although no human statement of faith should |be considered to be creedally binding, the following “Statement of Beliefs”* |adopted by the North American Baptist Conference meeting in Triennial |Session at Niagara Falls, New York, on August 12, 1982, expresses the |doctrinal consensus of the denomination. It provides the basis for doctrinal |instruction at Taylor. | |(1) We believe the Bible is God's Word given by divine inspiration, the |record of God's revelation of Himself to humanity (II Timothy 3:16). It is |trustworthy, sufficient, without error - the supreme authority and guide for |all doctrine and conduct (I Peter 1:23-25; John 17:17; II Timothy 3:16-17). |It is the truth by which God brings people into a saving relationship with |Himself and leads them to Christian maturity (John 20:31; I John 5:9-12; |Matthew 4:4; I Peter 2:2). I do not mean to say that PHC and Taylor college espouse the same statement of faith though it appears that their statements may have commonalities. How Taylor college's statement translates into what can be taught in the classroom, whether creationism/ID is taught in biology courses or whether the Bible informs psychology classes, I cannot say (NOTE: Taylor college is a Canadian school and I am unfamiliar with the standard college curriculum up there though I would suspect it has commonalities with US schools). If he pleases, Prof. Smith might answer these questions. In summary, it appears that there are two answers to the question I posed in the Subject line: (1) Not at all. (2) Very, very carefully if one doesn't want to lose their job. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
