Quick Takes

Comments on Quick Takes

• Posted by Charles on February 9, 2010 at 7:15am EST

• If by "separation of church and state" you mean the section of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution related to religion, it's not relevant in this case except as possible defense from the Professor.
  The case the students and ACLU are presenting follow the state's non-discrimination laws. These are not one in the same. There is no such law in the Constitution or California that states public officials can not operate with a religious bias, but that the official can not discriminate.
  Let's not confuse the matter just because the case mentions the 'R' word.

• Religious Literarcy
• Posted by John on February 9, 2010 at 7:45am EST

• Charles--The ACLU IS challenging the community college on First Amendment grounds. It is in their letter. Are you saying that IHE should not report on matters which disagree with your interpretation of the First Amendment?

  PS. Where is Horowitz when you need him????

• Establishment Clause
• Posted by Diogenes on February 9, 2010 at 8:00am EST

• If this school was private, let's say, "Fundamentalist University," sure. Fill your health class with all kinds of religious dogma and silly pseudo science concerning religion and homosexuality. After all everyone knows hormones cure homosexuality (not!). But when the state is paying the bill, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment comes into play. By making these religiously motivated health claims, teaching the Bible as a health guide, condemning abortion as murder (when the Supreme Court does not), and spouting such nonsense "hormones for homos" in a state run, taxpayer financed health class, it is clearing an infration of the First Amendment. This is not a free exercise case. His proselytizing s clearly religiously, not medically motivated. There is not medical support for this kind of nonsense! So what his the only support? Religion!.The ACLU is spot on here. And Charles is not. He should take the time to actually read the well reasoned documentation of the ACLU of the nonsense that's being taught in a Lifelong Wellness class!.

• all mixed up
• Posted by PiledHigher&Deeper , PhD at European on February 9, 2010 at 9:30am EST

• Seems to me that there is a lot at play in this story. First, like most readers here, I don't know all the facts, but it does seem that this class doesn't warrant the ideological tack taken by the prof. I don't like literature to turn into politics; I don't like science to turn into (anti)theology; I don't like wellness to turn into religion; and I don't like politics to turn into morality. Diogenes, I think you're spot-on when writing, "His proselytizing [i]s clearly religiously, not medically motivated." Fair enough.

  But--and, Diogenes, here is your cue (start stoking the fire--I'm ready for all the name-calling you can muster)--it does seem rather risky to conclude, as you seem to do, that "when the state is paying the bill, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment comes into play." Hmmm. Not sure where to begin with that one. Are you suggesting that one has civil rights only when working for an institution where "the state is paying the bill"? Or are you intimating that one is denied his/her religious beliefs when "the state is paying the bill"? Secondly, you are showing your conventionalism again. You dismiss any "condemning [of] abortion as murder (when the Supreme Court does not)." Diogenes, you--of all people--should be more enlightened than to allow the law (nomos, custom) to define right and wrong. Think freely, man!

  You may be right, Diogenes, that there "is not medical support for this kind of nonsense," or at least not enough to make a difference, but that does not mean that there is not support of another kind. We are simply not willing to take it seriously in our own age, an age tyrannized by the myth of unmoored Sound Science!

• juxtaposition
• Posted by theron on February 9, 2010 at 10:00am EST

• Interesting juxtaposition of stories here: a 'consumer approach to college' and the UC Colleges pairing with Kaplan. On one hand, lookng at cost per degree misses the importance of student-institution fit. On the other the State has cut funding to education, forcing the colleges to pair up with a for-profit school to enable students to finish degrees. The unifying factor, of course, is the role of money. as the stories read: California is cutting its costs, in effect privatizing part of their public higher education system while other students are being encouraged to consider cost rather than appropriateness in their college selection.

• Posted by Greg on February 9, 2010 at 10:00am EST

• and last year an adjunct professor from an Iowa CC, made the statement that the bible was not based on facts and accuracy and had no place in a history class. After a couple of born agains complained, the professor was fired off his contract and told first amendment rights didn't matter. and now this, go figure!

  Greg

• 1st amendment in the classroom
• Posted by Art Leonard , professor at ny law school on February 9, 2010 at 10:30am EST

• This is a topic I just covered in my Employment Law class. When a professor is speaking in the classroom of a public university, his/her speech is considered to be government speech, and the government generally has a right to control the content of speech made on its behalf. That's the rule of Garcetti v. Ceballos, a recent Supreme Court decision. However, there is division among the lower federal courts about whether there is an "academic freedom" exception to Garcetti, under which instructors in institutions of higher education retain some 1st Amendment rights in the classroom. (Garcetti involved an assistant district attorney who was disciplined in response to making statements disagreeing with his superiors on an issue involving pending litigation.) When the government is funding the university and the instructor is making statements in the classroom that are based on his/her religious beliefs rather than the curriculum approved by the school, there is certainly an establishment clause issue, once again, because the instructor's speech is government speech. But the case is made more complex by the academic freedom issues. The ACLU contends students should not be subjected to religious indoctrination in the classroom, which is also a respectable position. There are so many different countervailing legal issues floating around in this situation that it is difficult to do the line-drawing, but I suspect that on balance the ACLU has the stronger argument that an instructor in a state institution does not have absolute freedom to spout religiously-inspired doctrine in the classroom of a health course.

