9. The Heresy Hunters: Academic Freedom at Religious Schools
Many religious colleges have been intolerant of dissenting voices. In 1994, the Southwestern Theological Seminary trustees rescinded an invitation to Rev. R. Keith Parks because he had left the Southern Baptist's Foreign Mission Board after clashing with conservatives. Daniel Maguire, a leader of Catholics for a Free Choice, found that invitations to speak at Catholic colleges were cancelled because of his unorthodox views, even when abortion was not the subject of his speeches. At St. Martin's College, the president wrote to Maguire: "The Board [of Trustees] determined that the Saint Martin's religious studies program should avoid the hiring of personnel who advocate teachings that may be contrary to the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church," which included hiring Maguire to deliver a speech. Maguire's lecture at the College of St. Scholastica was cancelled by the president because of Maguire's "association with Catholics for a Free Choice." Similar cancellations occurred at Villanova University and Boston College.
At Catholic University of America, abortion rights supporter Bill Baird was scheduled to participate in a debate with Sandra Faucher, director of the National Right to Life Political Action Committee. But the Program Board cancelled the debate, claiming that Baird is "overemotional." The move was protested by the Catholic University Students for Choice, a group which is not officially recognized by the university because of its political views, and which is prohibited from holding functions on university property.
Nor has the suppression of unorthodox views ended. Many of the examples of academic freedom violations in this report took place at religious colleges, and some cases are directly tied to free speech. Sister Carmel McElroy was fired in April 1995 by the St. Meinrad School of Theology because she was one of 1,000 people who signed an open letter to the Pope in the National Catholic Reporter calling for dialogue on the issue of ordaining women. Although a tenured professor, McElroy notes, "my signature was used as 'proof' of public dissent from the official teaching of the church." The dismissal occurred after a team from the National Conference of Catholic Bishops visited campus and demanded McElroy's firing. The team also criticized the seminary's use of unapproved liturgical texts with "inclusive" language, opposed the singing of morning prayers, and required the expulsion of any seminarian admitting a homosexual orientation.(National Catholic Reporter, 3/31/95) Barbara Crawford, St. Meinrad's director of communications, defended McEnroy's termination for "public dissent" as appropriate: "We feel that for the sake of the students, they ought to have faculty members who can in good conscience uphold the teaching of the church both in the classroom and publicly."(Indianapolis Star, 7/7/95) McElroy's due process rights were also violated because there was no judgment by a faculty committee or right of appeal as required by her contract. Another faculty member, Bridget Clare McKeever, resigned her position in protest. As Notre Dame theologian Richard McCormick asks, "Is this going to be a first-class education or is it going to be high-grade catechism?" The National Catholic Reporter editorialized, "The faculty apparently did not properly gauge how small the circle of orthodoxy has become within the Catholic church."(5/12/95)
In 1993, English professor Cecilia Farr was dismissed by Brigham Young University because a year early she had spoken at a pro-choice rally. Farr had been notified that her public dissent from Mormon doctrine violated "her university citizenship obligations" and would be considered during a status review. Although Farr had better teaching and research records than others who passed the review, her "citizenship" -- speaking in opposition to a government ban on abortion -- was enough to have her fired.
Even professors at secular colleges must be careful about what they write and say on the topic of religion. Former nun Jane Schaberg, a professor of religion at the University of Detroit at Mercy had her car set on fire, received hate mail, and was condemned by the Archbishop of Detroit because her book, The Illegitimacy of Jesus, argued that Mary was not a virgin. University officials neither condemned nor defended her.(Campus Report, 11/93)
Should religious colleges receive an exemption from academic freedom? In 1940, the AAUP declared so, but it amended the statement in 1970. Robert Poch, in a 1993 report (Academic Freedom in American Higher Education, ASHE-ERIC), argues that the AAUP's 1970 Interpretive Comments were "highly presumptuous and overly simplistic" in suggesting that religious institutions should protect academic freedom. According to Poch, "core values and beliefs" at some institutions will be "consider truth through faith or divine revelation and not open to question." The AAUP ideal of academic freedom would "remove the distinct identity of a church-related institution as it welcomes calling into question the fundamental tenets of the church." Poch argues that these institutions should be respected in the name of institutional academic freedom: "the freedom to chart an institutional course and identity without external interference."
