Faith statements impinge on academic freedom? (Part 4 of 4)

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
(The Carillon, February 24, 2011)

Faith statements impinge on academic freedom? (Part 4 of 4)

Over the past few years, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) has been investigating and blacklisting several Christian universities because, CAUT alleges, these schools violate academic freedom. According to CAUT, culprit schools “have imposed [on faculty] a requirement of a commitment to a particular ideology or statement [of faith] as condition of employment,” and so such schools “cannot be practicing academic freedom.” Thus, or so CAUT would have us believe, the blacklisted Christian schools lack academic legitimacy and credibility.

Happily, last week CAUT announced that it will cease its lengthy formal investigations (which, as critics have correctly pointed out, could have been conducted in minutes simply by checking each school's website).

Unhappily, however, CAUT still plans to maintain a list of schools that require their faculty to sign a faith statement. (I say "unhappily" because CAUT's project continues to cast public suspicion on listed schools wholly in the absence of empirical evidence that the academic freedom of faculty or students in these schools has been actually impaired.)

In three previous Apologia columns (April 22, April 29, May 6, 2010), I set out three reasons for thinking that CAUT's blacklisting project is problematic. Today, I will add a fourth reason.

First, let's review my previous reasons.

Reason 1. Via its blacklisting project CAUT is thwarting academic freedom broadly conceived. That is, CAUT is denying the fact that academic freedom is enhanced if we allow sub-groups of the broader scholarly community to accept the philosophical-theological light that they believe they have discovered, allow them to band together, and allow them to use the aforementioned light as a lamp unto their collective feet. Sure, these sub-groups might be mistaken; but they might not be mistaken. Either way, there is an increase in the freedom of the broader academic community to pursue knowledge and truth—which is good.

Reason 2. CAUT is unfairly imposing its preferred philosophical-theological views onto the broader academic community. Via its blacklisting project, CAUT is assuming that no scholarly sub-community can appropriately settle on and commit to some philosophical-theological truths unless the larger academic culture approves. But this means that CAUT is granting itself a privileged philosophical-theological status (e.g., agnosticism or atheism) over and above that of the schools on the blacklist (i.e., Christian theism), and this allows CAUT—as a self-appointed theological-philosophical authority—to judge the blacklisted schools to be academically inferior. Because this philosophical-theological posturing is done without argument or debate, CAUT is engaged in academic bullying.

Reason 3. In an important sense it is false that a Christian school's requirement for faculty to subscribe to a statement of faith means that such schools "cannot be practicing academic freedom." In my personal experience teaching at a Christian university college, faculty and students have the freedom to investigate—and are in fact encouraged to investigate—the faith doctrines of their particular school. Thus, faculty and students have the freedom to seek truth even under the auspices of a faith statement.

So far, so good.

Recently, I have learned of yet another good reason for thinking that CAUT's blacklisting project is problematic.

Reason 4. CAUT's major concern—that a school's requirement of faculty to adhere to a particular ideology or faith statement as a condition of employment may impinge on the outcome of an academic investigation and thereby impinge on academic freedom—is a concern for all schools, not just Christian schools.

To support reason 4, I will quote (with permission) from an email sent to me by my friend and colleague, Dr. Kevin Flatt, assistant professor of history at Redeemer University College. (Aside: When Kevin was a teenager, he was a student in one of my Sunday school classes—yes, the pupil quickly becomes the master!)

According to Dr. Flatt, "all scholarship, whether Christian or not,…involves parameters that limit academic freedom."

Dr. Flatt defends this claim with two excellent insights (so I quote in extenso here):

(1) Even secular universities impose limits on academic freedom on the basis of some (albeit minimal) shared perspective. For example, no Canadian university would allow a scholar to outright deny the historical truth of the Holocaust, or to argue that women are not full human beings, or to publish papers suggesting that professors should murder their students. Why? Because such "freedom" would strike at the very basis and mission of those universities. In this way, even secular universities constrain academic freedom on the basis of a shared starting point, even if the content of that starting point differs from, and is less specific than, that of Christian universities.

(2) But even if this were not so, on an individual level, every scholar works with what [Yale philosopher] Nick Wolterstorff calls "control beliefs" (Reason within the Bounds of Religion, chap. 9) that act as self-imposed limits on what theories that scholar will even consider. For example, someone who holds the non-existence of God as a control belief will always rule out a theory that involves miraculous divine intervention in the course of events, no matter how strong the evidence in its favour (I'm preaching to the converted here, I know). Admittedly, control beliefs can be revised over time, but at any given moment, every scholar must operate within their parameters. Even if the faculty at a secular university (unlike at a Christian one) have not joined together on the basis of shared control beliefs, the individuals concerned are still operating with those beliefs. And in any case, as I argue under (1), I think the secular academy does have some shared control beliefs, whether it wants to admit it or not.

Thus, the Canadian Association of University Teachers now has four good reasons to completely halt its blacklisting project—or, as Reason 4 suggests, at least include the rest of Canada's universities on its list.

