As other Canadian bloggers have noted, the Canadian Association of University Teachers has taken it upon themselves to investigate Christian universities which require faculty to sign a doctrinal statement. According to this National Post article, CAUT claims that "An institution that includes or excludes teachers on basis of a faith test is antithetical to what a university is supposed to be" and that it wants to let the public know the "realities of the institution." This is obviously a witch hunt. Although no one at the universities in question has complained, CAUT appears to take it as a foregone conclusion that the academic freedom of scholars is necessarily compromised if they teach at faith-based institutions which require adherence to a doctrinal statement, that financial pressures keep them from doing even-handed work, and that, as a result, their scholarship may be presumed to be of doubtful quality.
Ironically, CAUT's position appears to rest on a predetermined conclusion that doctrinal statements force employees to reach predetermined conclusions. As James McGrath put it last week, signing a doctrinal statement "essentially forces you to choose between following the evidence where it leads and keeping your job" (see the comment thread for additional nuancing). What CAUT has apparently not done is inquire whether this is a necessary function of a doctrinal statement.
For my part, I don't find that a Christian confession has the effect of specifying which conclusions one is or is not allowed to reach. I view the creed, or doctrinal statement, or what have you, as a framework, a starting point, part of the preunderstanding that everyone necessarily brings with them when they encounter a text. Update: I've tried to discuss how this can work in relation to Historical study of the Bible here.
I am required to affirm a doctrinal statement every year. If I could not agree with the doctrinal statement I would not have applied for the job. If I ever stop agreeing with it, my job will be on the line. The decision was and is voluntary. Some institutions may brandish their doctrinal statements or hire an underground thought police; mine does not. I do not think that, in my day-to-day work, adherence to a statement of faith determines the outcome of careful investigation any more than other social, financial and other pressures may prejudice the work of scholars in "secular" institutions.
Update: See part 2 here.
11 comments:
Professors who are hired by secular institutions must virtually sign an unwritten statement of political correctness (a statement of faith). At least the evangelical institutions are upfront about it by putting their statements of faith on paper for everyone to see.
OTOH...I can't disagree that doctrinal statements don't determine what can be said and in what way one can say it (note the metanarrative behind my use of negatives to make this comment, distancing myself from too direct a statement lest "they" are watching...). I recall a fairly recent post in your blog on the firings of both Bruce Waltke and Tremper Longmann III for offhand making fairly commonplace scholarly comments in contexts of Christian higher education. All to say: A university context certainly doesn't enable "neutral" scholarly work, but I'd agree that a faith-based one severely restricts simply "following the evidence"...
(I meant to say that I can't disagree that doctrinal statements don't NOT determine what can be said...Missed a negative!)
What's the potential fallout from their disapproval? Funding? Partnerships with secular universities?
Isaac, as far as I know the schools CAUT is investigating are not members of CAUT and CAUT is a union that has no official clout. (I could be wrong.) Here's a quote from the Hamilton Spectator:
Allen suspects there are underlying interests at stake and what CAUT is trying to do is “drive a wedge between these Christian universities and any and all other public institutions.”
“It’s a message to provincial governments: Why are you funding them? Why are you subsidizing tuition for these places? It’s very political.”
Jeromey, Bruce Waltke was fired; Tremper wasn't. (Were you thinking of Peter Enns?)
As to your main point, I realized after I hit "post" that I was thinking in terms of overall atmosphere and academic research. Of course my context affects what I say and how I say it--but more on that in another post.
At least part of the problem is the underlying notion that academic freedom involves the responsibility/freedom of personal autonomy where personal autonomy is understood to mean freedom from any other authority than unaided human reason.
Is there currently government funding for religious schools or is it an argument to make sure a no funding policy continues?
Glenn: Thank you. Agreed. ...I try to talk around freedom from and freedom for in part 2.
Carol: I don't know enough to be able to clarify here. Does anyone have more information on the financial implications?
I have no problems with doctrinal statements but have big problems that state funding is used to pay for this, whether directly or indirectly (grants etc) - this does happen in the UK although the number of institutions are small.
Do you mind explaining why, Casper? As far as I can tell, the question of funding is not explicitly an issue with CAUT, and for good reason: Religious post-secondary institutions in Canada often already receive federal funding. To take one example I am familiar with, Trinity Western University has the Canada Research Chair in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Post a Comment