But the notion of "institutional academic freedom" -- though important as a legal doctrine -- is dangerous when taken as a moral ideal. Of course, courts should not be allowed to dictate every policy of a private institution, or intervene in every case where academic freedom is abridged. Such a policy would allow judges (who are often ignorant of academic ideas) to have the final say in academic decisionmaking, to the detriment of higher education.
However, academic organizations like the AAUP, Teachers for a Democratic Culture, and others have no legally binding authority. These groups -- and all academics -- have a moral duty to stand up against intolerance, no matter where it is happening or who is doing it. Every college and university could use "institutional mission" as an excuse for censorship. Expecting professors at religious institutions to have less freedom to think is the presumptuous and simplistic view.
The insult to religious beliefs does not come from defending academic freedom, but from the suggestion that religious views are so intellectually inferior that dissent must be suppressed rather than addressed. Some might argue that religious colleges are under no obligation to protect academic freedom, since they are created to promote a certain point of view. But faith is not reinforced by suppressing dissent. All colleges and universities have a moral obligation to promote free expression of ideas because this is an essential component of any form of higher education. And all faculty bear a responsibility to condemn violations of academic freedom, no matter where they occur or what excuses are offered for silencing dissenting views.
Homophobia at Religious Colleges
At some religious institutions, simply talking about homosexuality with less than complete condemnation can be grounds for dismissal.
Kenneth Gowdy was fired by Bethel College in Minnesota in May 1992 after expressing his belief in the need for commitment in all sexual relationships, including homosexual ones, to a student in an informal conversation held in a hallway lounge. Gowdy noted, "I've never advocated homosexuality in any of my classes. I've never counseled any student to explore or continue a homosexual lifestyle." After some students told Rev. John Piper, a former Bethel instructor, about the conversation. Piper cosponsored a resolution at the Baptist General Conference declaring that "those who believe that homosexual behavior is a Biblically acceptable lifestyle are not qualified to serve in the leadership of the conference or to teach in its educational institutions." Piper talked with Gowdy and then took his concerns to provost David Brandt, who fired Gowdy. Gowdy reports, "I was told that the school wouldn't have someone with my point of view on the staff. I was asked if I would change my point of view. I said that I wouldn't just to save my job."(Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 9/1/92)
At Nyack College, English professor June Hagen was fired in 1993 after a student complained that she was "tolerating" homosexuality because of a button attached to her briefcase which declared "Support Gay Rights." A local pastor wrote to the college, "a professor who advocates 'gay/homosexual rights' has no place at Nyack College." Edna Bivens, chair of the Christian Coalition's Orange County branch, threatened to withdraw her daughter from Nyack if Hagen was not fired: "We don't pay this kind of money so that our daughter can sit and listen to this kind of liberal garbage." Administrators reminded Hagen of the school's policy on sexuality, which says that the college promotes a Biblical life-style that "precludes premarital and extramarital intercourse, homosexual practice, and other forms of sexual behavior incompatible with the conservative Christian life-style. Any student violating these principles will be subject to dismissal." Hagen declared that she was a "wholehearted supporter" of this statement and removed the button, explaining that it represented only her concern about violence against homosexuals, not acceptance of homosexual behavior.
Rexford Boda, the college's president, interrogated Hagen and was satisfied with her answers, although he also asked about her membership in the American Civil Liberties Union and said, "in terms of your future I am wondering if the campus can tolerate a liberal Democrat." Despite Boda's support, Hagen was dismissed by the board of trustees without an explanation, three months after she removed the controversial button from her briefcase. And because President Boda had defended Hagan at a chapel service, he was also fired by the board of trustees.(New York Times, 4/21/93; Academe, 9/94)
At Elmira College in 1991, campus minister Lee Griffith was fired after writing an open letter to President Thomas Meier expressing concern about "gay-bashing" incidents on campus and urging the administration to enforce a faculty statement of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation. The administration responded by attacking Griffith for promoting his own "social action program" and firing him. The administration also retaliated against faculty members who criticized the college and led a vote of no confidence against the president, calling these actions "grave misconduct" and "tantamount to sabotage."(Academe, 9/93)
Religion in the Classroom
Phillip Johnson (Academe, 9/95) argues that religious views are excluded from academia due to prejudice and an extreme reading of the separation of church and state. Johnson contends that colleges and universities discriminate against Christians because "many philosophy professors make a career of fashioning arguments that support or assume atheism." However, there is a difference between philosophy professors discussing theological arguments and science professors doing the same.