P.S. Here is a list of faculty at Canadian universities and colleges who reject CAUT's investigations concerning academic freedom at faith-mandated postsecondary institutions: Faculty Statement on CAUT.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Faith statements impinge on academic freedom? (Part 3 of 4)

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen
(The Carillon, May 6, 2010)

Faith statements impinge on academic freedom? (Part 3 of 4)

The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) is blacklisting several Christian universities because, CAUT alleges, these schools violate academic freedom. According to CAUT, culprit schools “have imposed [on faculty] a requirement of a commitment to a particular ideology or statement [of faith] as condition of employment,” and so such schools “cannot be practicing academic freedom.” Thus, or so CAUT would have us believe, the blacklisted Christian schools lack legitimacy and credibility.

I think CAUT’s blacklisting project is problematic, for three reasons. (Last times I set out reasons 1 and 2; this time I will set out reason 3.) [For a fourth reason, see my column of February 24, 2011.]

Reason 3: It is in an important sense false that a Christian school’s requirement for faculty to subscribe to a statement of faith means that such schools “cannot be practicing academic freedom.”

Consider the following. I teach at a Christian university college, and my school’s statement of faith requires me to acknowledge the following central doctrines as true: that God exists, that Jesus is God incarnate, that Jesus physically resurrected from the grave. (There are other doctrines, but space is a concern here.)

Now also consider this. I have three degrees in philosophy from respectable Canadian secular universities: BA (University of Calgary), MA (University of Windsor), and PhD (University of Waterloo). The focus of my academic research has been to examine the merits of philosophical objections concerning Christianity in general and Jesus’ resurrection in particular. My academic work has included the study of logic and critical thinking, philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and ethics.

Yes, there is much that I don’t know, but I believe that I have sufficiently good reasons for freely accepting my school’s faith statement.

Now—and here is my point—at the school that employs me I have the freedom to continue to investigate the truth claims of my school’s faith statement. In fact, my school encourages me to do academic research which addresses contemporary philosophical objections concerning core doctrines of the Christian faith.

For example, a year or so ago my department head asked me to review atheist Richard Dawkins’ best-selling book The God Delusion, a book highly critical of core Christian doctrine. My research into Dawkins’ work turned into a faculty forum presentation plus two articles for an academic journal.

And here is another point: When I teach philosophy at the school at which I am employed, I encourage students to investigate freely and carefully the relevant aspects of our school’s faith statement when we address the big philosophical questions: Does God exist? Is it reasonable to believe that Jesus’ resurrection occurred? Is the concept of incarnation logically coherent? What is truth? Can we know truth? Is anything really right or wrong? Is God relevant to ethics? That sort of thing.

My students have the freedom to disagree with my views (and the school’s views) on these questions, as long as they argue well—i.e., appeal to good reasons and evidence, plus show respect to those with whom they disagree. In fact, we seek truth together, and we sometimes know truth (and sometimes even know it well), all the while acknowledging that we are fallible and that our knowledge is not exhaustive. Often we end up with a reasonable faith.

Surely, my students and I have—and practice—academic freedom, even though I subscribe to a faith statement.

CAUT, then, is in an important sense mistaken that a Christian school’s requirement for faculty to subscribe to a statement of faith means that the school “cannot be practicing academic freedom.”

Therefore, to the Canadian Association of University Teachers and its blacklist project, I say this: In the name of academic freedom broadly conceived (my reason 1), in the name of careful philosophical thinking (my reason 2), and in the name of the freedom to seek truth even under the auspices of a faith statement (my reason 3), please stop.

P.S. See also my reason 4.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence College, located in Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada. Providence College is a Christian university college that asks its faculty to agree with a statement of faith.)

Faith statements impinge on academic freedom? (Part 2 of 4)

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen
(The Carillon, April 29, 2010)

Faith statements impinge on academic freedom? (Part 2 of 4)

The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) is blacklisting several Christian universities because, CAUT alleges, these schools violate academic freedom. According to CAUT, academic freedom is the teacher’s right to teach and do research “without restriction by prescribed doctrine.” According to CAUT, culprit schools “have imposed [on faculty] a requirement of a commitment to a particular ideology or statement [of faith] as condition of employment.” Thus, or so CAUT apparently would have us believe, the blacklisted Christian schools lack academic legitimacy and credibility.

I think CAUT’s blacklisting project is problematic, for three reasons. (Last time I set out reason 1; this time I will set out reason 2; next time reason 3.) [See reason 4 in my column of February 24, 2011.]

Reason 2: CAUT’s blacklist relies on a questionable philosophical assumption.

For CAUT’s blacklist actually to cast doubt on the academic legitimacy or credibility of the work done by Christian groups of academics which operate under a statement of faith, CAUT is assuming that no scholarly sub-community can appropriately settle on and commit to some philosophical-theological truths unless the larger (dominating) academic culture approves. But this assumption is dubious.

CAUT’s assumption is dubious because it unfairly deals a trump card to those philosophical-theological positions—i.e., agnosticism and atheism—which hold philosophical-theological truth claims to be unknowable or false.

