|
« AAUP Homepage
|
From the Editor: Religion and the Academy
Wendi Maloney
Most of the articles in this issue of Academe come from a conference held last spring at Baylor University. The AAUP joined Baylor, the American Academy of Religion, and the Society of Biblical Literature in cosponsoring the conference, which was the second of two meetings the AAUP has convened to explore issues of academic freedom at religiously affiliated colleges and universities; the first took place in Chicago in October 1997.
In initiating these conferences, the Association aimed to create a forum in which professors and administrators from faith-based institutions could share their views about academic freedom with AAUP members and others in the higher education community. Over the years, the AAUP has sometimes differed sharply with such_institutions over the parameters of academic freedom.
The "limitations" clause in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure says simply that "[l]imitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment." Although the clause gives margin for some doctrinal observance among religious schools, that margin has proved to be controversial. Some in the AAUP, pointing to major universities that were once sectarian, argue that institutions seeking recognition as seats of higher learning should free themselves from such constraints.
Nicholas Wolterstorff, however, writes that unfettered academic freedom simply does not exist. All universities, he notes, qualify academic freedom in some way; public institutions, for example, restrict what may be taught regarding religious beliefs. The problem, he says, lies not in the limitations themselves but in a failure to inform faculty members of them and to ensure against their arbitrary and unjust application.
Professors at Calvin College agree to do their academic work in conformity with doctrines of the Christian Reformed Church, George Monsma writes, yet they can openly challenge views held by church leaders or even official statements of church bodies. He attributes the latitude given to free inquiry to the strong role of the faculty in college decision making. Allowing professors at faith-based colleges to question institutional policies is especially important now, Mary Burgan writes, because the distinctive moral traditions that inform the views of these faculty members can help them critique the market pressures facing their own institutions and others.
It is when faith-based colleges shut off the airing of alternative views on any topic, including religious matters, that they run into trouble, according to Storm Bailey. They may do so on the grounds that the truth in certain areas is already known. But the notion of human fallibility is central to the Christian tradition, he argues, and insofar as the possibility of being mistaken can motivate free inquiry, such inquiry might be a hallmark of Christian institutions of higher learning.
Richard McBrien and Michael Mikolajczak write about specific threats to free inquiry in Catholic higher education. And Shalom Carmy describes how Yeshiva University maintains academic freedom for its faculty while meeting the demands of its undergraduate students for a serious education in Orthodox Judaism and the liberal arts. Carmy, a rabbi, was not able to attend the conference at Baylor because it conflicted with observance of the Sabbath. His absence at Baylor and that of other scholars from non-Christian traditions make clear the need to expand the boundaries of any future conferences to include those of all religious backgrounds.
|