Articles and Archives
Most recent posting below. See other articles in the column to the right.
5 comments - Last on 02/03/2010
Blacklisting a Christian University
According to the Langley Advance, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), the Canadian version of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP),
has issued a report stating that Christian universities fail to provide faculty members with academic freedom. Specifically the report places
The report on
In 2006, the Canadian Association of University Teachers [CAUT] adopted “Procedures in Academic Freedom Cases Involving Allegations of Requirement of an Ideological or Faith Test as a Condition of Employment” [Appendix A]. The CAUT considered that academic freedom is violated at universities in
Indeed, Trinity’s statement of faith says that the university “openly espouses a unifying philosophical framework to which all faculty and staff are committed without reservation.” The statement declares that university employees believe in a triune God who created the world and offers salvation through the death of Jesus Christ. CAUT officials say such a statement of faith is equivalent to an ideological litmus test that deprives faculty members of academic freedom. The Advance quotes James Turk, executive director of CAUT, saying, “A university is meant as a place to explore ideas, not to create disciples of Christ.”
Actually, Mr. Turk, the university was originally a place to create disciples of Christ. Queen’s University, the first degree-granting institution in
It is strange that the CAUT would take such a strong stance against religious schools when its American counterpart the AAUP has clearly acknowledged the academic freedom of such schools in its 1915 Declaration of Principles:
If a church or religious denomination establishes a college to be governed by a board of trustees, with the express understanding that the college will be used as an instrument of propaganda in the interests of the religious faith professed by the church or denomination creating it, the trustees have a right to demand that everything be subordinated to that end.
Again, in its 1940 Statement of Principles, the AAUP declared:
Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.
Trinity has made its mission unambiguous, and the statement of faith is clearly a criterion for employment. Many schools make “demonstrated commitment to diversity” a must for job candidates, and leaders of the campus sustainability movement are currently urging colleges to “insist that the selection process for new campus leaders include a climate action ‘litmus test.’” Requiring commitments to ideologies such as diversity and climate action is not protected by the AAUP provisions for religious aims, yet neither the AAUP nor the CAUT believe it poses a threat to academic freedom.
Many colleges and universities profess a commitment to academic freedom but at the same time espouse social and political doctrines that subvert it. Trinity Western U takes a stand for academic freedom in a thoughtful statement that rightly places truth-seeking as the goal of academic freedom. The CAUT report reproduces it in its entirety, and so do I:
Accordingly,
On the other hand, Trinity Western University rejects as incompatible with human nature and revelational theism a definition of academic freedom which arbitrarily and exclusively requires pluralism without commitment, denies the existence of any fixed points of reference, maximizes the quest for truth to the extent of assuming it is never knowable, and implies an absolute freedom from moral and religious responsibility to its community.
Rather, for itself,
The authors of the report remark that “Although there are in
The Advance quotes TWU President Jonathan Raymond, who says that the attack is a cheap attempt to discredit the academically serious Christian university. He said, “There is no topic under the sun that can't be raised. We assume faculty will have their thinking informed by their Christian faith, but we don't influence it. They can raise all perspectives but we expect they'll also raise the Christian perspective.” President Raymond also wrote a letter officially responding to the CAUT report welcoming “normal academic dialogue” and noting that
Christian colleges in general are worried by the clash between CAUT and TWU. Al Hiebert, executive director of Christian Higher Education Canada, an umbrella group for Christian universities and colleges, calls the investigative report “sinister” and a form of harassment. “It's putting the education of those schools and the research of their faculty under the heading of, ‘We don't need to take them seriously.’”
Will the Christian universities in
We at NAS are considering an investigation to see whether we should put the CAUT on our list of organizations that misappropriate the notion of academic freedom and endanger true freedom of inquiry.
Add a Comment


Hmmm. Is there a difference between an ideology about access to higher education and an ideology that potentially limits what one can say in a classroom or study as a part of one’s scholarly agenda?
The “diversity” ideology is certainly misguided, but do faculty really find that it constrains their teaching or scholarship? On the other hand, I’m not sure how a Christian fundamentalist ideology can support the teaching of modern physics. Still, both faculty and students presumably know what they’re in for when they work at or attend a religious university that expects adherence to an explicit of beliefs, so it seems disingenuous to complain about a lack of academic freedom in an institution one has chosen to enter.
Frankly, I was always troubled that my instructors subscribed to that empty ideology of fairness and honesty – I would prefer to have bought grades rather than work for them, which always struck me as a delusional value system in a country in which I can buy anything from votes to veal.
by Dave Taylor Posted on 02/03/2010
In response to Dave's observation, I think one crucial difference between denominational schools such as this one, and your run-of-the-mill state supported "multicultural" institution is that religious schools of this type are usually very straight forward about what they do and what they expect of their students and faculty members. Not only that, the students usually go there precisely because they want the type of curriculum offered and the rest of the package deal that comes with it. Any one who goes to Bob Jones University or Thomas Aquinas in California can't claim to be unaware of what to expect at either of them. Obviously, that's not for everyone. But I think it's certainly preferable to the phony "openness," "tolerance," and "diversity" you expect just about anywhere else these days, with its attendant speech codes, "bias reporting" systems and relentless intellectual uniformity. If the issue is one of truth in packaging, then the denominational schools are obviously far more trustworty.
Glenn M. Ricketts
by Glenn M.Ricketts Posted on 02/03/2010
Glenn: Thanks for your note. I hope my original comment reflected exactly that point: students and faculty at religious schools know what they sign up for, and as you say, there is a level of honesty about that explicit set of assumptions and expectations. In today's tough academic market, I don't know how I'd react to the requirement that I sign a diversity loyalty oath, but if my cynicism needed any fertilizer, that would be it!
by Dave Taylor Posted on 02/03/2010
Dave: I haven't yet heard of an actual "diversity oath," but something close to it can be found, for example, at Virginia Tech, where the administration would like to make efforts on behalf of "diversity enhancement" part of the criteria to be used in evaluating applications for promotion or tenure by junior faculty. And if you check job listings in the higher education trade press, you'll see schools which stipulate a "proven committment to diversity" as something job seekers will be expected to demonstrate. Perhaps not yet a "loyalty oath," but definitely ideological screening I'd say.
Glenn M. Ricketts
by Glenn M.Ricketts Posted on 02/03/2010
In your blog on titled "Blacklisting a Christian University," a blog which I agree with almost completely, your last sentence states, "We at NAS are considering an investigation to see whether we should put the CAUT on our list of organization that misappropriate the notion of academic freedom and endanger true freedom of inquiry."
I'm not sure if CAUT misappropriates the notion of academic freedom; it is more that the university in this case honestly refuses to grant it, which I agree is acceptable given its mission.
As to endangering true freedom of inquiry, however, this charge against CAUT makes no sense to me at all. A demand to include atheists at a Christian school may go too far, but I fail to see how it endangers true freedom of inquiry. Enlarging the scope of those who enquire cannot endanger anything.
John Wenger
by John C. Wenger Posted on 02/18/2010