Whether for good or bad, scientific fields are places where orthodoxy reigns. Not only are dissenting views discouraged, but in many cases they are prohibited. A professor who teaches creationism faces serious trouble from his colleagues, and academic freedom in these cases does not outweigh professional competency. Of course, religion is not the only dissenting view that is squelched: a science professor who attempted to teach the theory that melanin produces black superiority over other races could also be subject to punishment.
Johnson reports the example of an ardent Darwinist and atheist who teaches the debate over Darwinism and invites Johnson into his class to argue about the issue. This is an admirable way to teach scientific issues, but no one would say that every science professor is obliged to imitate this method to avoid being guilty of suppressing Christian viewpoints. (It is worth pointing out that this scientific orthodoxy may not prevail everywhere. No one has made a careful study of what is taught in small religious colleges, or how many science professors may include religious beliefs in their teaching).
Johnson notes the case of Dean Kenyon, a professor of biology at San Francisco State University, who began to question the standard theories of evolution. In his classes, Kenyon taught these theories, but also expressed his skepticism about them. After some students complained, the department chairman declared that Kenyon had improperly introduced his "religious opinions" into a science class and would not teach the course in the future. This decision was overturned after the faculty senate, its Academic Freedom Committee, and the AAUP intervened on Kenyon's side.
Certainly, it is important to protect religious expression of opinion. But ironically, conservatives have praised scientific fields precisely for their orthodoxy, since their severe professional standards have been thought to enable them to resist the academic left. Because science classrooms are places where the truth is given, not debated, there is always indoctrination, and this is thought to be a good thing, too. But it is wrong to characterize this approach as atheistic. It is difficult to find a science professor who stands up in front of a class and announces, "There is no God." Rather, the leading scientific findings are taught to students. The implications these conclusion may have for religion are left unexplored, which is hardly the same as promoting atheism. Dean Kenyon's belief that intelligent design is necessary to explain evolution is a religious, not a scientific argument. The scientific theory holds that primitive organisms evolved from organic chemicals, but it takes no position on whether this was part of some supernatural being's design. It is simply untrue to say that the failure to teach Christianity amounts to the teaching of atheism.
However, academic freedom generally allows professors a wide degree of autonomy. A professor who responsibly teaches the subject at hand usually cannot be held accountable for expressing an individual opinion in opposition to the standard theory, even in a science class.
The sole federal case in this area is Bishop v. Aronov, where a professor of exercise physiology told students in class about his religious beliefs on occasion, and invited them to an optional lecture by him on "Evidences of God in Human Physiology." A federal court upheld the dean's right to order him to cease these activities.(926 F.2d 1066 (11th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 3026 (1992).
Professors are entitled to express their ideas, even when they are religious views expressed in class, and even when they may not be directly relevant to the subject at hand. There is no evidence that Bishop implied any reward or threat with his optional lecture (such as giving extra credit for attendance at it, or grading down students who disagreed with him). Religious beliefs can spark controversy and should not be brought into a class in substantial form when they have no relation to the subject matter. But all professors are given a certain amount of leeway in their teaching to mention ideas that may not be directed related to the class. To target religious beliefs as wholly illegitimate sets a dangerous precedent.
The one complicating factor in the Bishop case is the distinction between advice and formal disciplinary action. It is not clear from the facts in the case whether Bishop was ever threatened with any kind of punishment if he refused to stop these extracurricular sessions. For example, if administrators were simply telling Bishop that he ought not to announce these sessions in class, that hardly seems beyond the power of a university to give advice to professors, and it would be dangerous to encourage litigation for every suggestion an administrator makes to a professor in response to complaints. However, it is also true that such a warning might easily include a threat of retaliation if the advice is not followed.
It is essential to protect both the rights of religious expression in secular classroom and the rights of faculty and students at religious colleges to dissent from the established doctrines. Unfortunately, it is apparent that many religious colleges do not protect academic freedom. In some cases, the academic freedom of professors with strong religious views is restricted by secular colleges, but even a religiously-minded professor is more likely to face censorship at a sectarian college where the limits of dogma are often quite severe.
Defunding Controversial Groups: The RosenbergerCase
Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, decided by the Supreme Court in June, has alarmed some analysts who think that the wall between church and state is crumbling. These fears are exaggerated: the case dealt with the use of students fees to support an evangelical student magazine called Wide Awake, not a direct subsidy, and the Court has always applied a more relaxed standard to funding religion at colleges and universities. There is a danger that student fees will be used to subsidize religious activities already performed by churches and church-related groups. However, as Justice Kennedy noted, there is a greater danger that upholding a ban on funding religious student newspapers would "require that state officials and courts scan the publication to ferret out views that principally manifest a belief in a divine being."