• thanks for clarification, Prof. Leonard
• Posted by PiledHigher&Deeper , PhD at European on February 9, 2010 at 12:30pm EST

• It helps to know how the establishment clause is being invoked in such cases. So is it fair to say that all government-funded institutions are taking a secular position? If so, then is that not an establishment of secularism? In other words, to require that all employees check their religious beliefs at the door is to establish an ideology in which faith has no relevance. It seems that there is a distinction to be made between practice and belief (agenda & credenda?). A governmental institution can certainly require certain kinds of behavior, but it should not be able to require certain beliefs. And, since language is so closely tied to belief, the work of the teacher, whose medium is chiefly language, calls for more careful and sophisticated thinking. Are we eventually going to require that all government employees sign a statement of non-faith?

• Academic Freedom
• Posted by cnort9474 , Prof. at large on February 9, 2010 at 1:45pm EST

• Garcetti should have all academics frightened, since if the rule is applied to institutions of higher learning then we can all say goodbye to academic freedom in any form. Of course, given the response to this particular item, there are those whose academic freedom has already been lost, those whose views have already been silenced among us--why is it so difficult for us to see that secularism, as defined above, is as much a 'religious view', a 'church', so to speak, as much as Christianity, Islam, Atheism, or any other theological perspective/approach that one could name or describe. The Founders never meant for the 'establishment clause' to refer to the mere mention of a particular theology within a state or government institution, they feared what had happened in Europe--the establishment--the putting in place, the recognition of--a state religion, meaning of one theology above all others, so that this one theology could then run roughshod over all others, as they had seen happen before. Funny, but that sounds exactly like what has happened with secularlist theology, now running roughshod over every other belief system--remarkable how the Founders could have foreseen just such an occurrence. . . .

• This was a health class!
• Posted by K on February 9, 2010 at 2:30pm EST

• The professor was using the Bible to teach about health issues. Unless this was a history of health or religion and health class, it had no place in the classroom. I don't see any academic freedom issues there, as what he was teaching was irrelevant to the coursework.

  And PiledHigher&Deeper, I don't think the point is to require employees believe one thing-but they shouldn't inject their beliefs in their teaching.

• Boring Teachers
• Posted by GEW , Director, Leadership Department on February 9, 2010 at 3:30pm EST

• K said, "And PiledHigher&Deeper, I don't think the point is to require employees believe one thing-but they shouldn't inject their beliefs in their teaching."

  We should all inject our beliefs in our teaching, otherwise we are reduced to simple mouthpieces for the beliefs of others. What boring teachers we would be if we followed your advice.

• injecting beliefs
• Posted by PiledHigher&Deeper , PhD at European on February 9, 2010 at 7:15pm EST

• K, one of my points was that the academy is coming dangerously close to requiring their employees not to believe in one thing/certain things because the link between belief and words is--or, at least, has traditionally been--a rather strong one. To drive belief from a forum where it is relevant (not in a health course) is to take an anti-theistic position, which is a religious stand. ("Give me your tired, your poor, . . . but make sure to discard all faith before entering.")

  Additionally, I don't think any of us can teach without injecting our beliefs. After all, if I teach a course on environmentalism or American literature, I inject my beliefs--fundamentally, the conviction that the issue is worth devoting an entire course to. Tangentially, I inject my beliefs by choosing certain texts, films, etc. and presenting them in a certain light. By the end of the course, students always know where a professor stands, so why pretend objectivity? It's like FOX News or NPR pretending to be unbiased. (As Paul Simon wrote, "Tell me whooo, who do ya' think you're foolin'?") Another example . . . to present science ("Sound Science") as capable of being its own ethical guide is nothing less than a myth. Even worse, it is an unwarranted myth, held to naively despite the overwhelming historical evidence against it. Science, rather than being the hoped-for savior, has resulted in some pretty horrific events (e.g., Bhopal, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Nagasaki & Hiroshima, death camps,...). To continue to sing the praises of ethical science in the face of such evidence is to be a true believer and a master of denial.

  An example of this kind of fundamentalism is seen in Richard Dawkins’s assertion that “our brains [. . .] are big enough to see into the future and plot long-term consequences.” Rubbish! Every parent knows that humans are born with the ability to make messes bigger than they can clean up. Why won't Dawkins and his ilk, which includes most in the secularist academy, acknowledge their beliefs, their convictions, their faith that is absolute and beyond their ability to doubt? Their reasoning for believing in science is as circular as that of the zealot for believing in God: "It is the ultimate authority because I cannot believe in (imagine?) anything greater!" There's no escaping the injection of belief.

• Wow, really?
• Posted by K on February 9, 2010 at 11:15pm EST

• The professor allegedly used the Bible to teach a health class, something which is clearly inappropriate, and the response is on the myth of sound science and Richard Dawkins? Some perspective, please. I was commenting on the actual article. Of course the readings you assign are going to show your beliefs, but if the professor did actually "a genetics assignment that involved studying the Bible to research Jesus Christ's biological makeup," I hope you can agree that that crosses a line.

• guess I digressed, but....
• Posted by PiledHigher&Deeper , PhD at European on February 15, 2010 at 12:45pm EST

• K, perhaps I wandered too far. But here's why: I think that the belief that science can be unfettered from philosophic/idelogic (theologic?) consideration and continue to lead humanity toward goodness is just that--a belief. It is the kind of belief that is, moreover, unwarranted--not supported by evidence. Dawkins is the most prominent example of this kind of pseudo-rationalist position which, although Dawkins himself is a rather easy target and a caricature of the average academic, is represented throughout the academy. My point is simply that belief is inescapable. Those who mask cloak their belief in "objective facts" and deny the evidence are at best intellectually self-deluded and at worst deliberately deceiving their pupils. You wrote, "I don't think the point is to require employees believe one thing-but they shouldn't inject their beliefs in their teaching." Any scientist who begins with the presupposition science leads to goodness is operating as a person of faith, and that fundamental conviction should either be declared openly or examined critically along the way.