CAUT is in effect assuming a privileged epistemological (knowledge) status for agnosticism and atheism. And, because these philosophies are either popular among or held by at least a few influential CAUT members, the assumption of this privileged epistemological status has the following result: it automatically gives CAUT the (self-appointed) authority to judge as academically illegitimate the work of those scholars who—God forbid!—freely band together and corporately commit to studying under the doctrinal banner that the Christian God is real and can be known.

CAUT, then, is engaged in philosophical self-promotion.

What is worse (for CAUT), CAUT’s epistemological assumption shows that CAUT is out of touch with much contemporary philosophy of religion (my area of academic specialization). Over the past few decades in many Anglo-American university philosophy departments, there has been a rebirth of respectable philosophical argumentation that defends (a) the truth of God’s existence, (b) the reasonableness of belief in Jesus’ miraculous resurrection, plus (c) the logical coherence of Christianity’s core theological doctrines.

In other words, when, under the veil of “academic freedom,” the philosophical-theological legitimacy of recent work in contemporary philosophy of religion is in effect dismissed—without argument—by the privileged epistemic status CAUT grants to the agnostic-atheistic positions, CAUT is engaging in philosophical sleight of hand.

Via its blacklist, CAUT is, wittingly or unwittingly, imposing its preferred philosophical-theological views onto the broader academic community. But this is not academic freedom, it is academic bullying.

Therefore, to CAUT and its blacklist project, I say this: In the name of academic freedom broadly conceived—and in the name of careful philosophical thinking—please stop.

Next time I’ll set out my third reason for thinking that the CAUT’s blacklist is problematic. (Spoiler alert: I think it is in an important sense false that a school’s requirement for faculty to subscribe to a statement of faith means that the school “cannot be practicing academic freedom.”)

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence College, located in Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada. Providence College is a Christian university college that asks its faculty to agree with a statement of faith.)

Faith statements impinge on academic freedom? (Part 1 of 4)

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
(The Carillon, April 22, 2010)

Faith statements impinge on academic freedom? (Part 1 of 4)

The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) is blacklisting several Christian universities because, CAUT alleges, these schools violate academic freedom. According to CAUT, academic freedom is the teacher’s right to teach and do research “without restriction by prescribed doctrine.” According to CAUT, culprit schools—Trinity Western University (presently blacklisted), Canadian Mennonite University, Redeemer University, Crandall University (the latter three are in CAUT's sights)—“have imposed a requirement of a commitment to a particular ideology or statement [of faith] as condition of employment.” According to James Turk, executive director of CAUT, “A school that requires its faculty to subscribe to a particular religious belief or ideology cannot be practicing academic freedom.”

I think CAUT’s blacklisting project is problematic, for three reasons. [Actually, four reasons.  I set out reason 4 in my column of February 24, 2011.]

Reason 1: CAUT is thwarting academic freedom broadly conceived.

In defence of reason 1, I will appeal to some insights from Regent College Professor John C. Stackhouse Jr., an academic with professional experience in both secular and faith-based universities.

In University Affairs (a publication for university teachers), Stackhouse points out the following: Wholly unqualified academic freedom, as found in modern secular universities, and partially qualified academic freedom, as found in explicitly faith-based Christian universities, are both important in a society that values academic freedom.

According to Stackhouse, there is something positive about a secular community of scholars which has unqualified academic freedom (i.e., there is radical plurality, no assumption is taken for granted, and study moves on from there); and there is something positive about a faith-based community of scholars which has qualified academic freedom (i.e., there is a philosophical-theological commonality based on a coherent well-articulated set of grounding assumptions, and study moves on from there).

Stackhouse wisely writes: “I want to urge my fellow Canadian scholars to leave space for the alternative of a community of scholars that can take a number of basic assumptions for granted and go on together to analyze a wide range of important questions. The synergy that comes from such shared intellectual commitments is simply not to be found in the secular university.”

In other words (mine, not Stackhouse’s): Academic freedom when broadly conceived is enhanced if we give scholars the freedom not to have to reinvent the light bulb. That is to say, academic freedom is enhanced if we allow sub-groups of the broader scholarly community to accept the philosophical-theological light that they believe they have discovered, allow them to band together, and allow them to use the aforementioned light as a lamp unto their collective feet.

Of course, they might be mistaken; but perhaps not. Either way, there is an increase in the freedom of the broader academic community to pursue knowledge and truth—which is good.

In view of reason 1, to CAUT and its blacklist project, I say this: In the name of academic freedom broadly conceived, please stop.

Next times I’ll set out my second and third reasons for thinking that the CAUT’s blacklist is problematic. (Spoiler alert: I think CAUT is relying on an unnoticed faulty philosophical criterion in its blacklist. I also think it is in an important sense false that a school’s requirement for faculty to subscribe to a statement of faith means that the school “cannot be practicing academic freedom.”)

[Reminder: I also set out a fourth reason in a later column.]

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence College, located in Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada. Providence College is a Christian university college that asks its faculty to agree with a statement of faith.)