But a bigger threat to the First Amendment involving student fees is being overlooked. A growing conservative movement is attempting to prohibit the use of student fees to fund "political" groups. In the 1993 Smith v. Regents, the California Supreme Court voted 5-2 to strike down a $21 mandatory student fee at the University of California for any on-campus "political" activity, declaring that "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and association do not permit the state to make speech a matter of compulsion and coercion." In that case, conservative legal groups attacked the use of student fee money to fund supposedly leftist groups. The main target for the right has been student lobbyists and the Public Interest Research Groups (PIRG) around the country. However, a wide variety of "political" groups are now being suppressed on California campuses in the name of protecting students from being "forced" to support organizations they dislike.
The dissent in the Smith case predicted that the "attempt to comply with the court's holding...will unleash a firestorm of protest and lawsuits by those groups deemed (by whatever arbitrary standards the University might devise) too 'political' to warrant funding." That's exactly what happened: At Berkeley, several student groups were summoned to investigative hearings in April 1995 to determine if they are "political." A representative for the Hunger Action Center reported being asked "whether we believed that supporting the right to food was political." Eventually, several student groups (mostly left-oriented) were denied recognition for being primarily "political, ideological, or religious in nature"--a crime under Smith. All of them lost their funding, mailboxes, and offices. These groups included the pro-choice and pro-life groups, a campus humor newspaper called "Heuristic Squelch," and a student newspaper focusing on people of color called "diatribe." The student government body examined the headlines of articles and the listings in diatribe's calendar of events and decided that they were excessively political. Meanwhile, a conservative newspaper called "Counterpoint" continues to be funded.
Other student governments are de-funding leftist papers, including a Third World Forum at UC-Davis. When universities refuse to censor "political" groups, they face litigation by conservative groups like the Individual Rights Foundation (IRF). In its ironically-titled pamphlet, "100+ Cases of Campus Censorship," IRF includes one "censorship" incident where it "intervened with UCLA administration on behalf of students whose fees" were used to support "political" groups. IRF's goal was "to defund the groups in question and to prepare litigation if UCLA does not agree to settle." The Smith decision opened up a new wave of censorship by conservatives who use their power within student governments and lawsuits from the outside to overrule the desire of students to fund a wide variety of groups.
The Rosenberger and Smith decisions bring up a strange paradox: if students in California publish a newspaper about liberation theology, will they be banned as a "political" group or funded as a religious one? The attack on anything "political" is really a sham for undermining liberal and radical views on campus. The campaign against student fees is one element of the conservative efforts to de-fund the left. Knowing that they have the resources to fund their own speakers and events, they want to silence the opposition. Conservatives know that they have a financial edge in the culture wars, with right-wing foundations directly subsidizing student groups, conservative campus newspapers, and think tanks devoted to political spin control. Their aim, as with the attacks on the NEH and the NEA, is to destroy all neutral public funding of culture and education, so that their own views will prevail in the public sphere.
The same obnoxious principle undergirds the ban on both political and religious groups: colleges should not fund controversial activities. Such a principle promotes the death of intellectual debate.
Right-wing newspapers and organizations are also threatened. The University of Pennsylvania's Student Activities Committee in January 1995 voted to deny thousands of dollars in annual funding to the campus magazine Red and Blue after it published an article of using the U.S. military in Haiti, making fun of Haitians' voodoo religious practices.
In 1995, the Wabash Commentary was defunded when the student government concluded that it had a negative influence on the college, particularly because it sent copies of its magazine to alumni. Fortunately, conservative papers, unlike progressive ones, often have alternative sources of funding available: Accuracy in Academia gave editor-in-chief Morgan Knull $1,947.(Campus Report, 11/95)
The Rosenberger case should establish that attempts to defund controversial groups, whether political or religious, are unconstitutional. Any attempt to define certain organizations and newspapers as "political" leaves a door open for abuse, and silences an essential campus debate about political issues. Anti-Censorship Groups: Student Press Law Center (1735 Eye Street NW, Suite 504, Washington DC 20006); Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom (50 East Huron St., Chicago IL 60611); National Coalition Against Censorship (275 Seventh Ave., New York NY 10001)